User talk:Tcla75

A tag has been placed on Bcjghdjdg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

copyright violation of its source

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Metropolitan90 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pat Cotter

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pat Cotter, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.patrickcotter.ie.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

I would like to request an apology from you for the accusation of vandalism which you levelled at me. I explained the reason for my revert quite carefully and sufficiently in my edit summary. You in turn reverted my edit without explanation and then accused me of vandalism. That was assuming bad faith and an ill-considered accusation of impropriety. It was an unfair attack which contributed to an uncivil environment. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have provided links that he is a serial killer you have provided your personal opinion. Until anyone can provide proof that invalidate the links I have provided then I will revert their Vandalism. Tcla75 (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of serial killers by country. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)