User talk:CanuckMike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please click here to leave me a new message.
Hello, CanuckMike! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Re: RedEye semi-protection[edit]

Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld was semi-protected to prevent further vandalism which has been occurring over the past few days. See the protection policy for more information. Once your account is four days old, you will be able to edit it; alternatively, you could simply ask on the talk page for an edit to be made, and an established user will most likely help you out. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 13:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to suggest that my actions were inaccurate? –Juliancolton Talk · Review 16:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI[edit]

Hello, CanuckMike. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Monica Crowley. Thank you. --\ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanfeed[edit]

I didn't actually add any comments; I added the split in response to the comments. I think the split is going to be necessary, as the details of each system are very different. Metao (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Feng (program)[edit]

I'm trying to understand your edit comment on the creation of this page ‎ (Add stub back after removal by wikitard - the so-called infringed party copied the project page, from Politecnico di Torino Internet Media Group, verbatim.) -- Are you recreating a page that was previously deleted for copyvio, because the original editor was the person who also had posted the material that was copied? If so, that doesn't actually clear the copyvio problem, unless the procedures at WP:DCM have been followed. Have they been? Because as it is, even in its sub form, the page appears to be WP:COPYVIO. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we're still facing a WP:COPYVIO concern; the material is copied from (and sourced to) a web page, and I can find no indication there that it is covered by both of the licenses necessary, per WP:DCM; can you point me to a source indicating those licenses are in place? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR Notice[edit]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Jared Harris. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Note that removal of content which fails the requirements of WP:BLP is expressly exempted from the 3RR limit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet adding content that meets WP:BLP is just fine. Removal of same is a different story. Note that your personal opinion does not a fact make, nor does a link to an entire policy article help your cause in anything but the short term. I'll take it to the talk page but, if history is any judge, you'll be conspicuously absent...until the content is added back. CanuckMike (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)