User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2010/January

Reporting Vandalism by User:(nadermeleka) & (Orthopraxia)
Hello Charles,

This is BVS. We got tired Charles of this continous vandalism I spoke to you about earlier.

We would like to report continous Vandalism by user (nadermeleka) and his friend (Orthopraxia) who are trying to delete and revert sections of the article to help them in their ultimate goals.

As you now, Weikpedia is not the place for any battles nor who is right or who is wrong (Truth Rule). They have been asked to do so for specific reasons. As you may recall we discussed this matter before.

Please remind them one more time that Wikipedia is not a battle zone and is not the place to fight or have battles whether they think they are right or wrong or being asked to do that (Truth Rule). We have corrected this matter several times, but they insist on doing so and they have a 24 hours shifts to accomplish there goals.

Before we take the matter to another level within Wikipedia claims, we would like to ask for your help and to explain to them that they should NOT revert any information made at good faith efforts done by other users. They have been caught red-handed doing so and they admitted that. We will restore it one more time, but if they do NOT stop, then we are really asking for you help to stop this vandalism.

Wikipedia is NOT the place to attack other people good faith editing, to fight, to dispute or to claim the (Truth Rule). If they do NOT stop, then we are asking you to take specific actions against them after giving them a warning.

Wikipedia rules need to be respected despite any church internal disputes and no matter were they stand in it.

Thank you for your help & support.

Bvs--Bvs1925 (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Portland
I am new to wiki. I added a link to two relevant pages. WHY did you remove them, I did't see any rule broken, the site IS based on the topic it was posted in, in fact they have several friends of mines site there too. I lIVE on Portland and the site is SOLEY based on the topic, tell me what I did wrong BEFORE just deleting it please, it's not helpful doing it the way you did. I have no idea all this works, in fact I have no idea if I am doing this complaint here right.

You're rashness to remove before helping or explaining has now put me OFF helping more here. Thanks. Please tell me why that site is not suitable, there is NO advertising on there, it is SOLELY about the topic, the fact you have other sites on there with advertising and they are still ok, yet mines not, stinks. Looking forward to hearing from you, though I shouldn't have had to ask, IF you had an issue with my link, you should have contacted me rather than me chasing you.

ADDED : you just removed the link again from isle of portland page...WHY?

What IS your problem with the link?

I don't CARE about whether it's a no follow or whatever it is, and making no difference to the SEngines, I DO care about the readers looking for relevant information and interesting information about Portland, hence my blog itself. WHY is it not relevant???

Why not use some of your so called expertise to explain it to a new user and then remove it if the new user understands why. I cannot argue if I broke a rule but I don't see a rule I have broken and YOU haven't mentioned a rule. can you help me with this, if not, maybe someone else can explain it but at least stop being so one sided.Robsellen (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that this has been explained on other talk pages during my absence.--Charles (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Shame you aren't so eager to explain as you are removing things. Leaving to others to explain your actions is lame. Robsellen (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I am done with it, put me off for good, thanks.
 * Shame on me? If you took the trouble to follow the links in the welcome notice on your talk page, or the notice I posted, you could read the guidelines for yourself. That would save other editors spending their valuable time explaining it to you. We have three million pages to look after.--Charles (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, have you given it some thought to how awkward this site is on the first hour of hitting it? I took a good twenty mins just working out where I was and how to add the link, then you delete it just like that and I couldn't see what to do, where to get the info, this site is a messy one for a new user. You CHOOSE to take that role on, can't moan about that. You certainly found that one link quick considering you have 3 million pages as you said, couldn't see why a small explanation of sorts which takes up all of two mins on top of the one you spent deleting the link. You chose to leave it to someone else to explain or point the right place to me. Like I say confusing site.

I am done anyway, not playing games with one rule for some and another for the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsellen (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Prague
This is sourced information ,Please dont remove untill you have a valid reason.Please avoid Vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.58.221 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank for your copy-edits on the article Dao Duy Tu.--AM (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please refrain from restoring material not supported by citation from pages on Wikipedia Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
 * Merry Christmas anonymous deleter. Please sine your talk page posts by clicking [[Image:Button sig2.png]] and do not delete material which is an editorial consensus from articles without first discussing it on the article talk page.--Charles (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
I did give a valid reason for the removal on the discussion page. And I cannot put the whole reason in the tiny edit summary. What the Heck, I'll give it another try, this time with an edit summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimar Hajrudin (talk • contribs) 23:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)