Hello, Inetpup! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Bay Area Rapid Transit, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. 210physicq (c) 00:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --Matt02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info about the characters. I used the 'tsi' because the Ze in my name is pronounced zee as in zebra. Is there a way to do that? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス>04:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the edits you made to my page (I do have a minor interest in those topics) (oh, and thank you), but it would have been nice to ask me first before adding. Otherwise, no harm done. --210physicq (c) 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion
A tag has been placed on Red stapler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Bookworm85715836706:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Fortress hub, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Andante198007:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop editing my user page. While you may have been well-intentioned, I prefer to keep my layout, including linking, content, etc. —210physicq (c) 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted out this trivia section since that is not an encyclopedic heading. If the information is worth keeping, it should be included in that main article text. If that tidbit is true, the IATA code lists should be updated to include that previous use. In any case, if this is added back to the HP article, it should include a reference, otherwise it will be tagged needing one. Vegaswikian02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are correct that I should read up on aspects of Wikipedia in general, but perhaps I don't need to be educated regarding 'Trivia' as it relates to airlines. Authors of all the other airliner articles have spoken. And they have overwhelmingly and have collectively decided to insert a Trivia section for all other airliner articles. I can't say that there's something special about US Airways and America West that should allow them to be non-standard, such that only they exclude a trivia section, when all their peers have one. Thanks.--Inetpup05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that this is an accepted standard despite the fact that that section is not considered as being needed by the WP:AIRLINES project? If the material is in fact encyclopedic, it should be included in the article text. Most of this material is historical and should be there. Vegaswikian05:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Former routes
"Revert until discussion is done; shouldn't single out SFO; should apply standard to DFW, LAX, etc." - The conversation seems to be done, according to the SeaTac page and the WikiProject:Airlines talk page. As I said, "Please discuss on talk page if you disagree" - so, if you disagree, instead of reverting, please contribute to the discussion. Thanks, --Matt02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at San Francisco International Airport. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. dcandeto09:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits often appear to be useful and constructive, and I believe you are adding good information to Wikipedia. However, many of your actions lately seem to be anti-community. I've thought of bringing the situation to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but I hope that you can steer right in the future. I remind you to look at Wikipedia's policies on civility, assuming good faith, consensus, and others. I recommend respecting other editors, and the community - if you treat others well, you'll see more respect. --Matt05:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to offend you personally. You, Matty, have been mostly polite, though sometimes you seem like the police and sometimes obsessed. But overall, you've been a fair guy. As for my behavior, it's a function of my style. If someone tries to hit me or shove something down my throat, I'll hit back. But additionally, my sarcasm is thought to add humor to an otherwise dull environment; so, those with a twisted side will appreciate that. Perhaps I pushed the envelope too far this time, but I'm learning from my mistakes. The rules of Wikipedia are far too voluminous for me to read comprehensively, so I learn as I go (through my mistakes). Finally, late-night editing, gets me into trouble, so I'll try to avoid that. --Inetpup06:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you liked my graphical edits to the WMATA Silver lineMetro system map showing the Silver Line? Or you liked my BART accidents section?--Inetpup01:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.
If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that the personal information you posted is removed from this site you will be blocked from editing this site. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, includingyou. --Matt05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that this was contrary to policy because you were already in the public domain. There are so many fussy things with Wikipedia policy that I'm not accustomed to (that are not present on such mediums as the Usenet or discussion groups). I do make it a point to comply with Wikipedia policies as soon as you or someone else inform me of them. For example, in trying to comply with your request I tried to do a diff, but the info you didn't want on there was already purged. In other words, I couldn't e-mail oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org because the diff didn't produce any results.--Inetpup09:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not proof. That's considered conjecture. Any published source detailing such a problem, please? (yes, I know I sound anal, but until you provide it, the piece of info you provided is fair game for deletion) —Kurykh16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Bay Area Rapid Transit. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to you being blocked from editing. --Matt15:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to United Airlines, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The information added to this article was inappropriate. Short term news that does not meet notability guidelines should not be in an article.Trusilver05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SFO Mexican/Canadian flights
I expanded upon why Canadian flights are allowed to arrive/depart in domestic terminals (they pre-clear) and removed the "source of controversy" line, because you haven't cited any sources that suggest there is a controversy. My cursory Google search couldn't turn any up. If you can cite sources which discuss the controversy, please feel free to add it back in. FCYTravis06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do Wikipedia on some of my spare time, when I have no homework or after I'm done with it. And I do Wikipedia at home. That's why I don't edit as often during school days. —Kurykh05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for re-wording the entry on the KC-10 Extender page. The KC-10 can carry other payload besides fuel, such as people and supplies, but I couldn't think of how to reword it better. - BillCJ05:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are far better sources out there that are more current than that one you have chosen to use. You might find some in the Boeing KC-767 page. As written, your item implies it is still being activley considered, which it is not - Boeing went with the KC-767 earlier this year. Sure, it's still a possibility for a future order, but that is just speculation at this point. Incidently, the story you cite doesn't say it would take two years to convert the KC-777, but three (but I wouldn't know that as I didn't read the story). - BillCJ18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inetpup, if you believe that Graham Wellington is a sockpuppet, the proper avenue is filing a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets with both evidence that this editor is probably the same person as another editor and an indication of sockpuppet abuse. Notes on his talk page probably won't bring him to confess and leave Wikipedia awash with guilt.--chaser - t04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix Airport incident
Regarding the Phoenix Airport incident discussed here, Wikipedia's editorial decision-making process is consensus through discussion. While a 4-1 majority is not the same as consensus, it does indicate that more discussion is necessary before inserting the disputed material.--chaser - t04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Russavia20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policies and practice
Regarding this recent thread from my talk page and this material, I'm going to point out some Wikipedia policies and guidelines and ask you to follow them. Since you indicate that there are fussy things about Wikipedia policies that you're not used to [2], this should introduce you to some of them. To wit:
Normally, someone's userpage is editable by anyone. In other instances, someone may object to you editing their userpage. It is sensible to honor their request and not edit their userpage, especially when they ask you not to do so [3]. See Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space.
Don't insert nonsense into articles [4][5]. This may be considered vandalism if it's chronic and really is not expected of long-term contributors. This should be pretty self-explanatory.
Please refer to other contributors by their usernames. In the case of User:Mlaroche, Matt is an acceptable alternative because it's his talk page signature. Referring to contributors as "dubious" [6][7] is a personal attack. Comment on content. Don't comment on other contributors in this way.
If you have a sockpuppetry claim to make, please collect all your evidence, including an indication of actual abuse (forgetting to login is not abuse; someone pretending that two accounts of theirs represent two different people is abuse). Claims go to this page.
An informal question, complaint, or sockpuppetry claim may be made to my talk page and I will be happy to look into it. Despite all the rules mentioned above, one can generally conduct oneself in a professional and collegial manner with other editors and avoid problems. I expect you to do that.--chaser - t08:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chaser, I accept your proposal and I will follow it. Thanks for jumping in and diffusing a tense situation that was starting to look ugly. Best regards, --Inetpup07:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continental Micronesia
Stop adding useless misinformation to the article. Why on earth does Air Mike have to have non-stop hub-to-hub traffic with Continental? Why is it relevant? Air Mike is a subsidiary half the world away with a 0.5 million population in the area, who are connected to the U.S. mainland by Continental through HNL or NRT. Planes are rotated between Air Mike and mainline through HNL. They are not completely independent. Air Mike is Continental but Continental is not Air Mike. GUM is a Continental hub and the hub of Air Mike. There isn't the need, the market or the aircraft to fly nonstop from Guam to the U.S. mainland. Anyone who read the rest of the contents (what's already there) would immediately realize all this. HkCaGu (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GUM is listed as one of Continental's four hubs because that's how Continental phrases it as such in all its press releases. Continental owns Air Mike (but not been always) and considers Air Mike part of Continental. However, Wikipedia articles and Project Aviation (routes and airport listings) as well as the FAA consider them separate. It's not a conflict for GUM to be listed in both. HkCaGu (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am opposed to this change. 哦，是吗？(User:O) 21:41, 19 November 2007 (GMT)
I've already reverted the AirTran Airways one, as there is no consensus for this change yet. And yes, this should be discussed in WT:AIRLINE. 哦，是吗？(User:O) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (GMT)
November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content of marginal relevance (unnecessary trivia) to articles, as you did to Virgin America, is not considered productive. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Specifically:
Terminal location should be in an appropriate article section, not in Trivia
The "popular belief" needs a cite -- and one that justifies the inclusion of what looks like an un-notable "fact"
Roses should be in an appropriate article section
Exit row seating is already covered in the article
You're quite right, the linked article does explain why you added it. Sorry. However, I stand by my belief that the naked wikilink to White elephant needs explanation and probably reference(s) -- without it, it does appear POV ... richi (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article White elephant has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. richi (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your large font on his page. Such large fonts could be considered not civil. Also as a piece of advice, calm reasoned discussion is more likely than anything else to persuade people who are watching. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QED/KQED
We seem to have a disagreement over whether mention of KQED is warranted in the article QED. I did, in fact, read the whole article on the former before removing the link, and it contains but one reference to the mathematical abbreviation; namely, that the call letters are inspired by the same Latin phrase. It is not even clear in KQED whether the initials really do refer to quod erat demonstrandum, since the same paragraph implies that they were inspired by WQED, which makes no claims at all and appears, from the article, to be related to WQEX, which certainly has nothing to do with QED. None of these stations' websites actually claim descent from QED.
Unfortunately, this simple trivium is really not grounds for mentioning KQED in the article QED; in fact, this exact issue is discussed in this essay and this one. The gist is that although it is perhaps interesting for KQED that its name shares the same root as QED, this is not at all relevant to the subject of QED itself. The suggested solution is to include mention of trivia in the articles for which it is important, and not the others; this is in fact already the case with KQED, and I don't see a reason to direct people there from QED. Even though KQED is "the most listened-to public radio station in the United States", this high notability does not contribute to the notability of the phrase QED, which exists in an entirely different genre, in addition to having a longer history which is totally unaffected by its affiliation with radio stations (or celebrities, sigh). Basically, I don't think that this connection contains any actual information.
This is not to diminish the importance of KQED as a broadcaster, by the way. I am simply very conservative about the scope of the QED article; since I have started watching and editing it, almost no useful factual content has gone in, and the vast majority of the edits have been well-meaning attempts to bring notice to a funny interpretation of the letters or a celebirty or popular-culture mention of the phrase (which, you might notice from the article history, I tend to revert quickly and often). There is really no definite criterion for including this sort of trivia in the article; it is potentially infinite, and for some reason it is getting more popular both on and off Wikipedia these days. The problem of indiscriminate inclusion criteria in lists is discussed at length in this essay and this one, which are not guidelines but should still be respected. QED is not a list, but the implied list of trivia about QED is endless and indiscriminate. Simply that someone thought to use the phrase is not enough reason to put that in the article.
I am aware of the absurdity of writing a three-paragraph spirited defense of the removal of a single-line piece of trivia from a minor article. Nonetheless, I want to get this argument out there so that, perhaps, in the future I can point other people here to understand my reasons. And I want you to understand them also.
If you want to suggest a headline in WP's In the News on the three airline collapses this week, or over some other time period that highlights this problem, I would be supporative. It's best if the headline has international ramifications and interntional flight stopage, so it's not just US only. The underlying WP Articles need to be up to date and solid. Bear Sterns went up easily and had total support by other editors. That's a good model if things in the airline industry are that bad. I've learned not to be prophetic in headlines, as this is an after-the-fact encyclopedia.50MWdoug (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning ATA edit
I removed that sentence because it implies/says that Fed ex is directly responsible for the collapse of ATA, as opposed to the fact that ATA has been losing money for years now. With the understanding that ATA's primary source of income was charter/military flights, ATA has been losing money in its passenger service division for a while now. The fact that Fed Ex did pull it's contract was the final straw, however it should not be implied that Fed EX was the lone culprit in ending ATA.
Update: "FedEx should be ashamed of its business practices that directly caused ATA's demise! FedEx Airlines is even too ashamed to explain itself!" That sentence doesn't help your case either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwarner86 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Inetpup!
We thank you for uploading Image:B777 Orders Deliveries.png, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.
A tag has been placed on Starbucked 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, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, 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.
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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing previous comments left on your talk page, It seemed fit to revert your edits, since it seems that you have had some editing problems in the past. Wikipedia is not the place to provide misleading information, rumors or any other "un-encyclopedic" information, because it is, in fact, an encyclopedia. Perhaps your choice of words, is the most in-appropriate part of your edits: "Continental Airlines is being lured by United Airlines to exit SkyTeam and join Star". I think that Wikipedia would be a much more reliable and effective source of information without speculative information, and misleading commentary. If you disagree with me, feel free to respond. ⒼⓇⒺⒺⓃⒷⓄⓍⒺⒹ (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sfog, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
What's there to discuss about, the only change I made was the changing your wording of "killing" Ted to "discontinuing" or "closing" Ted, mainly because United did not literally kill Ted, they just closed Ted. Ted is not a person or a thing, it is a name brand that United is closing. SFOetthekid (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, if you agree with my reversion of "25%" of your edits I have to wonder why you made them in the first place, since that would strike me as blatant vandalism or intellectual dishonesty. The majority of your edits violate some aspect of the five pillars, be it WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NPOV. This is why I have asked you to seek consensus before you make the edits, since it's becoming increasingly troublesome to go back and delete the attack pages you've created or reverse the edits you've made against policy. You've been warned about all of this many times before, so I'm going to ask you again to discuss your edits first because if you continue to break the rules you will face sanctions for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism in George W. Bush article
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to George W. Bush. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingToaster (talk • contribs) 21:22, July 17, 2008
If you're referring to this edit, which was the one most recently before this warning, can you explain how you're warning someone on something that hasn't been reverted? I don't see any recent vandalism by Inetpup on George W. Bush. His July 14th edit wasn't reverted. Are you really going back over 10 days, searching to warn him? --Matt (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Matt. Actually the edit I was referring to is here, where Inetpup gave Bush the tag as a cheerleader. I thought this was vandalism, but looked it up today and it turns out Bush was a cheerleader. Sorry to Inetpup over this, though it doesn't warrant the bizarre message on my talk page. FlyingToaster (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, thanks for defending me. I agree that User:FlyingToaster was overzealous in trying to rebuke me for my edit, that was thoroughly vetted (okayed by two editors and opposed by none). I just thought of a connection between her and you. Both of you have a CMU logo on your user page. Even though you two disagreed about me, maybe you two have something in common from your alma mater. Cheers! Thanks! --Inetpup:o3⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋09:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on my talk page
This is in response to your comment on my talk page here. I added votes back because you seemed to delete them. Removing your rescindation was an honest mistake, which I didn't correct because when I noticed it someone else already had. I must add that your comment on my talk page was rude, immature, and did not AGF. We're (mostly) all trying to do good here and learn the ropes, but making some ridiculous accusation on my talk page is not the way to start a discussion. Thanks, and happy editing to you. FlyingToaster (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're actually the one who deleted votes: [8] - diffs show the old edit on the left, with the editor who last edited that page on the left, and on the right it shows the new edit and the new editor. So basically on a diff, you can very rarely assume what the editor on the left did, you mostly use diffs to see what the editor on the right did. --Matt (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't sign redirects you create. The page history shows who created it, and putting a signature on the page messes up the "What links here" feature. Thanks. --Russ(talk)21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Title
Personal attacks
This is completely inappropriate. First you need to stop abusing edit summaries to advertise your position in AFD debates, second it is completely out of line for you to address the nominators as "overzealous" editors so often in your summaries. This is your latest warning to stop personal attacks and if it continues you may face sanctions. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read this very carefully. If you continue to perform disruptive edits to pages I've worked on as part of your edit war, you may be sanctioned by a mediator or administrator. This is the only warning you'll recieve. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reliever hub 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 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. sovereign°sentinel (contribs)15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.
Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Bay Area Rapid Transit. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to you being blocked from editing. --Matt 15:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to United Airlines, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The information added to this article was inappropriate. Short term news that does not meet notability guidelines should not be in an article. Trusilver 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
