Jump to content

User talk:Isotelus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Isotelus (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
I did '''NOT''' vandalize the page. I believe the verson I revert to is by far the best.
I did '''NOT''' vandalize the page. I believe the verson I revert to is by far the best.
Today I nominated the page for deletion, so a real discussion could take place, as opposed to the bogus "Speedy keep" that was used to stifle debate March 4. The page with the reversion notice was deliberately reverted by Bucketsofg to hide the fact that the deletion isssue is not settled. [[User:Isotelus|Isotelus]] 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Today I nominated the page for deletion, so a real discussion could take place, as opposed to the bogus "Speedy keep" that was used to stifle debate March 4. The page with the reversion notice was deliberately reverted by Bucketsofg to hide the fact that the deletion isssue is not settled. [[User:Isotelus|Isotelus]] 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

: See Isotelus' [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=42262923 first], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=42334734 second], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=42565847 third] edits to [[Rachel Marsden]]. All blank large portions of content. [[User:Wiederaufbau|Wiederaufbau]] 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:00, 7 March 2006

1. Hi Isotelus, and welcome! Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Rachel Marsden. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thanks! Wiederaufbau 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Hello again. Please stop blanking large portions of Rachel Marsden. It is considered vandalism. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wiederaufbau 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. If you disagree with the inclusion of some sections in the Rachel Marsden article and want them removed, take it up on the talk page and explain to the other contributors why they should not be included. Simply blanking material will lead to reversions and most likely treated as vandalism. Ianking 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wiederaufbau 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I did NOT vandalize the page. I believe the verson I revert to is by far the best. Today I nominated the page for deletion, so a real discussion could take place, as opposed to the bogus "Speedy keep" that was used to stifle debate March 4. The page with the reversion notice was deliberately reverted by Bucketsofg to hide the fact that the deletion isssue is not settled. Isotelus 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Isotelus' first, second, and third edits to Rachel Marsden. All blank large portions of content. Wiederaufbau 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]