Pleasedo not leave unjustified warnings on my talk page
I am assuming good faith on your part and put it down to your failure to read WP rules and guidelines.
Discuss on the talk pages of the relevant articles your concerns and not on my talk pageCathar11 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edits have been questioned for days without any reply from you and you ask others to "discuss"?
You appear to be aware of the procedure for moving articles as you have flagged an article for merging/moving. You cannot move an article to a new name without first posting it on the page for discussionCathar11 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the only who has not participated in the discussion page. And you still move articles to POV titles.Alb28 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, warning not meant to be sent. Sorry. Jusdafax 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that David Romero Ellner meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.
Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Romero Ellner. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.
Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Cathar11 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Cathar11 (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
