Invisiblemaniac
|
Gobichettipalayam
editA few lessons in wikipedia editing. If an article is crammed full of unsourced information with undue weight on something it is almost always best to condense it and try to reference what you can. Spilling out into sister articles full of unverified badly written information which nobody is going to care for and likely be a magnet for further shite is bad news. We simply do not need an article on the economy of a small city in India or its culture. If you want to help wikipedia, remove unsourced info in the main article or rewrite it and reference it if you can. What you've done is rather like throwing out a can of garbage into the sea and saying "the land is clean now". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Culture of Gobichettipalayam for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Culture of Gobichettipalayam 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/Culture of Gobichettipalayam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Economy of Gobichettipalayam for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Economy of Gobichettipalayam 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/Economy of Gobichettipalayam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Transport in Gobichettipalayam for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transport in Gobichettipalayam 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/Transport in Gobichettipalayam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Media in Gobichettipalayam for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Media in Gobichettipalayam 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/Media in Gobichettipalayam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
February 2012
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Economy of Gobichettipalayam. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. AllyD (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Media in Gobichettipalayam. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. - Happysailor (Talk) 13:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Transport in Gobichettipalayam, you may be blocked from editing. - Happysailor (Talk) 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Gobichettipalayam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Happysailor (Talk) 13:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Culture of Gobichettipalayam, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Happysailor (Talk) 13:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Happysailor (Talk) 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks
edit Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Accusations of vandalism, without evidence, are a personal attack. Moreover, you displaying a battleground mentality here which is not permitted. If you disagree with changes, you are welcome to discuss them, but you may not accuse editors of deliberately undermining the encyclopedia without evidence. Please also see WP:AGF. If you persist in this behavior, you are likely to be blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Invisiblemaniac, you and the Doctor, both of you, need to take your discussions to the talkpage of the article. That's where other editors can help solve the problems between your differing opinions. You'll stay out of trouble that way, so give that talkpage a try ok ? Penyulap talk 04:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Invisiblemaniac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My account has been blocked unfairly because of the fact that my friend and myself share the same system and network and he made some edits that were contentious and has a dispute ongoing. If you still believe that we are SOCK puppets of each other, you can keep the account blocked. But because we use a common shared network and other users who might be using the same IP will not be able to make any edits. So I request to remove the auto block on the same. If you fear that my friend or myself will edit without logging in, you can keep a watch on the disputed articles and if any other edits are being made from this IP on the same article, then may be you can re impose the block. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Frankly, this account has caused enough problems all on its own to blocked regardless of whether socking really occurred or not. If the autoblock is preventing IP users from editing they can appeal for it to be lifted themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.