User talk:Mammique
Hello Mammique and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
I removed your addition about the 1905 law to the section on religion in France... for this law was already mentioned in the first paragraph of the section. David.Monniaux 09:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sharism, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://sharism.org.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is under CC-BY, I wrote it in the comment.--Mammique (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sharism
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sharism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ravenswing 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
July 2012
[edit]
Your recent editing history at 2012 phenomenon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I reverted my own edit… Does it count? I guess it shouldn't… --Mammique (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't count, but another user said that you were reverting him multiple times on that article. Since I wasn't 100% sure, I should've used the softer version, but it is formatted for newbies. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC).
- I wasn't reverting, he/she reverted my commit (with arguments: didn't want blogs nor youtube as source), so fixed the sources in new commits, it wasn't exactly reverting. The only real revert I made was against my own ommit (because I checked "minor edit", but it wasn't, so I reverted it and recommited without the flag). --Mammique (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the future, if you want to add something substantial like that, may I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page first? This article is featured, which means additions have to be carefully vetted and sourced before addition, and also very controversial, so it's best to work things out in discussion beforehand. Serendipodous 10:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll do that when I can find some time to dive in the discussion page. --Mammique (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the future, if you want to add something substantial like that, may I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page first? This article is featured, which means additions have to be carefully vetted and sourced before addition, and also very controversial, so it's best to work things out in discussion beforehand. Serendipodous 10:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't reverting, he/she reverted my commit (with arguments: didn't want blogs nor youtube as source), so fixed the sources in new commits, it wasn't exactly reverting. The only real revert I made was against my own ommit (because I checked "minor edit", but it wasn't, so I reverted it and recommited without the flag). --Mammique (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't count, but another user said that you were reverting him multiple times on that article. Since I wasn't 100% sure, I should've used the softer version, but it is formatted for newbies. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC).
You contributed to The Corbett Report article created 27 March, 2013 but on 10 November, 2015 it was nominated for and was deleted. I was unaware of that deleted article when I started a new Draft:James Corbett (journalist) on 19 May, 2016 that was rejected. I've been revising it here and there since. Recent events spurred me on (feel free to ask me or watch this video then read the TCR comments section (not the YouTube comments) for the full disclosure of my involvement: https://www.corbettreport.com/what-i-learned-from-the-propornot-propaganda-list/ ). I discovered the deleted article and folded it into the new draft. Feel free to contribute as you like. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)