User talk:Mosura

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Mosura, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --- ALM 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thank you for coming here. We need more editors to work in Islamic articles. I hope to see you contributing and happy to see your useful comments on Muhammad talk page. Wassalam. --- ALM 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any help then please feel free to ask me anytime. --- ALM 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching errors on the Muhammad article. Cheers, --Aminz 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello Mosura,

Can you please activate your email. Thanks --Aminz 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will send you an email later next week. Cheers --Aminz 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Benazir Bhutto. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 07:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I strongly object to your use of the term "vandalized". Just because editors make deletions with which you disagree does not constitute vandalism. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism to better understand the term. WWGB (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of an articulated legitimate reason, the repeated deletions of Clinton's remarks are vandalism, plain and simple. Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any legitimate reason". No legitimate reason has been articulated for the removal of Hillary Clinton's remarks. Nothing in Wikipedia restricts quotes of international reactions to heads of state. Clinton is unquestionably a notable person and her reaction to Bhutto's assassination currently is featured in 3,479 Google news articles: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+clinton&btnG=Search+News Mothra (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]