User talk:Pleasetry: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
I'm taking a [[wikibreak]] until the 4th or 5th, sorry for the inconvenience, but regarding [[Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom]] I haven't lost interest, just can't respond for a few days. Looking forward to catching up on the discussion in a few days. Regards, '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]]) <small>[[Template:talkback|talkback]] (etc) template appreciated.</small> 15:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
I'm taking a [[wikibreak]] until the 4th or 5th, sorry for the inconvenience, but regarding [[Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom]] I haven't lost interest, just can't respond for a few days. Looking forward to catching up on the discussion in a few days. Regards, '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]]) <small>[[Template:talkback|talkback]] (etc) template appreciated.</small> 15:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Suzuki Inazuma 250]] == |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]] |
|||
The article [[Suzuki Inazuma 250]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]  because of the following concern: |
|||
:'''Unremarkable motorcycle.''' |
|||
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Suzuki Inazuma 250|the article's talk page]]. |
|||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Hello71|Hello71]] ([[User talk:Hello71|talk]]) 03:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Rob Douglas == |
== Rob Douglas == |
Revision as of 22:36, 21 August 2013
Welcome
|
I'm taking a wikibreak until the 4th or 5th, sorry for the inconvenience, but regarding Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom I haven't lost interest, just can't respond for a few days. Looking forward to catching up on the discussion in a few days. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Rob Douglas
Re your de-prod and comment "We can just find new links". Please do. I tried and couldn't find anything which wikipedia would consider a reliable source--Scott Mac 12:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Men's Issues
Ranze proposed a WikiProject Men's Rights: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights.
I have gone ahead and created a candidate page for WikiProject Men's Issues and will make the page an actual WikiProject page once enough people sign up and give their input. I think it would be useful to have a place where work together to prepare material and arguments to respond to people who try to apply double standards to articles about men's rights.
Interested? Ummonk (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This block is made pursuant to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation and gives you limited appeal rights. You also cannot be unblocked by another administrator except pursuant to the procedures spelled out on the probation page. In addition to edit warring, the sanction is imposed based on your incivility and your assumptions of bad faith in reverting User:Slp1 with an accusation of vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Pleasetry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The blocker automatically assumed the block was in bad faith instead of expediency and hasn't held others to the same standard. I would expect the blocker to have looked at the subject a little more and be asking why the revert from [[User:Slp1]] was justified in the first place? [[User:Pleasetry|Pleasetry]] ([[User talk:Pleasetry#top|talk]]) 22:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=The blocker automatically assumed the block was in bad faith instead of expediency and hasn't held others to the same standard. I would expect the blocker to have looked at the subject a little more and be asking why the revert from [[User:Slp1]] was justified in the first place? [[User:Pleasetry|Pleasetry]] ([[User talk:Pleasetry#top|talk]]) 22:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=The blocker automatically assumed the block was in bad faith instead of expediency and hasn't held others to the same standard. I would expect the blocker to have looked at the subject a little more and be asking why the revert from [[User:Slp1]] was justified in the first place? [[User:Pleasetry|Pleasetry]] ([[User talk:Pleasetry#top|talk]]) 22:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}