User talk:Mobus

Hi Mobus,

Your account seems to have been used to vandalize the dyslexia page. You may want to see if anyone has access to your account. By the way, this page is often vandalized by people putting misspellings in, not very original and quite boring.--Vannin (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to African American. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page 2008 Republican National Convention 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): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' (link(s): http://brvanlanen.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/mccain-nomination-not-a-lock/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

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. 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) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page 2008 Republican National Convention do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

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): rule: '\bmediamatters\.org' (link(s): http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110005) .

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. 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) 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RNC article sources

As I mentioned, blog posts are generally not considered good sources for an encyclopedia article and I don't see why the sources you've added for your questionable statements on 2008 Republican National Convention are any different. I strongly recommend this essay as being a good read on the reasoning behind it; and I particularly disagree with you replacing reputable news agency sources with blog references to support your point of view. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I honestly don't intend to spend time disproving your sources, in my opinion the idea behind "reliable sources" is that the facts you obtain from them shouldn't need proving. While those blog posts are quite possibly factual (I'm really not disputing that) it's very hard to tell due to the unreliable source of the facts. I have no particular personal interest in the topic of the RNC, given that I don't even live in the appropriate country - I'm just quite wary of leaving content I don't consider to be necessarily trustworthy. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]