Hello and welcome. I left you a message in response to your POV concern on Che Guevara. I hope you will work with myself and other editors on the article, in order to see that your concerns are addressed (if they can be). Redthoreau ( talk) RT 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the La Cabaña page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Ave Caesar ( talk) 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Asking someone to quit vandalising, is not an attack in my book. Sf46 ( talk) 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As you can tell from comparing your userboxes to mine, you and I are almost complete opposites on nearly every issue. I do see one or two boxes that I'm going to take from you though. Sf46 ( talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My edits are clearly not vandalism. Removing unrelated chatter has been an established practice. Please take care to read edit summaries and if you feel the need to revert, treat good-faith edits accordingly. Also, you are clearly using templates wrong. The warning templates should generally be started off at 1 or 2. This is a clear and established practice except in extreme cases. Also, it is generally encouraged not to template regular or long time users. If you feel a warning is necessary, a personal warning regarding the situation is much more appropriate than a rubber-stamp template. Also, using escalated warning templates that threaten blocks is innapropriate since a block will not occur except in extreme cases such as vandalism only accounts, before at least the third incident.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk| @ 19:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't added any "personal analysis" to the article on Iraq, nor have I committed any vandalism. The article is written in poor English and I am correcting that. It also contained some redundancy and POV issues, which I have corrected. I have committed no "vandalism" or "experimentation," and my edits should be allowed to stand. -- Antodav2007 ( talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Why did you call my edit to College World Series as vandalism? I removed two sections detailing highlights of the 2007 and 2008 CWS. Each year's CWS has its own page, so I fail to see why special sections were necessary in the main article of the CWS itself. The presence of those sections is an examples of WP:Recentism. And I explained why I was doing so in my comment edit. I am not a vandal, and do not appreciate being called as such. I am going to re-remvoe those sections, further explaining on a talk page if you prefer.-- 67.101.103.239 ( talk) 05:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a very strong policy against including questionable and poorly sourced allegations against public figures in its articles. I strongly suggest to this extent that you familiarise yourself - and thoroughly - with the detailed policy on the subject. It is highly inappropriate to attempt to use Wikipedia, as you have done here, to make original claims about a public figure: in this case, accusing a Republican governor of being a socialist. I would also remind you of the new enforcement policy for BLP articles, which now states that someone who persists in adding such material can be banned, either from the article or if needed, from the project, by any administrator. Rebecca ( talk) 05:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism is you are engaged in what. At you one belief, at me others. I have resulted the authoritative sources confirming the facts informed by me. If you have facts about humanism or economic talents of Guevara and authoritative sources - result them, and in vandalism be not engaged. Sfrandzi ( talk) 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop vandalism. You also do not have right to reject data anti-Castro authors as at me - to reject data pro-Castro authors Sfrandzi ( talk) 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
First, I consider, that discrepancy of my information to your belief does not give you the right me to offend. Secondly, not all were lucky enough to be born in the English-speaking country. The some has not carried: they were born there where fighters for freedom like Lenin, Che and Fidel have derthrown oppressors and expluatators and have constructed a happy and fair society. And consequently they, maybe, know English is worse, but know the price to revolutionaries such is better. Sfrandzi ( talk) 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's testimony of eyewitnesses and the facts of authoritative sources. If you are dissatisfied with them - you and explain on page of discussion, than you are particularly dissatisfied Sfrandzi ( talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Also do you have any suggestions on how can i make it better?-- Fang 23 ( talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I reverted your edits because they were synthesis. "xkcd.com says x" is referenceable; adding "this is not true because of x, y, and z" without reference is synthesis. The fact that you added it in "the middle of the night" or that the article was "a joke" doesn't change it. Tlesher ( talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
An image (Image:Abughraibtortureinstruments.jpg) you uploaded needs to be either deleted or renamed ASAP. It's not Abu Ghraib. It's an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq.
It could still make a suitable icon for the User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right_To_Resist page.
--
Randy2063 (
talk) 23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping fight vandalism. Unfortunately three of your recent reports to Administrator intervention against vandalism have been declined because they did not meet AIV criteria #2 and #3. Specifically the IPs either had not been sufficiently warned (using an escalating level of warnings from WP:UTM that reaches the "final warning" stage), or the IP stopped vandalizing after receiving a "final warning." Please let me know if you have any questions or issues, and thanks again for your help to contain vandalism! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Abughraibtortureinstruments.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia 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. Sdrtirs ( talk) 07:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Your thoughts are welcome. Talk Page Redthoreau ( talk) RT 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. As a recent editor at User talk:Wintrlnd, I wanted to leave you a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk page. While we may prefer that messages be archived, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous users- from deleting comments from their own talk pages. The only talk page messages that may not be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates (for anonymous editors) ... and these exceptions are just to keep a user from gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! ( talk) 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What was this all about? - Dempkovitch ( talk) 01:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not blank categories without explanation. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Lenerd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See below
Decline reason:
See below
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.
After examining only the most recent page of your contributions list as a consequence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National-Anarchism, I have determined that you have engaged in a pattern of unconstructive and disruptive edits. These include, in no particular order: Repeatedly removing all categories from an article for no clear reason ( [1], [2]) and then providing a bogus warning to the editor reverting your vandalism ( [3]), nominating an article for speedy deletion for an obviously inapplicable reason ( [4]), leading to the aforementioned AfD, uploading improperly licenced images ( [5], [6]), creating articles that appear to be machine translations of texts of an uncertain provenance ( [7]), and making edits that appear to push a political opinion ( [8], [9]) in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy – an impression that your user page does nothing to dispel.
For these reasons, I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia until such time as you persuade me (or another administrator reviewing any unblock request that you may choose to make) that you understand our ground rules and that you will comply with them from now on. You may appeal this block by following the procedure set out in WP:Appealing a block, but I counsel you to read WP:GAB before doing so. Sandstein 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Lenerd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am a constructive editor the reasons given for this block are bogus. I have worked to remove POV from articles, I have attempted to translate articles from the Catalan Wikipedia ( José Maldonado Gonzalez, Luis Jiménez de Asúa) and for that I am blocked indefinitely without warning? All of my edits are in good faith and none of them could ever be seen as vandalism. To be reprimanded for my first edit made over a year ago [10] (as you can tell from the bottom of my talk page the user who put up that redirect for deletion found it to be legitimate and not "malicious") is ridiculous. It also seems that the blocking admin has a personal conflict with my userpage, which he makes apparent in his "reason" for indefinitely blocking a constructive user without warning, and may have led him to make me one of his 13 blocks in the past 4 days. I have always respected others Wikipedia:Etiquette, I worked to remove POV from 2 articles ( Sarah Palin, Che Guevara) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and have been blocked because one editor has searched my entire contributions in an attempt to find any reason at all to block. The Wikipedia:Vandalism specifically excludes "making bold edits" intended to improve Wikipedia, which some of my edits are and may have rubbed the blocking admin the wrong way. And concerning the image I uploaded I was informed that it was from Abu Gharib and it still has not been proven that I was wrong but if I am then it would still be "unintentional misinformation" at most on my part which is not vandalism. Why am I being blocked when my edits are in compliance with Wikipedia:Five pillars? I have worked tirelessly to fix articles and revert vandalism myself while assuming good faith and I would appreciate it if I could continue to do so unmolested by admins on a power trip. Frankly, this is bullshit and I am pissed. :P.S. The user who proposed deletion has retracted the proposal
Decline reason:
Disruption, vandalism, It doesn't look like you are here to edit constructively— Ѕandahl 01:25, 24 July 2008 (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.
Lenerd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am a constructive editor the reasons given for this block are bogus. I have worked to remove POV from articles, I have attempted to translate articles from the Catalan Wikipedia ( José Maldonado Gonzalez, Luis Jiménez de Asúa) and for that I am blocked indefinitely without warning? All of my edits are in good faith and none of them could ever be seen as vandalism. To be reprimanded for my first edit made over a year ago [11] (as you can tell from the bottom of my talk page the user who put up that redirect for deletion found it to be legitimate and not "malicious") is ridiculous. It also seems that the blocking admin has a personal conflict with my userpage, which he makes apparent in his "reason" for indefinitely blocking a constructive user without warning, and may have led him to make me one of his 13 blocks in the past 4 days. I have always respected others Wikipedia:Etiquette, I worked to remove POV from 2 articles ( Sarah Palin, Che Guevara) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and have been blocked because one editor has searched my entire contributions in an attempt to find any reason at all to block. The Wikipedia:Vandalism specifically excludes "making bold edits" intended to improve Wikipedia, which some of my edits are and may have rubbed the blocking admin the wrong way. And concerning the image I uploaded I was informed that it was from Abu Gharib and it still has not been proven that I was wrong but if I am then it would still be "unintentional misinformation" at most on my part which is not vandalism. Why am I being blocked when my edits are in compliance with Wikipedia:Five pillars? I have worked tirelessly to fix articles and revert vandalism myself while assuming good faith and I would appreciate it if I could continue to do so unmolested by admins on a power trip. Frankly, this is bullshit and I am pissed.
Decline reason:
Procedural; this is a duplicate of a previously reviewed request for unblock. See also my comment below. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:24, 24 July 2008 (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.
I discussed the edit to George Carlin and the nomination of National-Anarchism for speedy deletion with user:Charles Matthews The edit to Carlin was about a quote of his found in [12], "For a while, I thought of myself an atheist until I realized it was a belief, too. It's a shame everything has to have a label." If the man made it obvious that he was not a capital "A" atheist and rejected other labels why would an encyclopedic article categorize him in categories he spent his career distancing himself from and condemning? I made the first edit with that in the summary and the next edit with the site in the summary, but after I realized it probably wouldn't stick I stopped pursuing the matter. As for national-anarchism putting it up for speedy deletion may not have been the wisest choice but I found the label "nonsense" to be fitting for an article that uses dead links to yahoo! groups for references as well as [ [13] which my browser (Mozilla Firefox 3.0) tells me is an attack site. The rest of the references seem to be links to shoddy sites for followers with the occasional interview with the webmaster of one of these sites thrown in. I agree it shouldn't be deleted (and apologize for nominating it) but it needs to be seriously reviewed. I have put a lot of work into building my reputation as a constructive editor and vandal fighter and I am going to do everything I can to clear my name. That covers "reasons" 1-4 as for the rest... Five and six I have discusses previously, "...the image I uploaded I was informed that it was from Abu Gharib and it still has not been proven that I was wrong but if I am then it would still be 'unintentional misinformation' at most on my part which is not vandalism." As for number seven I don't see what is wrong with translating an article from the Catalan wikipedia to the English wikipedia I called for an expert to help out, as you can see from my userpage, I speak no Catalan. Number eight refers to a redirect which was nominated for deletion after I became blocked, and the nominating user said that my blockage helped bring him to the conclusion that it was malicious. But once I explained the matter on my talk page the user decided to remove it from deletion. As for number nine, the edit to that portal was made because I found the term voluntary association in direct conflict with the rest of the paragraph. So I removed it, then it was reverted with the question asked, "why was this removed?" so I answered it, "because it's ancap bullshit. contracts are a form of coercion." Might I add that the reverting using in that incident was also the user who nominated Pig Empire and subsequently removed that nomination for deletion? ( Lenerd ( talk) 16:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the
revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry.
Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia.
and it is with that in mind that I will continue to edit Wikipedia. ( Lenerd ( talk) 05:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC))
I would like to express my solidarity with Redthoreau ( talk) during his block. I want to get back to editing. I am aware of Wikipedia's principles and will always keep them in mind while editing, however, I will continue as I always have to do everything I can to improve the encyclopedia and if that means sidestepping some I must make it clear that I will and believe all editors should. As badly as I wish to get back to editing if it means putting rules before the encyclopedia, I'm sorry but I won't do that. But I realize that the way I had been editing may have been disruptive in some way and for that I apologize and will try to tone down my "zeal." ( Lenerd ( talk) 06:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC))
I've asked for review on WP:ANI#Block review for User:Lenerd. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I can understand how you feel. While I don't completely agree with the blocking admin, and I don't think it's necessary for you to have to spell it out, it looks like they just want some reassurance that you'll be more cautious about leaving vandalism warnings for other users. Personally, I think it was just a matter of miscommunication. So rather than asking you to say that you did something wrong, which I don't think you technically did, I think it is more appropriate to ask this: Do you think you will be more cautious with user warnings? -- Ned Scott 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. ( Lenerd ( talk) 00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC))
I've restarted the unblock review discussion at WP:ANI#Block review for User:Lenerd part 2. -- Ned Scott 03:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yo Lenerd, after reading your explanation above regarding Hoffman's use of the phrase, I have retracted the proposed deletion of Pig Empire. It seemed like a malicious redirect, and you had been indef blocked for vandalism among other things, so it was a likely candidate for deletion. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for your quick response. Regards, Skomorokh 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Per the consensus at the adminstrator's noticeboard, I attempted to unblock you. However I recieve an error message that says that you are already unblocked, contradicting the block log...
I have no idea.
brenneman 08:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad this finally got resolved. Let me know if you ever need any help or have any questions. Cheers. --
Ned Scott 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont' really understand the littel bit of code you changed, but is there a reason you think the Anarchism Portal should display anniversaries that have little or nothing to do with Anarchism? Cheers, Murderbike ( talk) 22:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like you to either remove two infoboxes, or else to make them seriously less aggressive: User:Lenerd/deadprez and User:Lenerd/VP. These userboxes violate our Userbox policy Wikipedia:Userboxes (content restrictions) and Wikipedia:User page (statements of violence). It is not about who you advocate being hung and so on (if you know of similar userboxes referring to other people, I'll take the same action on those), it is the call for violent action itself (even if it is rhetorical in nature) that is not allowed. Fram ( talk) 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandros Grigoropoulos: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 05:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is Tyler Durden? Is there evidence that he is a particular target of the LaRouche movement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Hammer, Sickle, and Circle-A avatar.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
just wanted to give a heads up, that the logo you use on User:Lenerd/terror has been updated to svg. i don't like to mess around with personal pages, so i'm leaving you a link: File:Halliburton logo.svg. regards -- Ben Stone 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this edit [17], generally speaking you shouldn't use a templated warning on the pages of editors who have been here for a long time and obviously know WP policies. If you feel the editor has done something questionable, it's taken a lot better if you'll actually take the time to contact them, rather than leave a templated message. Dayewalker ( talk) 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Barack Obama. Thank you. Ward3001 ( talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 ( talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Barack Obama, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
Grsz
11 23:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I would love to meet him.
Your report at WP:AIV [18] on Ward3001 doesn't list any DIFFs showing a legal threat. If you have proof of a threat, it should probably be taken to WP:ANI for legal matters. Dayewalker ( talk) 00:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your edit summary in regards to the commentary on the Super Bowl right now. However, given Wikipedia's policy on fair use as well as US Code Section 107, it's not a copyright violation to give a commentary of events here provided that our commentary is not plagiarized from the television broadcasters either in terms of pictures or their words. Spinach Monster ( talk) 03:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey,
you edited the Europa Universalis article ( here) and added quite an outrageously implausible little bit. I quote:
I can't find any info on this anywhere. Care to elaborate where you've taken that information from? -- Daniel Klein ( talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You left a message that someone has been making edits from my IP address. I haven't been on WP for a month or so. To which articles were you referring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 ( talk) 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Dismas| (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, comrade, I saw you support the German APPD. I just want do say, that the APPD isnt anarchist! It just a stupid fun party! Anyway, greetings. -- AnarchoAdrian ( talk) 09:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss on talk page and contribute to article. It was very global before and a bunch of people came along and gutted all the relevant material. Do you want to do the work to find what is needed and put it back? Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
council communism, left communism, freudo-marxism and autonomism are also libertarian socialist currents but all of them happen to be marxist currents. this is why libertarian socialism cannot be said to be an anarchist "school" since it can be said it includes schools of thought outside it.-- Eduen ( talk) 01:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
it can be said that anarchism itself is a form of libertarian socialism and of course besides it there exist within libertarian socialism coucil communism, left communism, autonomism, Charles Fourier, etc. But as far as actual libertarian marxists speaking on their relationship with anarchism there is of course the case of Rosa Luxembourg who did give the subject some lines which of course would want to make one think she wouldnt like to be called an anarchist. The subject is complex of course [19] [20] but i think you will have to bring some citations or something on how some libertarian marxists regard themselves also as anarchists. Otherwise libertarian socialism obviously cannot go on as an anarchist school of thought.-- Eduen ( talk) 02:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The edit I made was to revert the name of the man mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article from "Simon ben Garfunkel" back to "Simon ben Gamaliel." You have since reverted this to the vandalised version and warned me that my edit was unconstructive. I would appreciate it if you removed your warning from my talk page as you have not assumed good faith on this occasion and have reverted an article to its vandalised state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.136.211 ( talk) 20:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- why are you requesting protection of User:Jcm267? Looie496 ( talk) 04:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lenerd,
What all do you know about Evasion and Peter? I have recently been privy to some...stuff. Fairly compelling stuff. Let's share what we know. -- SuperEditor ( talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please explain your article tagging on the article's talk page or the tags will be removed. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read this talk page. And remove that template.-- g. balaxaZe Ⴋ 09:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 17:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lenerd. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund}}
, paste it in the edit box at
this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)