User talk:PatriotBible

Welcome!

Hello, PatriotBible, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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! -andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 09:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicerosaurus

I appreciate your fervor, but I think it's a better idea to let the article stand for all to see, rather than to remove it. J. Spencer 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. L. Wysong

The R. L. Wysong article includes a review of his book. A single review normally isn't enough to save an article from being deleted, but it's often a strong hint that a second review probably could be found if one were to look long enough. Articles about creationists are potentially valuable to people trying to understand the creationist viewpoint, even if the person reading the article has a sound grasp of evolutionary biology. The fact that someone holds an incorrect belief is not itself reason to delete the person's article. It is possible for such an individual also to be a notable author. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't prod it because he's a creationist. He doesn't look notable, that's why its a prod and not an afd. Feel free to add to it. One book from 1974 of unknown origins and press is not convincing that he's notable. PatriotBible 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

Several bogus institutions from India have been using Wikipedia to promote themselves. None of them has government accreditation. However, their promoters are repeatedly reverting my edits and projecting these bogus institutions and diploma mills as genuine. These are:

Of these, the Serampore College is a bogus theological University and diploma mill. It has never been accredited by the University Grants Commission or other government accrediting agencies in India.

Noticing your stand against diploma mills and bogus institutions, I request your help in keeping an eye on them. The Hermes 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll keep an eye. I also contacted an adminstrator to watch them as well. PatriotBible 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are simply reverting my posts about this Fake University without furnishing proof. The Hermes 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned Gbrpradeep that if he does not start engaging with other editors he will be blocked for disruption. Please review the articles for bias and uncited puffery. Remember that Indians use English very differently, much standard Indian phrasing looks quaint or excessively deferential to us, that is just their way, but the articles have obvious bias. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see my latest additions to [1] The Hermes 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the strange campaign against Serampore College - which appears to be completely without foundation - I think User The Hermes has his facts wrong and is pushing an odd line. As an Admin' I am watching it all with interest - particularly if we start seeing biased POV pushing. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think once you give him evidence, he'll stop. PatriotBible 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly come to my talk page [2] where it seems an editor seems to be threatening me for stating the facts. Wikipedia is known for exposing Diploma mills and bogus universities. This is exactly what I have done, and now I am being attacked for that. Please check the bottom section of the talk page. The information given by Brookie is only half truth. The theology division is NOT accredited. The Hermes 07:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR on Institute for Creation Research

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Institute for Creation Research. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Although I think you're in the right, and I'm not sure the reversions of the now-semi-blocked anon count, please be careful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken the rule and the user making new edits has only editted two articles. PatriotBible 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude when an administrator is being kind to you and gracious enough to give you a warning, you shouldn't go around telling him he's wrong. You made 5 reverts. He was being very generous. 66.75.8.138 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dude" stop playing games. Earsed his talk pages. PatriotBible 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page erasure

People are allowed to remove warnings once they've read them, but editors with a long history of disruption and warnings who habitually conceal that fact are considered a problem. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal of "Bias and evidence" from Horowitz

I reverted the above interpolation into David Horowitz for the reasons given on the discussion page. Basically, if you agree with Brock that Horowitz "lied" in saying liberals see born-agains as dangerous fruitcakes you need to give an NPOV account of the controversy, if any (is Media Matters/Brock the only critic on this point? - you need to establish WP:N) not just quote Brock calling Horowitz names. I think Brock's evidence is pretty weak, in that his two polls are off-point (Dems can both "believe in God" AND think born-agains are wackos, and Black Dems are not primarily PBS-watching liberals) and WP:NPOV means you need to address the issue in sufficient depth to give the reader some idea what the facts are. Andyvphil 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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.

Request for Comment

Hi PatriotBible. I see that you have edited over at the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article, so am wondering if you would care to comment on an editing dispute regarding a "Book" section contribution. It seems to hinge on an editor's interpretation of what constitutes "original research." Thanks. --EECEE 21:21, 30 March 2007 (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) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]