User talk:Cmart1

Welcome!

Hello, Cmart1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hirhome

Hi Cmart1, I've noticed you're adding links to Gil-White's articles on many pages. Gil-White's articles don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements because they're self-published on his website, rather than being published in a noteworthy publication. Also, his website is, in his admission, a conspiracy theory site, meaning it's not appropriate for encyclopedia articles, which by definition must conform to mainstream expert opinion. Gil-White's academic credentials can't be used as an argument for including his articles, in fact they're one more argument against including his articles, as he was fired from his position because of his fringe views etc.--Nectar 21:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (Understand, I think Gil-White seems like a nice guy, but the articles aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia.)--Nectar 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please stop spamming Wikipedia with links to Gil-White's blog. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jpgordon, I think we agree about blogs being inappropriate for wikipedia; however, Historical and Investigative Research is not a blog. It is a collection of diligently referenced investigative articles on historical issues, written by a respected social scientist. I encourage you to check out the wikipedia entry for blog, where you’ll find a list of typical blog characteristics such as: reverse chronological entries listed one above the other (with permalinks to the full article), comments, and trackback features. Hirhome does not have these blog features, and blogs don't have the large amounts of references and footnotes that go into every hirhome article. I think we can both agree that without heavy reliance on sourced documentation, investigative and/or ecyclopedic writing is nothing more than POV (blogs typically fall into this category). Hirhome remains NPOV by letting evidence speak for itself though the extensive inclusion of and relience on sourced documentation. Read a hirhome article and you will see this for yourself. I’m concerned about your singular discrimination against hirhome links. Above the hirhome link you deleted in Terrorism against Israel was another link entitled One Israeli's point of view: see a wealth of articles on terrorism and Israeli society's feelings and opinions. This link is clearly a blog, and yet you left it alone. This leads me to believe that you are mining pages to delete hirhome links without paying any attention to the surrounding entries. If you were really concerned about blogging on wikipedia like you say you are, then why are you going after hirhome, which is much more scholarly than a typical blog (according to wiki’s own guidelines)- and then letting clear examples of blogs stay up? It is hard for me to assume good faith given this point. Also, given the pace at which you deleted the links, I’m guessing you didn’t even look at them. If you had, for example, read the linked article on anti-semitism, you would have seen that it was simply cataloging a clear example of modern anti-semitism displayed recently by the magazine The Economist. In this regard, the link was no different from the other external links that give examples of anti-Semitism. Cmart 02:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's fine for external links to advocate one side of a debate, the Hirhome articles seem to generally be somewhat misleading by completely ignoring the other side. Also, the highly combative and dismissive style of the author makes the articles seem less professional than the articles generally linked to from an encyclopedia. I've reviewed some of the problems with the Hirhome online book Resurrecting Racism here: Talk:Race_and_intelligence#RR2. I think editors in other topics should use their discernment regarding the quality of those Hirhome articles.--Nectar 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Purportedly linguistic apes

Hi. I responded to your concerns on my talk page and on the category talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bushra Khalil

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bushra Khalil, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not notable other than a single incident. Probably somewhat notable years ago but last impact a concern. At best, possibly a redirect to Trial of Saddam Hussein.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bushra Khalil

I have nominated Bushra Khalil, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushra Khalil. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]