User talk:Chris01720

Bundying (sexual)
Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Bundying (sexual)) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Hatch68 03:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have recently re-created the article Bundying (sexual), which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. -WarthogDemon 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the "prod" template to the article Bundying (sexual), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Bundying (sexual). You may remove the dated prod template, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Kinu t /c  07:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bundying (sexual)
Please do not repost this material, as that would be considered vandalism. (aeropagitica) 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Respect This Reasonable Request
I am sincerely trying to create NPOV in concern to political articles i.e. FNC. Whether or not your edits are relevant; they will always be immediately reverted if you do not first present them on a talk page. Similarities and differences aside, consensus is king. Please feel free to respond on my talk page or click on any of the links I have made available if you are unsure as to their meaning. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel -- revert

 * Blue Streak writer - Susan Estrich, liberal commentator, feminist advocate, professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California, known for her quick wit and humor.
 * Who says/decided she is known for her "quick wit and humor"? WP:OR


 * Though Fox News has the highest number of average viewers, it trails behind CNN in it's number of cumulative daily viewers. This discrepancy is due to the formula used to calculate the Nielsen ratings. The average Fox News viewer actively watches for a longer period than the average CNN viewer. Viewers that watch longer are weighed heavier in ratings than light viewers.
 * You're injecting your analysis of why ("This.. is due to"). Blatant original research.


 * Miscellaneous changes under the Ratings heading
 * We just discussed this change (and had seasoned editors object to it) on the talk page. You changed it anyway, ignoring consensus.


 * The liberal website MoveOn.org and the historically nonpartisan Common Cause claim Fox News' reports are "deliberately and consistently distorted and twisted to promote the Republican Party of the U.S. and an extreme right-wing viewpoint."
 * You're characterizing the organizations ("liberal", "historically nonpartisan"), violating WP:NPOV

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss your edits
I have looked at some of your recent edits. Some appear to be nonsense, and others do seem relevant. If you would like to discuss your recommended edits that have relevance to them, then, you can do so on your talk page, my talk page or by 'e-mailing' any editor. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 04:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Chris01720
I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Chris01720 Chris 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Anthony Kalloniatis.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anthony Kalloniatis.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  RΞDVΞRS ✖  ЯΞVΞЯSΞ  12:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anthony first gave permission for use on wikipedia (nothing was mentioned about other uses). I contacted him after the picture was removed and explained that he must release the photo for all uses.  I explained that it includes commercial and educational use; but I did not specifically say "GFDL" because I didn't think to include it.  Anthony responded and stated that he is allowing the photo to be used for any purpose.  I forwarded my email to Anthony and his responce to OTRS, if you would like, I can forward the email to you.  Could you let me know if I, or Anthony, need to do anything more in terms of license for the photo? Chris01720 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

White privilege
thanks for the support, although i prefer to stay anonymous. i will at least give it some thought. in the mean time, keep an eye on the article as I expect a certain amount of trolling and token denial. i'm not sure what strategy they will use, but I anticipate it. if nothing else, look out for people deleting or reverting without good reason. 67.70.12.163 11:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for you level headed comment at the deletion debate. It's good to have someone who knows the history of the article involved. futurebird 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)