| Revision as of 11:36, 3 October 2007 editSQL (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators28,464 edits →3RR: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:37, 3 October 2007 edit undoSQL (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators28,464 edits →October 2007: decrease lengthNext edit → | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| == October 2007 == | == October 2007 == | ||
| <div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if: |
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:1 hour|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|at ]}}. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 10:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 10:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:37, 3 October 2007
Image copyright problem with Image:Epw logo.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Epw logo.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Dark Falls 08:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: A request
Got your message on my talk page. I checked and found Frontline (magazine) was already protected by another admin to stop edit war. Please read the following guidelines carefully, WP:3R, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Five pillars will be a good read too. If the other party is willing to discuss the issue on the talk page, you can request for a Third opinion. For other options, see Resolving disputes. As a last restort, when all else fails, post a message at WP:ANI and get admin help. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
Since I did not see a formal welcome,
Welcome!
Hello, Vrsrini, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Alison's signature
Hi there. Please refrain from using Alison's signature as your own - it gives the appearance that Alison posted a comment, when it was in fact you. That's not to say you can't use the same style; if you'd like to do this, insert the code below into the "signature" box of this page, check "Raw signature", and click "save" at the bottom. The code you should copy and paste is this:
] (])
...which, when you do the steps described and use the above code, will produce:
Note that "talk" won't be bolded - it simply is because you are on the page it usually links too. Hope this helps! Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
Anthøny 19:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Third Opinion
Thank you for listing your dispute at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.
The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A consice and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.
Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute you want to list is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for going to the dispute resolution process with your dispute. User:Krator (t c) 08:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looking back through the diffs, I saw the mess that your edit had made, which was no doubt a significant factor in the reversion that took place. Adrian M. H. 10:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3RR
Hey, heads up. You're on your third reversion of the content at Frontline (magazine) in the last 24 hours. Also, I would recommend, that you engage the user you are disagreeing with, in discussion, instead of just reverting them. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Also, I'd like to ask you to review Our policies on legal threats. Edit summaries such as "Discussion comments have not been answered by vandal. Libel has been continued. Alternate edit suggested: shabby, incomplete, and libelous." might lead users to beleive that you are considering taking off-wiki action against them.
At this time, I have blocked the other user you were edit warring with, for 3rr.
Anyhow, if you have any questions, or, if you need anything, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. SQL 10:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
SQL,
Thanks for your intervention. I understand the reasons for the blocking.
Let me tell you the reasons behind the current impasse. The user "Liberal Democrat" contested that the word, "Anti-Imperialist" can't be suffixed to the Frontline magazine. I had provided the niche/genre of the magazine and quoted primary sources for the contention, "Anti-Imperialist". The edit has been reverted to a shabby alternate one, which is more abusive rather than a wikipedic content of the magazine. When initially the contention of "Anti-imperailism" was buttressed with primary sources, the new criticism of my edit was that it was "patronisation". It is clear that the person opposed to the edit doesn't agree with the genre and is interested only in libel. This is untenable. Time and again, the things have been pointed out in the discussion page, but of no avail.
Vrsrini 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, you've been pretty reasonable about this, and, I do see that you were trying to discuss it on the talk page. Also, as the page is protected now anyhow, I'm going to drop your block to 1 hour. Thanks, for understanding. SQL 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
October 2007
