User talk:Mythology8
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to John Murtha. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Deriamis 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism[edit]
The vandalism Deriamis was accusing you of was violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Remember to add neutral information - meaning devoid of attacks and your personal views - to articles. That's what was wrong with your edits. If you have neutral information you would like to add, then go right ahead. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- In light of the above, I will refrain from issuing a second vandalism warning to allow you to edit the article to express your view in a neutral, academic voice. Simply changing the page back to the same text (and denouncing fellow Wikipedians for doing their jobs) is what I am taking issue with above all else. I don't know enough about the issues to try defending John Murtha, but I will defend the Wikipedia's core principles. If you have any illuminating matters to discuss on the John Murtha page, please go right on ahead, but do so in a neutral and academic voice. Thank you! --Deriamis 01:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments on Image:Deriamis.jpg (moved to User_talk:Deriamis)[edit]
Mythology8, this has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel about the Marine Corps. In fact, what you do not know is that I was in the military once. What I do not agree with at all is how you chose to express your opinion. Yes, you have freedom of speech - as do I - but with any freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely. Leaving comments on my image page as you did was not very wise at all, and neither were any of your accusations, which constitute libel. But, thankfully for my sanity, my high degree of integrity saves me from needing to worry about what people say about me. I'll even do you the favor of moving those comments to my talk page and adding your name to the bottom (as you forgot to do).
And, by the way, part of the definition of patriotism in the United States is the ability to badmouth one's President in the middle of a war. I am surprised you have forgotten that. I don't think it was the wisest decision Representative Murtha could have made (and I don't agree with what he said), but badmouthing him in return is simply returning violence with violence, which only feeds a cycle we should be breaking. I have some very interesting ideas as to why we are in this war, dear sir, and very few of them have anything directly to do with spreading democracy. Try greed. For oil. Lots of oil. You might try reading a few books and articles on the subject - even the ones you don't agree with - before you decide to bash someone in the name of "patriotism" and "democracy".
John Murtha is only trying to stand out - and making some very nasty comments in the process, I might add - and responding in kind isn't going to solve anything. Again, if you have any facts or interpretations you wish to include in an article on Wikipedia, please feel free to do so, but do it in a neutral and academic tone, as is the policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for political bashing and infighting, nor is it the place to express an untempered opinion. Please follow the rules the community has set here or you will find yourself banned from expressing your opinion here.
And, by the way, your actions nearly cost you a report to an admin today. Please take advantage of my largesse while it still exists and just drop the matter. I may not be in such a tolerant mood the next time I have my character defamed in public. --Deriamis 06:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- You might be interested to know, by the way, that someone on Talk:John_Murtha has elected to write in a paragraph about Rep. Murtha's comments toward the Marine Corps. --Deriamis 07:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Merzbow
Murtha page[edit]
Honestly, I haven't followed the page as of late. Maybe I'll come around and check it over sometime. Kestrel 04:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]
{{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/9/11 Responders Remembered Park.
- To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/9/11 Responders Remembered Park, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Fealgoodfoundation.com[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Fealgoodfoundation.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://fealgoodfoundation.com/mission/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)