If you spot content on this site that is genuinely illegal or actually puts someone in real danger, contact [email protected]. We have multiple agents reviewing tickets 24/7. Note that we try to maintain as much transparency as possible, both about ourselves and of the actions of Wikipedians. For example, if we removed a live link to CSAM content that was posted by a Wikipedia admin, we would replace it a placeholder like "<link to CSAM that was posted by Demiurge1000 redacted by Undersight>". Note that "I don't like it" is NOT a valid removal reason.

If instead you are a Wikipedophile trying to get all the dark secrets of Wikipedia censored, please follow this guide instead.

If you would like to contact the owner of this about something else (e.g. press inquires, feature requests, bug reports), e-mail [email protected] or [email protected].

Difference between revisions 59411200 and 62835997 on enwiki

< previous diff

next diff >

Talk:Kola Boof

{{Template:Blp}}⏎
What's the deal with the bizarro picture?  It looks like a last-known-photo type photo. And this is the one that she herself uploaded to wikipedia? This isn't MySpace...There has to be a better one to use that shows the subject of the article more clearly.
[[User:Shamrox|Shamrox]] 16:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(contracted; show full)EDIT: I started a "Request for comment" page concerning Fermico2 and their actions [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fermico2|here]].  Please add to it if you feel you can.

[[User:Shamrox|Shamrox]] 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hagiograffiti. - [[User:Xed|Xed]] 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is still such a press-release sounding joke.  I'm glad someone else agrees and added the NPOV tag.
[[User:Shamrox|Shamrox]] 09:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
⏎
⏎
== 2nd revert war, open dialogue, to review edits to reach consensus ==
I opened a dialogue on [[User:Dash10|Dash10]] [[User talk:Dash10|talk page]] to try to see why the user reverts consistently to a May 5, 2006 last reversion by Fermico2, with no explanation.  I suggested that Dash10 has the burden of explanation, given that all the user's edits contain no edit summary, and consist entirely of unexplained reversions to the Fermico2 reversion of that date. 

Since Dash10's reversion edits amount mostly to a large amount of deletions of sections, of detail, of wikilinks, and of source reference citations added by myself and by others, over more than two months, I am basing my argument, that Dash10 has the burden of explanation, on this Wikipedia standard, here, [[Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...]], which says:

<blockquote>"'''Deleting without justifying'''. Deleting anything that isn't trivial requires some words of justification in the edit summary or on the talk page. If the justification is presented on the talk page, you can simply write "See talk:" in the edit summary box."</blockquote>

Throughout this consensus process I am trying to achieve here, I have come across the following standards that should be adhered to in the dialogue and edit process, for future reference:

*[[Wikipedia:3RR]]
*[[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette]]
*[[Wikipedia:The_perfect_article]]
*[[Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles]]
*[[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons]]
*[[Wikipedia:Autobiography]]
*[[Wikipedia:Vanity]]
*[[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]], 2. Self Promotion
*[[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy]]

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Notable_Wikipedian

I am waiting for response here, but I think the "Deletion without justifying" policy might be appropriate for the next reversion of Dash10's last May 5 version revert.

All content in the above text box is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license Version 4 and was originally sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=62835997.

This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.