User talk:OGBranniff

Note: For talk page messages prior to 16 March 2013, see User_talk:OGBranniff/Archive1. Please post new messages below this line: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Proposed deletion of Kerry Shirts[edit]

The article Kerry Shirts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

previously deleted article, not 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits[edit]

This was a good edit. My compliments. (Will you continue like this, and be a productive member of ProjChess to improve articles? Or will you sink your & others' time, going after my throat?) p.s. The word "latitudinarian" wasn't a good synonym for "wide", as it means "un-dogmatic". In any event, one is supposed to edit articles here, mindful of a projected audience of bright 12-year olds. And no bright 12-yr. old would appreciate "latitudinarian" (unless it was the only word for the context). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Ok, thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits also, on Back-rank checkmate. You're showing a (previously undisclosed!) editing talent, IMO. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Your edits on the article are pretty good as well. My compliments, sir. OGBranniff (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, OGBranniff. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you might consider deleting the swastika from your user page. You appear to have replaced the standard wikiproject flag (the flag of Germany) with that symbol (the Nazi flag) to reflect that you are a member of WikiProject Germany. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nazi flag on user page. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PILLARS[edit]

The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five "pillars":

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are.

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute

All editors freely license their work to the public, and no editor owns an article – any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws and never plagiarize from any sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but editors should strive to find free alternatives first.

Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility

Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 6,817,216 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.

Wikipedia has no firm rules

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved.

02:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nazi flag on user page, you have been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry (confirmed as Hefha72, strongly suspected as Wiki Brah) and for behavioural reasons (the "Starts with indef and ends with block" subsection is quite clear here ). Fram (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

OGBranniff (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Do you even know who this Wiki_brah is? That was ten years ago almost. I am innocent and you are just being racist toward to Brazilians that now live in Miami. This is an outrage.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.