Logiphile
|
February 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Marwan Khoury has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/discography/?id=21533687704).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of SizeExplorer edit
A tag has been placed on SizeExplorer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rcurtis5 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Disk space analyzer edit
A tag has been placed on Disk space analyzer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rcurtis5 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
July 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from SizeExplorer, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Rcurtis5 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Dermatology edit
Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help over at WP:DERM ;) Currently, we are making a big push to create any missing dermatology-related articles/redirects. Perhaps you would consider helping us? ---kilbad (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of SizeExplorer edit
A tag has been placed on SizeExplorer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The article SizeExplorer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No evidence that this software is notable.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The article TreeDBNotes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable piece of software.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Flash SWF Editor edit
A tag has been placed on Flash SWF Editor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I like your CBT template edit
Good work. I was thinking of something like this. Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:Notetaking softwares has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Flash players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fleet Command (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference edit
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:Flash builders has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fleet Command (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Warning edit
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
Please self-revert your recent removal of sourced material from Operation Pillar of Cloud. Ankh.Morpork 14:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, be advised that edit warring is very strictly enforced on these pages. At the very least explain your edit. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Your last edit did not make it appear that you are interested in writing a neutral account. Please take this stuff seriously. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have begun a discussion here. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the last warning I'll give you: the tone of your edits, and lack of explanation either by way of talk pages or edit summaries, is disruptive behavior. I will ask for a temporary topic ban the next time I think you have crossed this line. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:AE edit
I have begun a discussion of your edits at Arbitration Enforcement. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hallo JPrg1966, in my opinion this article Operation Pillar of Cloud is totally pro-Israel. I don't expect any difference if Ehud Barak had written this article. when talking about the background saying that several Gazan missiles fired on Israel, while nothings about the Israeli air strikes. when talking about the purpose of this offensive attack, said to halt the Gazan missiles. this could be, if one says that the Israeli forces says that the purpose of the operation is ...... and more and more. Palestinians called terrorists or militants while Israelis called defense force, soldier, or even civilians. I has forgotten! about talk page and the warnings, don't blame Iam not a Pro wikipedian. i didn't see them and i don't know how to manipulate as should be . may i have to read more about editing rules which i think too many and can used by pro wikipedian to get ride of any different point of views. Logiphile (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your actions got you blocked. In future, do not remove sourced text from articles without discussion - you may add other information, provided it is from Reliable Sources, to counter article content you feel is important - but don't just delete content because "I don't like it."HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok put sometimes this sourced information express the formal view of one side without expressing the other side. and also many of my sourced info also deleted without any talk for example adding section about the name of the operation [1] and deleted without talk or request, so i thought that i not always have to talk. if so what can i do in this situation. and also when i find that the article is totally not neutral what shall i do, thanks for your reply.
- If it is Reliably Sourced - aka, the reported cite is from a London Times news article, you must leave it alone. If you find, say, a news report from The Wall Street journal that disputes the Times article, you may add that info (provided you reference it at the time you add it.) You cannot use blogs or forums as Reliable Sources - these will be immediately deleted. Only use established, reliable news outlets. This will provide "both points of view" - you can also discuss it on the article's Talk Page beforehand.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
November 2012 edit
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
the origin of the operation's name edit
Hi, I undid your entry [2], since the information is already appear in another section, discussing the same topic. --Mor2 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban edit
Per this, you are now topic banned from the article on Operation Pillar of Defense for 6 months, as well as any sections of other articles and discussions pertaining to it. Similar behavior elsewhere in I/P topics will get you banned from the whole topic area, so be careful editing elsewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Endoscopy edit
Template:Endoscopy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Neoplasms edit
Template:Neoplasms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of TreeDBNotes for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TreeDBNotes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TreeDBNotes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)