User talk:Kagiaras

August 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from London Stock Exchange. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --me_and (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to London Stock Exchange, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to London Stock Exchange. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Donald Duck (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to London Stock Exchange. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. me_and (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to London Stock Exchange has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. me_and (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed from London Stock Exchange[edit]

Hi,

I've reverted the content you removed from the London Stock Exchange article about the IRA bombing, as I don't believe it is unimportant. I've started a discussion on the talk page there if you disagree. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

You've also removed mention of The Source (sculpture) from the article, as it doesn't exist. Can you provide some source for this (perhaps a news article noting its removal)? I've looked and failed. Even if it doesn't exist, I'm not convinced all mention should be removed from the article, since it was a notable installation that received considerable news coverage when it opened. Again, I've started a discussion on the matter.

--me_and (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've just re-removed the content about the IRA bombing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and works best when we discuss disagreements rather than acting alone. I am about to restore this content; please discuss the matter before removing it again. You should also be aware of the three-revert rule. This is designed to stop articles suffering due to edit wars when editors should be discussing the issues. If you remove this content again, you may be blocked from editing the article. me_and (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your arguments above and I am really sorry that in some cases I have not provided an explanation as to what and why I did it. I am trying to update the LSE's wiki page. I have recently visited the Exchange and as far as "the source" is concerned it no longer exist. Also, instead of the picture of "the source" I would like to post another picture. I uploaded it normally and posted it on the article, however, after a period of time, a white image instead was shown. Am I doing something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagiaras (talk • contribs) 14:39, 19 August 2010

Thank you for trying to improve the LSE article. However, since you repeatedly undid the work of other editors without engaging in discussion on the matter, I have reported you for violating the three-revert rule I mentioned above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. However, regardless of the outcome of that report, if you're willing to discuss your disagreements with other editors in future, your assistance will be very much appreciated.

With regards to the specific issues I have with your changes to London Stock Exchange, I've raised my questions on the article's talk page. It's best to discuss issues relating to a specific article on that article's talk page, as then other editors can see the discussion as it goes on, can offer their opinions and advice, and can see the results of the discussion at a later date. If you could go there and comment on the issues I've raised, I'd be very grateful.

It's also useful if you can sign comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). This lets people see who's saying what in discussions.

I've not yet taken a look at your attempts to add the picture. I'll do so shortly and see what assistance I can offer.

--me_and (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at the edit where you added the image, and I can see the image you added perfectly. If you can't, I suspect it's because of a problem with your browser. The image, and the code adding it to the page, are both fine! me_and (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to add the image back (unless you ask me to), as I'm wary of falling foul of the three-revert rule myself. Do feel free to add it back yourself, however, as it works just fine. You should be able to do it easily using the undo link for the change where you removed it. 18:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please change the title of the Alternative Investment Market article to AIM only? This is how it is called nowadays. Thank you very much Kagiaras (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure for moving articles is explained at WP:MOVE. If you look there, that page should talk you through how to move a page yourself if the move would be uncontroversial, or how to propose a move in a case such as this where there may be objections. I'm not sure how much support there would be for a move in this case: since AIM already exists, the new article would have to be something like AIM (stock exchange).

Also, this is not the correct place to put such requests. I'm only responding because I noticed the edit on your talk page. If you want to talk about changes to an article, do so on the article's talk page, so in this case, Talk:Alternative Investment Market. Or, ideally, be bold and make the change you want to make. It might be reverted, but that action will attract the attention of other editors, so a new consensus can be reached, which may well be to make the changes. This is called the bold-revert-discuss cycle and is an important part of editing on Wikipedia.

--me_and (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at London Stock Exchange. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I feel it is correct to add information, especially on the markets of the LSE, highlighting what each provides to companies and investors. The most accurate description is available from the LSE's website to ensure all technical aspects are correct. However a brief summary of these can be inlcuded rather than the full website description}}.Kagiaras (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

This very short block has expired. However, make sure your edits are WP:NOTHOWTO and are 100% reliably sourced. Follow the bold, revert, discuss model because if consensus says your edits do not stay, then do not re-add them

Request handled by: (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.