User talk:Mohrahit

Spam in Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: VP Approval
Hi there. I've removed your name from the Vandal Proof application list, because you have only made 18 edits in total, including the one to make your application. As was clearly stated on the application page, "you will need to have over 250 mainspace edits" before access will be granted to this program. I encourage you to start fighting vandalism using the normal Wikipedia interface, and re-apply for this tool once you have the required number of edits.

ChrischTalk

Ragging
I have replied in my talk - Tiswas (t) 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi - I have retagged the article with OR - The article suffers as it appears to be an essay. The goal is to produce succinct prose that adheres to three simple rules:
 * No original research- e.g. it's not enough to write the 2+2=4, even if you know it to be true - you have to write that 2+2=4 because a reliable source says that it is so
 * Neutrality, in that it is not your point of view, but a reflection of the general consensus point of view
 * Verifiability - every single claim must be backed up (citing claims correctly makes it easier for the reader to verify the information themselves)
 * Once those policies (which are not open to negotiation) are satisfied, the article can be assessed for style - e.g. the use of block quotes, headings & sections etc... WP:WIAGA covers this better than I can. - Tiswas (t) 10:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)