Welcome!

Hello, Lionelt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Good Shepherd Lutheran School, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Guy0307 (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Good Shepherd Lutheran School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable school

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Guy0307 (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Good Shepherd Lutheran School has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=34433734952).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not agree. I don't think the group in question is an official site. Guy0307 (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly the first one. I can't see how an alumni group on facebook is "official", but I'm not an expert on external links. Guy0307 (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No further objections. Guy0307 (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Lionelt. Please take a few minutes to get an overview of Wikipedia's community standards and protocols. We operate by consensus here. It's especially important to make sure of consensus support for substantive edits in content or tone to articles about contentious issues, such as Homosexual agenda. There is presently no consensus to support the edit you made to that article's lead, and so the edit has been reverted. NPOV is definitely a crucial piece of Wikipedia policy, but the edit you described as bringing neutrality to the lead in fact imposed a particular point of view. The present lead wording is the result of discussion and work over a very long time. Please join the discussion at Talk:Homosexual agenda if you feel the present lead needs substantial change. Thanks for editing coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Lionelt, I award you this "Citation" Barnstar for the work detailed in this talk page section. You found a reliable source citation for a particularly pivotal quotation. Inclusion of this (now well documented) quote improves the article immensely. Congratulations on your success, and keep up the good work! (sdsds - talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This warning is purely retaliatory because I reported this user to AN3 and he was sanctioned with a warning. Does anyone know if I can blank this? Lionelt (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also review Wikipedia:Consensus. Please note especially, "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." Your reversions of my edits lack reasons grounded in Wikipedia policies. Note especially that when unsourced material is in dispute, WP:BURDEN states that the burden of proof is on the person restoring material (you), not on the person removing material (me). --Dr.enh (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought along the same lines as you did with regards South Park episodes. There was a lenghty debate about the Season 1 episodes, the result of which was some impressive work done on both them and the most recent articles. Take a look at them, I was convinced that with the work done that far, the rest of the articles from the series could be brought up to the same standard. Alastairward (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hunter Kahn has been working to improve the articles at a pretty good pace. If you have access to good info databases Lexus/Nexus; Ebsco etc. you can help! It does appear that most South Park Episodes can be shown to have significant 3rd party coverage in reliable sources. Family Guy episodes, on the other hand, I am not so sure.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek has been around for long enough and has had such a fan base, that it's easier to establish it's notability, but as RedPen notes above, Hunter Kahn has been doing some great stuff with the early and later episodes. Alastairward (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted part of your comments on Talk:Traditional marriage movement, as you seemed to step over the line from discussing content to negatively discussing the actions of a given user in other threads. As per WP:PA, "Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI)." (emphasis mine) As per that same page, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor", which is what I have done. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that other folks working on other pages have disagreements with the actions of that user, it is not relevant to the concern which I raised. Posting as you did is not only against guidelines, it is against good strategy. Certainly, that sort of posting is not apt to convince the target of your accusations. By being the one who seems to "lose it" in the discussion, it's not the target of your anger who comes off looking unreasonable, it's you. A calm tone may be a challenge to maintain, but it tends to be more effective.

And to answer your other question -- no, I don't know how to draw in an administrator to lock out any edits - yours, his, or otherwise. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lionelt, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Garbage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints has been removed. It was removed by Windlake with the following edit summary '(deprod because this is a notable book)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Windlake before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Hi, please do not re-add disputed content against consensus. The items sourcing is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The New American reliable source and is this appropriate for Immigration Equality .28organization.29. It seems this isn't a a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the John Birch Society. Please revert yourself or I can see to it someone else assists in the removal of this material. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lionelt, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Action alert has been removed. It was removed by Benjiboi with the following edit summary '(action alerts are a pretty common device used by dozens if not hundreds or organizations, no need to delete this)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Benjiboi before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Above all else, go to the talk page. It seems like the talk page should always be open to you to voice you concerns. If you think that anything particularly disruptive is afoot give me a shout, You can also request a third party opinion on the matter without needing to edit the mainspace of the article. - Schrandit (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message at the above talk page, which you might like to check out. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even anonymous editors deserve respect. Please don't leave an edit summary like this again.[1] Thanks,   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]