User talk:Artikalflex

I'm copying this from Talk:William Wilberforce since it appears you didn't see it before accusing me of referting without discussion.


 * No, you have copy and pasted the text from an essay. Please read Wikipedia's policies on Copyright violation, neutral point of view, reliable sources and "the three revert rule".  We cannot include directly copied text from other sources unless it is clearly in the public domain.  There is no doubt that Wilberforce is a more complicated man than is often portrayed, but he was a product of his time which should be born in mind also.  Some aspects of what you are presenting probably should be included in the article, but they cannot be incorporated in their current form.  To present such a differing view from normal we'd need absolutely unimpeachable sources, and even then we must be careful of giving undue weight to what is, with all respect, a minority view.  Pleae bear in mind wikipedia is not a place for righting great wrongs.

Also consider WP:POINT, your behaviour is being exceedingly disruptive. As I've said there is certainlya case for painting a fuller picture of Wilberforce, but the repeatedly inserting cut and paste text from elsewhere is not he way to go about it, and you will only put people's backs up who might otherwise be prepared to listen to you, and you're also likely to find yourself being blocked if you carry on behaving in this manner. David Underdown 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Slp1 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wilberforce again
The Lead of an article (i.e. those paragraphs before the table of contents) is supposed to give an overview of the topic. Fine detail should be discussed in the body of the article. I've now added more detail further down on the exemptions included in the 1833 Act. Note that strictly speaking India wasn't part of the British Empire in 1833, it was only after the Indian Mutiny that the British Crown assumed direct control, and this is the reason it was not included in the 1833 Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Church-slavery.jpg


The file File:Church-slavery.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)