User talk:Ccrbm

Image copyright problem with Image:Ccrbm2.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ccrbm2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Centennial College
Please don't try to re-insert unsourced content into the CC article. I have nominated the redirect you created for deletion. Franamax (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
 * Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
 * The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bfacebook\.com' (link(s): http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7710064830).
 * Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites.	 For more information about me, see my FAQ page.	 Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

-

Ccrbm, please stop your unhelpful activities. It looks like you've removed content that has been in the article for 1-1/2 years solely to make a WP:POINT because I requested citations for new material. I've put back the material you removed and added a tag indicating that it needs citations. You are free to add citations any time, otherwise, add tags yourself.

Please work constructively towards building this encyclopedia. Thanks ! Franamax (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I got an edit conflict as I was trying to add some of the same "cn" tags. You're going the right way now, give it a few weeks to see if anyone contributes some references, then put a note on the Talk page, wait a week more - then you can start removing unsourced content.
 * You could always try finding those references yourself, though I've been trying to do so and not having much luck at my end :)
 * Remember about the other two million articles that all need to be improved too! Franamax (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

---

You were doing OK putting in undefined tags for existing content, but now you've gone back to putting in your complaint. Adding tags when you put it in doesn't count, you have to add sourced content. I've reported this here so some admin's can take a look. Regards. Franamax (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, this is the spot, I put it on the wrong board first time through. Franamax (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing. &mdash;dgies tc 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Attack pages
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. It's quite obvious that you have strong feelings about Centennial College, but Wikipedia has policies regarding material that can be hosted here, and I'm afraid that the contents of your userpage and the image it hosted, Image:Ccrbm2.jpg, were not in line with our policies on attack pages. Pages and images cannot be hosted for the sole purpose of disparaging an entity. These have accordingly been deleted. You are welcome to contribute to the article on Centennial College, but please ensure that your contributions conform to the neutrality policy and cite reliable sources. This is especially important when evidence suggests you may have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia's aim of producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research. While there are undoubtedly review sites interested in disseminating your personal experiences with the college, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original experience. I will be watching your page for a time in case you have any questions about these policies. You may also seek clarification at Wikipedia's help desk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c Overtaken by events here, but I'll put it in anyway!)


 * Hi Ccrbm, lets try one more time. I see you've re-added the exact same paragraph that has been repeatedly removed from Centennial College. You used the edit summary "Put my part back in, since it was left up after reviewd and not taken down. Only my redirect was removed." Presumably you are referring to Moonriddengirl's not above as the "review"? If so, you might not be exactly right on that:
 * The redirect you put up was removed in a completely separate process as vandalism.
 * The paragraph you favour was not in the article when MRG left her note. And in fact, it's been taken out by every established user who's reviewed it.
 * And you're being asked above to comply with the neutrality and [[WP:RS|reliability] policies. Yet you have once again inserted text that is not neutral and has nor reliable source.


 * You may be completely right about huge lineups of students, but there's no way for us to know you're right because you haven't added a reliable source we can check, such as a reliable newspaper article (something in the Toronto Star for example). So I'm going to once more remove your content as unsourced POV.


 * There are two more policies you should read up on. WP:BRD is "bold, revert, discuss", this says you can be bold and add something (which you've done), and it can then be reverted (which is has). The next step is to go to the article talk page and discuss the issue. Remember the onus is on you to prove why your addition should stick. If you just keep blindly adding back the same material, it generally gets considered as vandalism.


 * The other policy you should look at is WP:3RR, which you are on the point of violating. And in case you're wondering, the policy doesn't apply to editors reverting vandalism, and flirting with the edge of that rule repeatedly may still get you blocked.


 * Please try harder, find some sources, reword, do something to show some good faith. You may still get reverted, but at least you're trying to follow the rules. Use the talk page, but do anything rather than continuing this little war. Franamax (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
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. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)