Jump to content

User talk:68.251.40.139: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
comment
Line 21: Line 21:


:I again suggest you register your account and follow the appropriate channels. This should satisfy you that the article has been appropriately considered as notable. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 11:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:I again suggest you register your account and follow the appropriate channels. This should satisfy you that the article has been appropriately considered as notable. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 11:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I discuss this here... but it would seem that I only get accused [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Brothers_Brewing&diff=cur&oldid=296220417] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Two_Brothers_Brewing&diff=cur&oldid=296277141] of vandalism rather a resonable response to my resonable questionss.[[Special:Contributions/68.251.40.139|68.251.40.139]] ([[User talk:68.251.40.139#top|talk]]) 14:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:13, 14 June 2009

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Two Brothers Brewing has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Mod.torrentrealm 07:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Two Brothers Brewing. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The article has a number of reliable sources so is unlikely to be deleted. However, if you consider that notability has not been established you can register your account and list the article on WP:AFD where people will look at the article and discuss if it is notable enough for Wikipedia. I have noted that you have blanked the page and cut references out of the article, causing some disruption, so I have semi-protected it for a while. I would ask that if you have issues with any Wikipedia article that you enter into discussion with other editors, either on the talkpage of the article or on a WikiProject talkpage, rather than doing crude blanking of pages.

If you have any questions about this, please ask me on my talkpage. SilkTork *YES! 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Two Brothers Brewing, you will be blocked from editing. Your removal of content from Two Brothers Brewing is clearly controversial. Stop doing it but instead discuss it on the talk page. Pontificalibus (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


We welcome scrutiny of articles on Wikipedia. You have questioned the notability of the Two Brothers Brewing article and three experienced editors have looked into the matter and informed you that in their opinion it meets Wikipedia's requirements. We have also informed you that there is a process for questioning the notability of an article, which is raising it at WP:AFD. Things may have changed, but a person needs to register in order to list an article at AFD - this is to prevent disruptive listing. I have suggested you register in order to list the article at AFD.
Even though we feel your edits are nonconstructive, time-wasting and disruptive, we are engaging in discussion with you in an attempt to explain our thinking, and the processes open to you. I feel we are giving you and your arguments rather more consideration than your behaviour deserves, given that you persist in cutting the article despite what has been said to you. I have again protected the article as this, I feel, will reduce disruption while allowing you to have your say. The alternative would be that your IP address would be blocked if you continued to remove legitimate content from an article after several warnings.
I again suggest you register your account and follow the appropriate channels. This should satisfy you that the article has been appropriately considered as notable. SilkTork *YES! 11:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I discuss this here... but it would seem that I only get accused [1] [2] of vandalism rather a resonable response to my resonable questionss.68.251.40.139 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]