User talk:Notaperm

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alan Davies, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ISD (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop - Thank you

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Alan Davies. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe that the fact you keep deleting is wrong, please discuss it on the article's talk page. If you have any reliable sources to prove that is wrong, display them on the article talk page where it can be discussed. It is also advised that users do not edit articles that are about themselves or projects they are working on. For more information, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Thank you. ISD (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ISD, You are not the arbiter of the "Alan Davies" page and if you insist on adding links to libellous newspaper articles then expect them to be removed.

Hi Notaperm, I agree the Daily Mirror isn't a reliable source, and you are correct to remove it. Addhoc (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Stopped

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and incivility. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Notaperm, I've unblocked your account. Addhoc (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Who do these people think they are? Is Wikipedia set up to smear and damage the reputations of people? Do they take some pleasure from it? If a newspaper article is libellous in one paper it does not make it acceptable just because a journalist from another more reliable paper copies it. There was a time when a newspaper was tomorrow's chip paper or cat litter lining but now Wikipedia is determined to keep the smears alive in perpetuity. Any attempts to insert humour in to a page about a comedian are edited out. It's ridiculous. There are scores of magazine or newspaper articles to link to if that is the role of an encyclopedia (it isn't of course). Why not leave the jokes in and the smears out?

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Alan Davies, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons noticeboard

The disputed section of Alan Davies is under discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, here. I hope you'll choose to contribute to that conversation. Wikipedia's editors try to ensure that articles remain fair and balanced, and the discussion would benefit from your perspective. We ask your help in keeping the conversation civil. Most of Wikipedia's editors are interested in working towards the creation of a verifiable, neutral encyclopedia, although sometimes we do disagree strongly about how to achieve that goal. Please "sign" your contributions to that discussion board or to other talk pages with four tildes (~~~~), which expands to display your username and a timestamp. This is very helpful for other editors in keeping conversations organized. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)