User talk:Mattun0211/Archive 1

A tag has been placed on Cargo systems, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TexMurphy 12:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Green Brigade, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Green Brigade was changed by Mattun0211 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.967487 on 2010-11-10T02:27:24+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Green Brigade. Thank you. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Green Brigade

Time to use the discussion board for this article to prevent any sanctions from wikipedia, just a heads up (i have left Adam4267 the same message incase you are wondering. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Banner

The problem with using a photograph from a file sharing site like imgur.com is that it is not reliably sourced. That means the reader has no idea where it came from, only your word that it is genuine, and nothing to say that it hasn't been altered. I'm not saying that this is what has happened here, but just that it is not up to Wikipedia standards and cannot be used as a cite. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Green Brigade, again

I have reverted your edit, here. Please don't continue down this path. First of all, it is pretty obvious that the BBC did some copyediting, which they shouldn't have. Secondly, you shouldn't do that either. You can't correct some spelling in a quote and then say "oh, it was misspelled." Furthermore, you comment that the banner featured a spelling error is in itself commentary--your remark, "The word bloodstained was misspelt as bloostained," is hardly an accurate summary or even one of the main points of the article. Leave it as it is; find other areas in the article, or other articles, to work on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads Up

This may interest you here and here. Not that i care much for the both of you but when one user points the finger at the other when they themselves are being extremely hypocrytical of their actions it annoys me, and so does asking for administrative intervention when they do not inform the other user. Refrain from anything that can be construed as personal and dont bow down to efforts to get you into a slagging match on [1]. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mattun, I saw your reply to the Monkeyman, and it pleases me. I think the project (and the article) would benefit if both of you tried to lay aside whatever personal animosity you think you may have. Often this is give and take, where you don't get to take something until you give something. I'm not about to follow up on Omar's request to look into your edits and attitudes, and I think that if they think about it twice they'd rather forgive and forget also. Let's all try to pretend that the other is right though we know that really we are right, and move right along. Both of you, I think, are productive editors and will be even more productive if you get past this. Perhaps a joint project would be helpful--Bacon chips is dying to be written and to be featured as a DYK. All the best, Drmies (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply

An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value. Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,

Avoid linking plain English words. Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions. Avoid linking common units of measurement, and dates As a rule of thumb, link on first reference only. Do not link to a page that redirects back to the page the link is on

Thats what wikipedia says about it. Basically on the article in question Celtic F.C. had already been linked to the relevant article, within quite close proximity, therefore should not be linked to again. As it states rule of thumb link on first reference only. Longer articles can have exceptions where the same link is made more than once but rarely. Featured and good articles are a good example of this e.g. The Beatles. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:PlainOfJarsView.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:PlainOfJarsView.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Celtic FC

Hey there, please take care at Celtic F.C.. The stuff you have been removing is clearly sourced, and these sections are under active discussion. In particular, I think you have tried to give way too much weight to one study on the subject, with lengthy quotes - please see WP:UNDUE. You have made two reverts already in quick succession. Please be aware of WP:3RR. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You've reverted 5 times in a very short time. When you eventually started discussing it, you continued reverting before anyone replied to your talk post. Please revert yourself - I don't want to get into an edit war by doing it myself. If you don't, I will report it. --hippo43 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

6 reverts in 25 hours is getting ridiculous. Please stop. --hippo43 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Report

I have reported you here for your edit warring on the Celtic page and your edits and threats in the past on the Green Brigade page. Adam4267 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mulberry tea

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mulberry tea, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.raysahelian.com/mulberry.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• • OK I'll edit to reflect that.

Green Brigade

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Green Brigade. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Please be civil

What I find far more bizarre is you feeling insulted by me saying what I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quindie (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't taking it personally. No need to worry. Just slightly taken aback at the word choice of "be civil".

And I didn't the first time I was on your talk page, because I was in a rush, but every time I do press ~ ~ ~ ~, it never works properly. Quindie 11:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quindie (talk • contribs)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_seriously_disruptive_case_of_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Centre for Public Policy Analysis

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Centre for Public Policy Analysis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Laos

The removal is completely justified. You may behave well and should not revert others' edits without reasons. Also do not add maligning data to a country's page (It is you who added that maligning stuff to that page, Laos). Also noted your misbehaviour towards Quindie. Please co-operate with fellow wikipedians to make wikipedia more useful than engaging fights with them. 122.176.58.109 (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)