User talk:Heliumballoon

Notability of Law Practice Today

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Law Practice Today, by MER-C (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Law Practice Today seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Law Practice Today, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN

Your edits are discussed here. Could you please join the discussion? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^T C 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law Practice Today

Please stop deleting tags without discussing the deletions on the talk page. THF 16:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain the deletions on the talk page. You can look at it if you want. Heliumballoon 16:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a failed verification tag twice without discussing it, much less reaching a consensus on the question. THF 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Law Practice Today. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. THF 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think you have a conflict of interest deciding what edits I should or should not revert when the so called 'war' is with you? Heliumballoon 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to have a conflict of interest in declaring someone else to be in an edit war with you and then saying that they are now in a position to not be able to edit the page further. Heliumballoon 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least read the rules in question rather than making accusations? E.g., WP:3RR, WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:N, WP:RS. Please also distinguish between a request to stop edit-warring and a request to stop editing. I made the former request, not the latter. THF 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Per your message on my talk page, I feel I should caution you: Wikipedia takes a very dim view of recruiting likeminded editors to a debate. While it is a wrongheaded nomination, and deleting it would go against the spirit of Making the internet not suck, I feel I cannot comment on it specifically because you tried to recruit me. WilyD 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't know every single possible rule/idea that exists in wikipedia. But this article was up for deletion once and IMHO its an important article. It should never have been renominated to begin with. If you would rather not argue for its deletion because of someone else's unintentional violation of a wikipedia policy then so be it. Heliumballoon 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Hi, thanks for the message. Basically put, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If it were a case of one person one vote, all debates would be decided by how many allies you could recruit. Rather decisions are taken by an administrator reading through all of the comments and making a decision based on the policies of Wikipedia. I knew the decision I reached would be a controversial one which is why I explained the basis of my thinking at the top of the deletion discussion. No decision is ever final, it can be challenged at deletion review if anyone feels strongly enough that it should be overturned. More information about decision making can be found here: Wikipedia:Consensus, I hope it helps. Mallanox 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article Robert M. Carter

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Robert M. Carter. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really understand what you mean by personal attack.

This is what I wrote:

Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [1], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

1. I stated a fact - that Carter is a member of a thinktank.
2. I sourced this fact.

How is this a personal attack? Heliumballoon (talk)