User talk:Aunva6

Please keep discussion related to article content on the article talk page, thank you. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs}

FWIW...

...I've supported your idea of merging the people who can't find a way to laugh today. CycloneGU (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC) not entirely sure what you are referring to, but I think I have some idea. lol -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dachau concentration camp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Allenton house fire

The IP has merged the article again. Without any discussion etc. BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I undid the merge once again.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

and I gave him a lvl3 disruptive, adn told him to discuss it on the talk page. if he continues, then it will be edit warring, and may need to be reported to ANI. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a similar situation is now happening at Emmelie de Forest. The user has reverted your edits. Unwilling to understand basic guidelines. I leave it up to you what to do.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, you are the only one unwilling to understand basic guidelines. If you took the time to read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, you would discover that "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" (the author has several mainstream books on the exact subject, which are in fact cited tons of times on Wikipedia) and thus meets the criteria for being used as sources. The deletion of sourced content counts as vandalism. Vinson wese (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

read the rest: "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.". -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a source about a living person, it's a source about historical facts relating to people who lived in the 19th century. Vinson wese (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

the artice is about a living person. therefore, the BLP standards and policies apply. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On a personal note I have to say I admire your patience with the user. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This comment says it all about this users intentions of being civil.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

it has its limits though, and he reached them when he violated 3rr. I reported him to ANI edit warring noticeboard, here. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The user left you no other option. So good decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

yep. he got a 31 hr block, so hopefully, he won't keep trying to push it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a revert back to your latest version is appropriate. Or will you break the 3RR then?--BabbaQ (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Urban did it. Thank you for handling this situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The user has now made a edit request, check his edit history.. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, that's not an edit request. I don't think the user meant to call it so, either. See how the section right above is called "Edit request"? You know how when you add a section, and don't do anything in the edit summary field (which is how new or otherwise, er, less careful, users edit), the default edit summary becomes the name of the previous section. That must have happened here. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC).

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Copernican principle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BP

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Section blanking

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vinson wese (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)