User talk:10001

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia Signpost. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chick Publications

Please stop reverting to your edits. First, the claim that jihad is a holy war against unbelievers isn't a controversial claim; secondly, not only is 'Mormons' not an insulting name (and Mormons didn't exist 2,000 years ago), but your replacement is wrongly spelt and capitalised); thirdly, there's nothing wrong with et al. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'Mormon' is at least as common a designation

yes, but it is not the same as LDS

Given that the term 'Church of the Latter Day Saints' was spelt correctly on the next line, I really don't understand why you couldn't spell it correctly (I mean: 'church later day saints'...)

spelling isn't my thing

What do you have against the perfectly correct et al.?

I didn't understand what it meant 'til I studied psychology at 14

One of the common uses of the term 'jihad' amongst Muslims is holy war. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

its a claim...

Spelling may not be 'your thing', but on Wikipedia you should make an effort, and certainly not revert other people's corrections of your spelling. That's beginning to look like vandalism rather than editing on the basis of genuine disagreement. If you persist I shall list you on the Vandalism in Progress page.

threats? i reverted the spelling because you *also* removed jihad

The fact that you didn't understand a term until you were fourteen is irrelevant to its use on Wikipedia.

plain english - they mean the same, yet one is understood by lots more people

With regard to 'Mormon' and 'jihad', if you can't be bothered to explain your point properly, it doesn't seem to be important enough to you to continue making the changes. Mel Etitis (<fontcolor="green">Μελ Ετητης) 14:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

some muslims think holy war, others inner strugle, chick thinks holy war against christians, let by vatican...an non-politically correct position

You are allowed to revert an article three times in twenty-four hours; more, and you're blocked from editing. I have tried to compromise, changing 'mormon' to LDS, but you continue to wholesale revert my edits, including my correction of your misspelling. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's okay to disagree with people, but don't change reports to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress to change your name into that of your accuser. People will think you have something to hide, which may result in you being taken less serious. If you want to complain just add another entry. Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

The Talk page is, well, the Talk page of whichever article you're editing. In this case, it's Talk:Chick Publications. It's where controversial issues are discussed. I've explained there why I deleted your sentence (though my edit summary said it clearly enough; it simply repeated what had already been said). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please explain your edits on the Talk page; don't just revert edits wholesale with nothing but an edit summary making vague claims about PoV vandalism. If you think that any of the changes are PoV, explain why; you then stand a chance of garnering support for your position. As it is, your actions are going to lead to nothing but a revert war, which is pointless, and may well lead to the page being protected. or yourself being blocked from editing. None of us wants that, so come and talk. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) you remove 1/3 of the page, material fully supported with links, that is vandalism - removing non-point of view material

Get a grip, 10001

I know you want to present your material to me, but you just vandalized (unintentionally, I assume) my user page. Protection gives you and the other an opportunity to hash out what goes and what stays, and where. I'm sure you can make an argument for your point of view other than by reverting. If you can't, you will be inevitably shut out, and probably blocked. Also, you must learn to sign your comments with ~~~~. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 12 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 06:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Appropriately unblocked by User:Neutrality. Geni, it would have been better if you had investigated this and also notified this user before blocking. This situation was already being handled. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sent_to_lake.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Sent_to_lake.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sent to lake.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Sent to lake.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]