User talk:Glc72
October 2013
|
Your article talk page edits
Please acquaint yourself with the "Show preview" button directly to the right of the "Save page" button. Eighteen edits to one post makes it difficult for those that wish to reply to understand exactly what they are replying to. You can find more detail in utility and etiquette (such as proper indenting) at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Regards Tiderolls 21:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks)Glc72 (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
Hi Glc72! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of states with nuclear weapons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfa (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) 11:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at List of states with nuclear weapons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 20:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Italy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 20:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Stop Doing This Please
As Tiderolls alluded to above, making nine edits in a row to the same post is annoying, bordering on disruptive. Think about what you want to write, proofread it, think about it some more, proofread it again, think about it again and then and only then, post. --NeilN talk to me 22:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
In fact ,i'm beginnig to think to my lawyer.I don' t like to offend and neither to be offended in a direct or indirect way.There will be a real person behind Cyclopia to see in the tribunal of my town. I don't know if denounce that WRACKY for offending.I felt it like an offending.I'm sorry, i can't forget it easily.Glc72 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for disput e resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 23:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't like that "wacky".I know that a denounce is valid all over EU and within 5 days is published all over it.Real life ids different from the virtual one.I'm sorryGlc72 (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then stop mentioning the CIA, and start following our guidelines (this isn't the EU). You'll find things go much smoother that way. --NeilN talk to me 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Why can't i cite CIA in Wikipedia? ( i know that you know that i know why)Glc72 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)