User talk:Mike0001

Welcome
Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!-Andrew c [talk] 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Collectonian (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I have reinserted the image as it illustrates a point in the text.
 * I am surprised that you feel that Rough Collies are good working dogs, because they have a reputation for being lazy, and in fact as far as I am aware are never used as working dogs in the UK! They were superceded long ago by Border Collies for sheep herding.  Maybe things are different in the USA, in which case perhaps this distinction could be made. Mike0001 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then provide a source for it. You can't just claim "they are lazy" based on your personal assertion.  I've also removed the image, again.  The text barely discusses rough collie appearance at all, much less giving detailed discussion of the head shape, so no, it doesn't illustrate a point in the text. Collectonian (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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. HrafnTalkStalk 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Collectonian (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So what is unjustified and wrong about any of these other contributions? If you read the citations you would see that the same facts appear elsewhere on WP!


 * If you want to see LGS' pedigree I can provide it! Mike0001 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes re edits and dispute
Hi there. I know you're engaged in a dispute with Collectonian, but editing other users' personal pages as you did with regards to the above edit is not a constructive method of discussion. Please try to remain civil. If you'd like a suggestion on moving forward in dealing with the dispute, I'd highly recommend seeking out a third opinion or starting an article request for comment to gauge further consensus on the points of contention. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)



Hi again, Mike. I'm going to try and sort out the dispute on the Rough Collie page; if you could go to the talk page of the article and provide a brief summary of what you feel should be in the article and why, I'd appreciate it.

I'd also highly recommend that you stop making edits accusing Collectonian of vandalism and ownership of articles, such as those that have generated the above warnings. I know you're frustrated, but taking it out in those manners is counterproductive. Take a deep breath and try to remain civil when dealing with this kind of thing. I'll be asking Collectonian to take a step back as well. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source for historical details: http://www.crystalinks.com/ Hardyplants (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Which user do you mean? If it’s “Collectatonian” (excuse the spelling) I’d most certainly support on a block.Edito*Magica (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded there.  Mike0001 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI I can't edit properly at the moment, so won't be able to answer your query until later in the day. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Angel and 3rr
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Personally, I would suggest you revert yourself as a show of good faith, and start discussion on the talk page before you edit war. AniMate 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mike. Sorry I couldn't comment earlier, but my computer was doing strange things. Got it sorted now. As to your comments about the issues you're having editing, I agree with AniMate here: your best bet is, when someone reverts you on any page, go to the talk page and discuss what you want to enter in a calm, clear manner. Wikipedia's about consensus, and finding that consensus through discussion is the right way to go. Do give that some thought, and discuss before making lots of changes. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 01:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good advice and I have taken it. It does not answer the actions of some editors who immediately revert edits and mark them as vandalism though.  This is how edit wars start I guess?  To see one other editor's attempts at improvement marked as vandalism makes my blood boil!!!  Mike0001 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Final warning
If you continue to edit in a manner that ignores consensus and is disruptive, you are going to be blocked. Addhoc (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But all I am trying to do is to bring some NPOV here. I also described religious belief as psychotic.  Which is the problem? Mike0001 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:SOAP. Addhoc (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but then religion is one big soap box, so why promote it on WP? Every article about it serves to promote its POV. Mike0001 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing RFC templates
You do not need to edit a template in order to add it to a page. Each template contains instructions on how to add them to pages, usually by putting in it somewhere. Please stop editing templates and adding duplicate content to them. -- Good Damon 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the RfC template? The instructions said to edit the template.




 * You mean I don't need to edit this? Mike0001 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Block
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.


 * You don't appear to be directly blocked at this time; are you perhaps autoblocked, or blocked by IP address? – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't blocked. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fiction template
Hi, Please stop adding the fiction template to articles on religious subjects. You are clearly an atheist, but religious adherents do not regard tenets of their religions as fiction. So they should not be so categorized. Also, placement of such a cleanup template is usually accompanied by some discussion on the talkpage of the article, to discourage "drive-by tagging". Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Si dificile" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Si dificile and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)