What are your reasons for deleting the fact that Coulter is a constitutional attorney? Awaiting your reply,
Paul Klenk 07:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Please stop deleting valid data and inserting your own POV. Zoe 08:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
We probably share the same feelings about this woman, but if you're going to make controversial edits, you should probably discuss them on the Talk page first. Zoe 08:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Until she's disbarred, she's still an attorney, whether she practices or not. Zoe 08:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
You're not removing it from the first paragraph, you're removing it from the entire article. And I already told you, discuss it on the Talk page. Zoe 08:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -Smahoney 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. «»Who?¿?meta 05:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the comment you left on my talk page, well, regardless of whether or not the movie is real, blanking the article is not the right way to go about things. If you can substantiate your claim, then mention the evidence on the article's talk page. If you're sure that it's a hoax, then you can also nominate the article according to the procedures outlined in WP:AFD. However, "blanking" articles will generally be treated as vandalism and quickly reverted. Worse, it will not convince anyone of your argument. Personally, I have no knowledge of the film/hoax, so you could very well be right - if so, then hopefully things can be resolved soon via an Afd nomination. On a related note, after seeing your edit summary, I feel I should point out that there should be no personal attacks. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 04:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, there has been more than enough discussion, and enough opposition to such a move to actually come and blast everyone's work. Be bold, but not reckless. I've reverted it back. Titoxd(?!?) 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi I really like the paragraph you entered but I also know it's going to get blasted for NPOV and also have these things[citation needed] plastered all over it. So would you mind changing it to something more like "Sigmond Freud, in analysis on human sexuality wrote . . . ." and then giving links to his writing where he said the rest of that stuff so it can stay in? CyntWorkStuff 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Percent.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Removing images from articles against the consensus of the participants could be considered vandalism. Please leave the picture alone on the anus article. Atom 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You removed a paragraph, claiming people can make their profile private. That doesn't change the article's points, and such a removal was uncalled for without discussion. Also, don't add WP:OR to the article (mainly about youtube links) -- Chris is me 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with the page Notre Dame Fighting Irish football on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Phydend 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Aerial tramway. Thank you. —EncMstr 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:6a00d8341d0dbb53ef00e54f33c1b98833-640wi.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:6a00d8341d0dbb53ef00e54f33c1b98833-640wi.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Lamrock, please get consensus for your removal at Islam in the United States if you desire to make it. Removing the first sentence of a lead is always a major edit, and one that should be discussed on the talk page. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)