Talk:Mauritanian Americans

Correction of item

The fact that they have corrected the spelling of the item or have changed some of the things I put on it because I interpreted them of wrong way, it is acceptable (and even praiseworthy), the only annoying was that, previously, were eliminated the most of the information I included it, elimination occurred several times, with the excuse that it had no sources, when the information yes have it and had been indicated in the article. So, I felt that the user was trying to delete my information looking for any excuse for it, although the excuse was not real. That's what won my rejection.--Isinbill (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You should read and study WP:AGF, stop being disruptive, and cease trying to exercise ownership of articles you edit. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Isinbill, I understand that you are doing your best to try to make this article better, however, please understand that other editors are only trying to do the same thing, and when you disagree with them, then that is an opportunity for everyone in discussion to gain a better understanding of each others views and of the policies and procedures of wikipedia. It is certainly necessary to be able to point at a source for any text you have added, however, it is not sufficient to have a source since only sources which are considered to be 'reliable' within the strict wikipedia definition of the word can be generally used. How about you can list on this page any particular facts which you think should be added and we can discuss whether sufficient sources might exist for that entry - we can then proceed on the basis agreement? How about it? --_nonsense ferret 02:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The problem was not if my references were reliable, I did not seem correct the removal of my information with the excuse that it had no reliable sources, when the information if had it and the user maintained these references but only for part of the article (the rest of the information, based on the same reference, were deleted with the excuse that they had no sources, when clearly you could see that yes). That's why I had the feeling that the just was using any excuse to remove my information. He can do that my information were understand and change things if my interpretation was wrong, but no eliminate my information with excuses not actual.... That's what I did not like. It is that what did that I had the feeling that that user was disruptive.--Isinbill (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mauritanian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012204839/http://mca-ohio.org/about.php to http://www.mca-ohio.org/about.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)