User talk:LindaWarheads

Welcome!

Hello, LindaWarheads, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ton e 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson College shooting[edit]

Hi, I know your move of the article Dawson College shooting to Dawson College massacre was in good faith, but before making such a change, you should at least discuss it with other editors on the talk page. I have seen no media reports calling it the "Dawson College massacre" yet (unlike the "Columbine massacre"). ♠ SG →Talk 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you've decided to move the article REGARDLESS of what others are saying on Talk:Dawson_College_massacre#Dawson_College_massacre. Including me, there are three users opposing your move: two registered users and one anonymous. Stop moving the article. ♠ SG →Talk 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, My last revert was not a vandal -- see grammatical fixes to, for instance, victim conditions. e.g., the victim's name is not in a coma but that is how the sentence reads.janis 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Please remove +cats or article shows up ==[edit]

I see your busy in other topics also. Can you explain the reason to remove category information?

Is there some rule being violated or just your personal viewpoint?

ArmedCitizen 08:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC) - What?==[reply]

what are you referring to ?

LindaWarheads 10:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed category tags more than once. Have you any justification?

Or is it an inconvenience to see articles you don't like listed in some "favorite" category?

ArmedCitizen 11:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories from where ? You have to identify the article so I know what you are yapping about. Thanks LindaWarheads 11:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ArmedCitizen/Sandbox&action=history

As I suspected, you’ve made indiscriminate changes without justification.

I see your busy with "Dawson" changing locations and correcting grammar errors.

Important techniques needed within WikiWorld?

ArmedCitizen 11:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what are you referring to ? LindaWarheads 10:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories from where ? You have to identify the article so I know what you are yapping about. Thanks LindaWarheads 11:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you pose questions on my talk page and then revert my answers on your talk page ? Anyway, your sandbox article had +categories on it and causing your sandbox article to show up in the +category. Of wikipedia article should not show up in the +categories, so I removed the +cats from your sandbox article and mentioned that in the edit summary line. Please do not post any further comments to my talk page. LindaWarheads 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this exchange was prompted by you and started here in your Usertalk page when I discovered who removed items.

You removed the category section without any message explaining your justification. Now your acting as a vandal and hide this evidence of your actions.

I’ll ask someone in authority to give proper direction to your actions and define which rules apply.

Attempts to hide your actions are not adult either.

In my world you give reasons for actions and not hide them as a thief in the night.

ArmedCitizen 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem removing categories from an article on the user space. Your article being a sandbox, it shouldn't show on the said categories before being published. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the "Peer Review"?

Do you have any authority as a vandal protector?

ArmedCitizen 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK OK! This has got a bit out of hand here!

First off, I'm a member of the Vandalism Control Network, I'm a long-term recent changes patroller and new pages patroller. I'm a member of the counter-vandalism unit and so on. I hope you count this as "peer review".

Right, when you add [[Category:Missouri]] to a page, the page you added it to is automatically listed at the corresponding category list. So when you add [[Category:Missouri]] to a page, it is also listed at Category:Missouri.

In this edit LindaWarheads removed the categories from your sandbox page so your sandbox wouldn't be listed on the category lists. LindaWarheads gave an edit summary of "(Please remove +cats or article shows up)".

If your editing an article in your sandbox and you want to add categories to it, your best off using [[:Category:Missouri]] instead of [[Category:Missouri]]. This way the sandbox wont be added to the corresponding category list. Then, when you've finished the article and you're ready to create the article proper, simply remove the ":" from the category tags and create your article.

ArmedCitizen, with regard to your comments above:

LindaWarheads did not make indiscriminate changes without justification. As LindaWarheads provided an edit summary, this is justification enough.
In my opinion, LindaWarheads did not act as a vandal and hide evidence of her actions.

I hope this ends the matter. If you don't feel it does please see WP:DR.

Also, please remember to be civil and assume good faith.

--Casper2k3 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Casper for the information & duly noted.

Whenever I make an edit I always inform the 'author' on the discussion page of my intent before making the change(s). This person fails to offer such considerations before editing or moving pages. Its not a rule but polite behavior should be infectious.

Keep up your good work.

ArmedCitizen 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More like ArmedCitizen is a new editor and doesn't know the rules. Anyway, I advised you once not to post anymore to talk page, if it happens again, I will report it as vandalism and you can explain yourself to the admins. Bye don't come back! LindaWarheads 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a tragic waste of education. Blame the pencil for spelling errors.

GrumpyAC 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School massacres in Germany[edit]

I'm presuming that you were requesting that to be deleted as the only author. Subject to that assumption I have deleted it. JoshuaZ 02:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian people[edit]

Just a "heads up" on this cat. Most of the articles you tagged are already in a sub-cat such as Canadian missionaries. The page comes with the following advice:

"This page lists articles on people from Canada. Most articles are filed within the subcategories listed here. Only articles that cannot fit an appropriate subcategory should be filed in the main category."

Anyway, Happy editing! Stormbay 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bare-knuckle boxers[edit]

Why are you including glove fighters like Sam Langford, Tiger Jack Fox, Harry Wills, and George Godfrey as bare-knuckle boxers, when these guys weren't bare-knuckle fighters. Shouldn't you stick to including only boxers of the pre-marquis of Queensberry era?--Matt1978 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ E-mail us:

 + ana@rusk.ru 
 + esm@rossia3.ru 
 + kontakt@edrus.org 
 + kruglov_ag@ukr.net  
 + pravaya@pravaya.ru 
 + rg@rusk.ru 
 + sevkrimrus@narod.ru 
 + sevkrimrus@ya.ru 
 + sevrus@narod.ru

Tom Paddock[edit]

Hi, just to let you know that yesterday I added an article for Tom Paddock, who is on your list of boxers. Feel free to improve the article any way you can. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of bare-knuckle boxers[edit]

The article List of bare-knuckle boxers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The cyberboxingzone notability is in question

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 175.176.0.5 (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]