User talk:Starrion1

Proposed deletion of Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non Notable individual, no reliable sources to establish notability.

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. kelapstick (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic). Thank you. kelapstick (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Starrion1. You have new messages at Kelapstick's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic)

I put a comment with regard to your recent stance on the AfD for Michael Cohen. If you have found reliable sources that can be integrated into the article as references, than by all means add them and add them right away. If they are added there will be no trouble for the article to pass the AfD, however simply stating that a Google search turns up many "arguably" reliable sources is not enough to be a valid argument. Personally I would think that if you have to argue about a source being reliable, it probably is not. Also note that a Google search is a pretty crude way to establish notability, the number of hits does not necessarily equal the degree of notability the subject has, what it does do is give you many sources that you can dig through to find the reliable ones, but again the key here is reliable. Like I said, I am more than willing to help, with formatting citations etc. You can start by putting some of the reliables sources can be used to establish notability here, and I will take a look and see what they are, but I strongly recommend that you start the page over on the user sub page that I showed you above, because it looks like it might not pass the AfD this time. If you need any more help, just ask, that's what I am here for.--kelapstick (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had that on my talk page, but it is here→User talk:Starrion1/sandbox--kelapstick (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic)

A tag has been placed on Michael Cohen (ufologist, psychic) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. — neuro^(talk) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Use of multiple accounts in order to repost material deleted per policy is grounds for a block. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]