User talk:Bay17832

I have removed material from Thomas Fouhy that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use Wikipedia to carry on outside campaigns or construct articles that contain unreferenced negative material. Please review our policy on biographies, which you will find here. If you infringe this again, you will be banned from this site. All material on Wikipedia must be neutral verifiable and attributed to reliable sources This is a first and final warning.--Doc^g 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Fouhy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fouhy.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

About Giles and Vezelis

For reference, if an article has been nominated for deletion you should place your opinion on whether it should be deleted or kept in its AFD entry. Furthermore, I should like to point out that the views of Vezelis and Giles are irrelevant to whether or not their articles should be kept--one of the things Wikipedia warns about is to be careful editing pages for people that you know closely. Finally, and I cannot emphasize this enough, anything you put in to a biographical article needs to be independently sourced. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't delete the pages. I nominate them for deletion, other members of the community debate whether they should be deleted, and if there is a consensus then an administrator deletes the page. There was no consensus reached when I nominated the Vezelis page, therefore it is kept by default. I will be renominating the page when I get the chance. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in All Bold

It's better if you don't. Bold is supposed to be used for emphasis (like that). It's almost as bad as using all caps to use all bold. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello?

I don't think Wikipedia supports private messages. We can just use my talk page. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; an admin needs to approve deleting articles. The way Wikipedia works is that interested users debate and decide whether or not to keep it. If you really want them gone, you can suggest a speedy deletion for the pages which you created--an admin may decide he agrees with you. Otherwise, one will drop by in about five days to a week and make a decision based on the debate. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing you should know is that blanking pages, even those nominated for deletion, is considered vandalism. I believe there *may* be an exception for pages that you have created, BUT I'd really rather just let this work through the process. These will probably be deleted anyway. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me to say. An admin will decide based on the debate. If no consensus is reached I'll be renominating them. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was reached on the Vezelis article, which means its staying for now. That means that I'm taking it as my job to keep it NPOV, which means that I'm reverting it to my version. If you have any specific issues with my edits, list them on the talk page and we'll try to get a consensus for how the article should read. I still maintain that Bishop Vezelis does not meet notability standards, and I will likely be renominating the article in a while. However, until that point it is going to be NPOV and referenced.

Lastly, a matter of format for your comments. If you use four tildes (~), it will auto-sign your post--which means that you don't have to sign your name yourself. I recommend hitting "Preview" before you post. Finally, please stop commenting in all bold. As I mentioned before, bold is for emphasis--use it sparingly. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. Anyway I'm putting Vezelis et. al. into WP:WikiProject Catholicism, which should get more editors. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Jose Rodriguez (bishop)

I stumbled across these edits while I was looking through entries for various traditionalist bishops, and I was appalled to see the contents of the page. What you had posted there was libelous. That you persisted in keeping that material there despite several reverts is inexcusable. Anything you put in a biography of a living person must be reputably sourced, especially anything negative. Furthermore, all articles, but again, especially those about living people, must maintain a neutral point of view. If you make any edits like this again in the future I will have no choice but to report you to an administrator. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]