Hey Zad86, if you leave a warning for IPs, it's less likely to continue or, if it does, easier to block. BTW, you can apply for rollback (I don't think you have that), which will make certain things easier for you. See WP:ROLLBACK. Thank you. 207.157.121.147 (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I will look into ROLLBACK. Technically I couldn't call that one IP user's edit to Messiah "vandalism" because it did not seem to be an attempt to deliberately worsen the page. There are sometimes well-intentioned edits that are entirely unhelpful, but not vandalism. It'll remain to be seen whether that IP editor will listen to reason regarding his edits, but thanks for going ahead and putting a warning on that editor's page. Zad68 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smurf
Sorry, you can't A7 a Smurf. They ain't real people. Has to be prod or AfD for fictional ones, if all else fails - which I think it does. Not spam, not vandalism, enough context (and if there's enough context there must be content...), and neither hoax nor attack. Another possibility is redirect to the film article, as it doesn't really add much. Peridon (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few I'd like to see, but the Great God Kon-Sen-Sus has decreed otherwise... A tip for A7 is that (apart from web content) there are real people or animals in it. Could be a multi-national, a subaqua knitting circle, The Church of the Migratory Herring, Mrs Wiggins at No 48 Acacia Avenue, or Fluffy the Ninja Hamster (but not Hamsterus ninjoides - that's a species). Animals have to have names, people are assumed to. Web content is stuff on the web that is used (or even just read) where it is. Stuff that you download and use at home is not A7 material (but the site you get it from might well be...). You can get an author, but not the book. Not unless it's spammy enough... The main problem with A7 is what is and is not a credible assertion of significance. If it's a company run by a 12 year old, the assertion of offices in New York, Putney and Ouagadougou is hardly credible, except to those who believe that they have won prizes in competitions they never entered. (I knew someone who turned out to have gone through thousands that way - and they didn't even have a computer.) But if it's a 45 year old, it could be real. In my example, I'd say unlikely - do a Google and get it as a hoax or copyvio instead. I must get some of this onto a subpage - save making it up afresh each time... Peridon (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Peridon, very helpful! Always learning, and you should do some stand-up Wikipedia comedy... :D The more I am working with Wikipedia the more ... um... areas I see for improvement. Zad68 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy speey without reading
My compliments for your tagging me so fast and in time, complimenting me with my first edit. It was 7 years ago, and 27k edits, last time I got that. Now if you had checked what was going on you could have prevented a lot of trouble. But your way (templating me without reading, before nor after) spoiled a serious improvement I was working on. Even the contest-button did not save me. There appeared User:RHaworth, talking in "us" person (are you twins somehow?), who did not talk nor understand what was going on. They even cut-copy-pasted my own comments without signing! [1] Anyway, just to remind you that you have not contributed that much in this. But hey, that first-edit-welcome was great. I recommend you reread it yourself. -DePiep (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DePiep. I can tell from your tone that you are very angry, and I am sorry if my edit made you angry. I was using Twinkle to patrol new pages, in an effort to improve Wikipedia. I have been evaluating new pages on their own merit, without looking into the edit history of the individuals creating the new pages. As you are indeed a very experienced editor, you surely know how a simple, widely-used tool like Twinkle works, you know what the (TW) meant at the end of my edit summary, and you know that Twinkle puts boiler-plate "welcome" messages on the talk pages of users who have their new pages tagged for speedy-delete. Surely if you were reviewing new pages and saw a page that appeared like the one you created, you would think it would qualify for Speedy Delete as "test page," and surely as an experienced editor you would have a backup from which you could recreate your test page quickly. There was absolutely nothing at the top of the page at the time I reviewed it to indicate that it was some sort of special test page. I do not know User:RHaworth, I assume he was using "we" meaning "the many editors that sometimes patrol new articles." I do not know what you were trying to do with the page you were creating, or why whatever test you were conducting could not have been performed in your own user space and not in the main space. Good luck with your tests. Zad68 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this reply. Best thing is that you got my anger. As for TW: I do not use it, and since it is not a bot you are responsible for the edit. End of story. Even more so when one uses boilerplate templates. I am still correct in pointing to you personally for templating me with that inappropriate text. Now when patrolling new pages, when you yourself decide it is a test page{{db-g2}}, you are responsible for checking that indeed it is one. I do blame you for not looking at the history. Because: if you judged it to be a testpage, how can you do so without taking a deeper look? 1st: code (you did), 2: open the history: what is happening? 3: what kind of user is this?. Had you done so, you would have seen some seriousness and recentness. After that (you templated my talk page, to which I had to responded quickly halfway my testing of course), but you did not follow that. Also, G2 does mean "testpage", but not "testpage halfway any test". You could have contacted me (templating does not count). So far for you, and I call this sloppy behaviour. You missed the essence. Whatever 99 other pages you find, you should have treated this one different.
And after that, some User:RHaworth enters, did not read my "contest speedy" button entrance (!!!), did not read my history (b/c would have shown my reply to you), deleted the page, and then cut-copy-pasted my own post on his talkpage onto my own talkpage without signing. Maybe even twice. So when I contested (3rd time) the deletion with the deleting admin, they removed my talk (and made my own talk page a mess). On top of that, that admin talked about "us" (including you), implying coordination instead of personal judgement. Or hiding behind you back. After disrupting my talkpage, RHaworth dared to ask me, no ask proof, why I needed that page at all (are they new at WP?), claimed that my test would do the same elsewhere, and even pushed a disrupting subpage in my userspace. All this without communicating, just maintaining "us" (hiding again) being right. It cost me one hour of editing, just because of two careless admins, and I still don't know whether my test would work (don't dare any more). -DePiep (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, you and I are both team members on the same project team, working toward the same goal--we are both working to improve Wikipedia. In real life, I'm a software development project manager, working on large software projects. I have long since learned that placing blame and lashing out at team members, although it feels great for the aggrieved individual in the short term, always runs counterproductive to the overall goals of the project. What is productive when an incident like this occurs is to figure out how the process is broken and what changes in behavior each team member needs to take away to prevent it from happening again. My "take-aways" are: 1) I will be more careful with the placement of Twinkle boilerplate--Twinkle provides a check-box that writes the boilerplate if checked, and I can uncheck it; 2) I will be more careful to investigate before tagging test pages in main space. DePiep, your take-aways are: 1) You need to be more aware of the fundamental change in context when you move a test page out of your sandbox area into "production," the main page space. When you do this, you need to help your team mates more by providing more information and context about your test page. Two suggestions for doing this are: putting a large, obvious notice at the top of the page at the time you create it, and giving your test page a name that makes the context of your test page very clear (something other than "Realsandbox"). (Although I only have 1,000 edits, the lack of context on your test page in the main space also fooled User:RHaworth, who has been an editor longer than you have, has nearly three times as many edits as you have, and is also an Administrator... please think about this.) 2) You need to be more aware that the other people working on the Wikipedia are your team mates working on the same project as you, toward the same goals as you. Lashing out and finger-pointing don't help. This is the last comment I'm going to make about this incident, but if you'd like to have the final word here, go ahead. Thanks. Zad68 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try to force articles into speedy deletion criteria. When you tag something like Spotting a fake rolex as vandalism when it is blatantly not vandalism you potentially chase away good faith contributors who made a misguided attempt at first contribution. Instead, politely inform that editor how they can better use their time building the encyclopedia and use a more friendly deletion process, such as WP:PROD. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be put off by the above. Better to remember WP:SNOW. I would probably have deleted spotting a fake rolex on the strength of your tag, if I had seen it before ThaddeusB. By a curious coincidence we have both been involved recently with the deletion of two completely unrelated articles. Re this edit: using naked URIs is very bad taste. And using a naked URI for an internal link screams "newbie". You should of course have written: User:FTS MD/Kindergarten.com. As to DePiep, probably least said the better. Your response of "why whatever test you were conducting could not have been performed in your own user space" was absolutely correct. If he happens to stalk this message and comes back with a still more angry response, we should both simply keep saying "why". — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW is not a speedy deletion criteria and calling a good faith attempt at a (useless) article vandalism is really quite inappropriate no matter how you try to justify it. There is no hurry to delete such things and PROD works just fine with exactly the same editor & admin effort needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RHaworth. I intentionally put a 'naked' URL there because I thought it would be more obvious and user-friendly to the newly registered user that was trying to create the page. I now see it's one of your 'groans'! :) I hope the editor trying to create Kindergarten.com sticks around and tries to get the page right. I put a notice at that editor's talk page, giving suggestions and offering to help. Zad68 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with not putting newbies off with wiki jargon - indeed some more experienced editors may need help - see this discussion - I make no apology for having to ask what BRD stands for. But I draw the line at using naked URIs. I don't even think it more user-friendly. Someone who is familiar with this page (they probably wrote it!) can be expected to recognise a link when they see one. (That page also contains another deprecated style feature: "click here" - click here to read W3C's advice on the subject.) Kindergarten.com is very worthy but we must treat FTS MD (talk·contribs) with the usual suspicion we afford to apparent SPAs - did you see their comments about walled gardens - I think that is a blatant case of the kettle calling the pan black. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 16:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB do you really find PROD useful for new articles? It would seem that the same contributor who would click on the contest button of their article up for speedy-delete (or would even just remove the speedy-delete tag) would be the same user that would contest the PROD in a heartbeat. For new articles, it's either speedy-delete, or go down the AfD road. Zad68 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are tagging articles that are one minute old (which IMO shouldn't be done except for copyright violation and blatant vandalism/attack pages anyway), it may or may not work that well. But, if the author has a chance to finish their work (say 1 hour old), it certainly works just fine. (For example, I have PRODed about 10 new pages this week and none have been contested yet.) Good faith contributors will often realize their error once alerted of it and not contest the deletion. Speedy deletion exists primarily to get rid of bad faith contributions (spam, vandalism) and autobiographies of non-notable people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ThaddeusB this is helpful. In the past few days I've been trying patrolling new pages. Almost all my speedy-deletes have gone through but I've had a "learning experience" with a few of them. I haven't really understood why someone would put a brand new page into the main space with only like a sentence or two, saying "I'll finish it later." I've been watching the new pages and the "wait an hour" rule seems to apply. The one area I don't think it would work would be for advertisers/spammers--these people seem to brute-force revert or recreate articles until their ability to do so is removed. But what the heck I'll give it a try! Thanks again... Zad68 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, speedy criteria are hard to get a hang of, so a learning curve is expected. As an FYI, if the same page is deleted ~3 times, the admin will SALT the page so at most the spam gets posted a few times (although I find most people give up and/or are blocked as purely promotional accounts after the first quick deletion.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OT: Does Wikipedia auto-notify you when some replies to something you wrote on a user talk page that isn't yours? I thought you had to notify with a TB notification. Zad68 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I watchlist talk pages where I've left a message so I generally see the reply fairly quickly. A lot, but not all, users do this for a {{tb}} doesn't hurt if you are unsure/want to make sure something is seen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No comprendo
Note--shortly after DePiep and I finished our conversation at "A speedy speey without reading", I archived the thread by deleting it; in this thread he asks me why I did that. I answered and then archived this thread too. I have moved both of these threads here for historical purposes.Zad6819:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete [2]? To me your last post was worth rereading. And also, I have this question (quickly now): do you agree your tagging was inappropriate, or would you do the same next time? -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm glad you found it helpful. You can of course review that conversation at any time here. I deleted it because, well, that was a conversation between me and you and it's over now; I'm not sure what the value would be of leaving it up for others to find? Actually I'm starting to clean up my Talk page in general. And as I mentioned in that conversation, I don't see the need to continue hashing it over. But I will answer the question "would you do the same next time?": No, of course not, because of my take-away #2 from that conversation. Hope that helps, let me know if there are any other, different topics you'd like to discuss. (Hope you don't mind if this conversation doesn't stay here that long either.) Zad68 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS, and that was fast!! I was just in the middle of trying to undo it myself! Darn Twinkle doesn't handle tabs well, or something. Zad68 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That thing with the title
I've changed 'content' to 'context'. There is content (and no links), but the text is completely irrelevant to the title. It's in Arabic, and seems to be about the Names of God. Nothing whatever to do with hieroglyphics, or the Macedonians or Ptolemies. (Ptolemys?) (Who cares?) Peridon (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... From my viewpoint, the article had no useful content to the intended readers of English Wikipedia, that's why I tagged it that way. I'm not totally satisfied with the speedy-delete criteria. Anyway, it's gone now. Zad68 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you tag Winston for a BLPprod. The article already had a reference to IMDb. Only use BLPprod tag when there are no references at all... can be reliable or unreliable. Bgwhite (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any ref that backs up a statement in the article. There is some wiggle room on social networking sites and personal websites.... twitter ref? remove it and put up the BLPprod tag. If a Facebook, myspace or a person website ref is making statements about 3rd parties, blast the ref and put up a BLPprod.
Personally, I think it is stupid that you can't add the BLPprod tag for an IMDb ref, but a IMDb ref isn't good enough to take down a BLPprod tag.
Hello Zad68. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dead Chill, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to movies or TV shows. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk05:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a mistake based on my comments above. Films and TV do have people in them, but they're a product not an assembly of people. (They're the product OF the assembly of people who are the cast and company. 'Nasturtium United Film Co' can be A7ed, but 'Return of the Nasturtium' can't - unless it's only found on YouTube, in which case it's web content... Peridon (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, so my lesson here is: You cannot speedy-delete any article (except spam) about a "thing" that is (claimed to be a) work product? Souls (for lack of a better word) or groups of souls like people, animals, companies, bands can be speedy-deleted, but if I put up a page about "Booyah!" and say it's a book and give even a one-sentence description of what it might be, it can't be speedy-deleted? FWIW, I tagged for speedy-delete something called Minglepong that was a game some college guys made up 3 days prior. I didn't find the right speedy-delete bucket and that time I didn't try to stuff it in a different bucket (I've gotten yelled at for that!), so I made up my own "speedy-delete because Wikipedia isn't for something you make up one day." That worked, but technically it should not have been a candidate for speedy-delete, because it was a work-product just like "Dead Chill". If them's the rules, them's the rules, OK... I think I'm getting closer to making fewer mistakes with CSD, thanks. Zad68 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Although, some administrators may delete things outside the CSD criteria, they certainly should not. Things like games, books, neologisms, etc. are not (properly) speedy deletable (unless blatant advertising) because there is not community consensus that one person's judgement is sufficient in such cases. Anyone who deletes such things by his own volition is acting against community consensus that says administrators should not do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As ThaddeusB wrote, articles about products, including creative works, are not eligible for A7 speedy deletion. (Sometimes another criterion, such as G11 or G4, may apply.) Keep up the good work with NPP. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Peridon - selective deletion should be used to redact the copyright violating edits when possible. (I have done so for you.)
General comment - a one sentence stub is not super useful, but it does encourage someone to write an article more so than a non-existant page does. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... Wikipedia's lack of a data model strikes again. Is there anybody discussing making the sweeping, fundamental data modeling changes that really need to happen? Zad68 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not eligible for speedy deletion, because I already deleted the duplicate article per the author's request. Therefore, if you feel it ought to be deleted,. you must take the conversation to WP:AfD. I removed your 'speedy' tag. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the warning as the editor, based on editing history, has clearly been trying to use Wikipedia to promote the organization, and promotion is the definition of WP:SPAM. The infobox already had the external link. It's in there twice now as you created the External Links section and put it there. That's allowed, it's fine now. Zad68 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it looks like there may be some inappropriate promotion going on here, but that's no need to WP:BITE. You used two templates that said "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia", to a user who had not added any inappropriate external links - this hardly helps them to realise what they did wrong, or how to avoid repeating their mistake. If you really had to use a template, Template:uw-advert would be more relevant to your concerns. --McGeddon (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first experience I had was where he inappropriately removed a speedy-delete tag. Then he added an embedded link to the organization's site, and added, embedded link to off-Wikipedia document, and he also goes on to create an infobox with the same link. The embedded off-Wikipedia site link was correctly removed by someone else, and the editor got a gentle warning, but then he added it back without discussion. I removed the embedded external links to the site and the off-Wikipedia PDF document, and he reverted without discussion, and in my edit summary I did ask him to talk it to Talk before reverting again, and so that's when he got the more stern warning related to links. The editor seems to be getting it now, he hasn't tried to embed the off-site link to the site in the article, and is now using the document that he was embedding links to as a reference instead. So the reason I was using the link warning was because all these issues were related to links. It is my fault for not also writing a better explanation to him about why the link he was trying to use were inappropriate in the places he was trying to use them, and I'll do better next time. Thanks for the coaching! Zad68 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a barnstar from Diego dated 21:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list
Your work on the ESI page
I understand the piece's tone might not have been to your / Wiki's liking, and I will happily rewrite, however:
- someone deleted an image, permission for the use of which I'd already forwarded;
- you took it upon yourself to decide what does and does not constitute a department, what the institute's name should be and which faculty it 'belongs' to. None of these decisions was factually correct;
- in deleting certain portions of the article and retaining others, there are now inaccuracies on the page where previously there were none;
- the University of Exeter's Cornwall Campus page has links to other related institutions (Camborne School of Mines, Institute of Cornish Studies, for example), why not, then, to the ESI?
The page's history shows your multiple changes, but RHaworth's deletion of the page altogether. This process is by no means clear to me: can you tell me whose responsibility the deletion was? I'm working on the basis I should try for some answers to the above first - and maybe a second chance at a creating an article - before approaching the individual who appears to have deleted the page completely.
Hi JpESI, you are frustrated with your first experiences trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and I understand. Let my try to address your concerns:
Stefan2 tagged the file for deletion, and Fastily deleted with the comment "No evidence of permission for more than 7 days". Please note I had nothing to do with it. The file was deleted because apparently you didn't get the copyright information correctly applied to the file within the 7-day grace period. Frustratingly, Wikipedia does not show you edit history for a deleted item, and those edits are even removed from your Contributions log, so I can't totally tell what happened. However, if you have the correct copyright info now, you can simply re-create the file and this time include the copyright info right away. If everything is in order, the file should stay. You are discovering here that in certain areas, Wikipedia is very conservative, especially when it comes to: 1) Copyright infringement, and 2) Publishing possibly defamatory information about a living person (who might sue). Wikipedia does not want lawsuits and will err on the side of caution. However once you have the correct copyright release documented, the content can stay.
You are clearly associated with the ESI--"ESI" is even in your name. It appears you are working on behalf of ESI's publicity team. You need to be aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding conflict of interest. This potentially poses serious issues when you make edits about ESI. I have seen many, many editors who have a clear history of editing with the intention of promoting an organization be permanently banned from Wikipedia. This is not my idea, this is Wikipedia policy. Because of your conflict of interest, it is suggested that you do not edit anything related to ESI directly. Consider putting your suggested edits on Talk pages, asking other editors to make the changes. Read WP:COI for more suggestions in dealing with this issue.
Regarding your comment that I "took it upon yourself to decide," first please review: assume good faith. My edits were in good faith. I meant to improve the article based on the verifiable information I could find. I might be wrong, but my edits intended to improve. I placed the ESI text where I did after looking through the University's web site http://www.exeter.ac.uk. I guess I misinterpreted the information I was seeing on the web site. Where should it go? Let's discuss this on University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus's talk page.
Regarding the schools that have their own pages linked, it is certainly possible that ESI could have its own page. However, what happened was, after the non-encyclopedic and promotional copy was removed from the ESI article, there wasn't enough left for a stand-alone article. I'd suggest you develop the ESI article in your sandbox, and work with the new article review team to ensure it meets Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:SPAM as well as other content and quality policies. This would also get around your conflict of interest issue. The ESI article you started with (still in your sandbox) would not be more than a sentence, after editing out the non-encyclopedic content, this is why it got merged. Look at the content and tone of Camborne School of Mines, it's quite different.
Regarding RHaworth's delete, what happened was: Your initial page name was "The Environment and Sustainability Institute (ESI)". Having the abbreviation (ESI) in the name did not meet Wikipedia's article naming standards, and it was not a likely redirect or typo. Someone looking for "Environment and Sustainability Institute" would not be likely to type "Environment and Sustainability Institute (ESI)" in the search bar. So I renamed it to a better name, and did not want to leave the redirect, so I tagged the redirect for deletion, and RHaworth deleted it. This was a procedural thing, that's all.
Thanks for taking the time, it's appreciated. I need to go through all of this in detail and decide what I do next, although I think I'll start with the deleted image ... JpESI (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I see you noticed the CoI statement on my talk page. As advised, I've put it on the noticeboard, too, so far - two days later - there's been no feedback. My intention would now be to reinsert the much-rewritten ESI copy on to the Cornwall Campus page; its tone is, I think, neutral, informative, non-promotional. Hope this is all uncontentious and doesn't put at risk my rights to edit / add material. Thanks again for all the detail and explanation. JpESI (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you're taking Wikipedia's COI policies seriously. I looked at the proposed text at the COI noticeboard and it looks good to me, just make sure to provide references. I think with you being clear and "up-front" about your connection, and the sensitivity you are now displaying to maintaining an encyclopedic tone in your edits, you should be good. Zad68 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! SalvioLet's talk about it!19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. Is this in response to the warning I put on your Talk page about your constant misuse of the Minor Edit checkbox? Was that warning really so hard to understand? Please be aware that editors who do not follow Wikipedia's core content policies and procedural rules usually do not have long editing careers here. Please stop your contentious editing. Zad68 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
