User talk:I Love it221

A tag has been placed on 4 Da Green Entertainment, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. CIreland 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Liberal vs. progressive, particularly regarding Media Matters for America
In general, because of policies such as WP:NPOV, we as editors avoid making value judgments about the words organizations use to describe themselves. Considering that they use the term "progressive" rather than "liberal", that's the term we use. Going through articles and changing all instances of "progressive" to "liberal" could be considered disruptive editing, because it does not improve the encyclopedia and it would just be necessary to for someone else go through and change all of them back. Please refrain from making these kinds of edits in the future. Croctotheface 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Allen3 talk 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Statsone  17:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. -- Statsone  14:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Croctotheface 05:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. --Allen3 talk 00:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Sean Hannity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Snowfire51 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Minor edits"
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)