User talk:Wcwmag

Jim Torbett

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please don't add this again. Thanks. --Guinnog 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I asked you not to add it again. Please don't; you'll be blocked if you carry on like this. There is no verifiable evidence that "Big Jock Knew", and on the contrary this seems like sectarian hate speech to me. Really, please don't keep adding it. You should also be aware of WP:3RR, which prohibits repeatedly adding info which is rejected. --Guinnog 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you add the info again, you will be blocked. --Guinnog 15:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a Soapbox"

Since when were facts classified as a soapbox. There are news and facts relating to this person's case that should be linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwmag (talk • contribs)

Please see our policies on reliable sources and verifiability. It seems obvious to me that you are adding this information in pursuance of some sectarian agenda, and I will not allow this to happen. You might try posting on the article's talk page to see if you can form a consensus to add the information; but you mustn't keep re-adding it to the article. --Guinnog 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rights

What gives you the right to decide what gets added or not. Let's up the ante to arbitration shall we. And as for your claims of sectarianism against me, don't try and pull that card, because you will come unstuck and be humiliated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwmag (talk • contribs)

I am an experienced editor and an administrator on the project. Please play nicely or you will be blocked. --Guinnog 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patronizing

Don't patronize me and also do some research about who you are talking to before you throw out the "I am an experienced editor" card. Playing at editor on the Internet, does not qualify you as an editor. Also do not threaten me, when so far I have only engaged you in polite debate.

The basis of Wikipedia is to provide information. Whether I support the Big Jock Knew campaign or not, should not preclude it from inclusion on this site. It may not belong on Torbett's page, but it would have the right to have it's own page on here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwmag (talk • contribs)

I am sorry if I come across as patronising. Nevertheless, I have tens of thousands of edits here and know how the project works. Part of my work here has consisted of regularly removing this very hate speech from the Celtic F.C. article and others. As an encyclopedia, we only publish information that can be verified. I have sent you (twice) a link to our policy on verifiability; here it is again: WP:V. Please read it carefully before you continue. As for your contention that the BJK "campaign" should have an article of its own, I suggest again discussing at Talk:Jim Torbett or Talk:Jock Stein before doing any more work which may ultimately not be judged as suitable for our project. Finally, please sign on talk pages by typing ~~~~ after your posts. Thanks. --Guinnog 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agre ewith Guinnog. He has given you multiple warnings which you have failed to heed. Please listen to this experienced editor. Thanks and good luck! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Salisbury School,Edmonton,London

A tag has been placed on Salisbury School,Edmonton,London requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ninety:one 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Colin Bowman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Colin Bowman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Bowman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NovaSkola (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]