User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 16

AfD nomination of Universal law

An article that you have been involved in editing, Universal law, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal law. Thank you. Bsherr 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Radicalisation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Terraxos 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Integrate

Template:Integrate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. fuzzy510 21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Einstein_patentoffice.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Einstein_patentoffice.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop (software)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Scoop (software), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Jackaranga 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Scoop (software)

Scoop (software), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Scoop (software) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scoop (software) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Scoop (software) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jackaranga 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RBGinsburg.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:RBGinsburg.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sopoforic 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian evangelist scandals

Christian evangelist scandals, an article you created has been nominated for deletion.Vice regent 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template "ongoing" nominated for deletion

I have nominated {{ongoing}} for deletion. You were the creator. It's not such a good idea to have this template, because many many articles could have the template, and it does not add anything to those articles that could not be seen by reading them. See also, for your information, Template_talk:Current#Policy_for_using_.7B.7Bcurrent.7D.7D -- Yellowdesk 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:What?

A template you created, Template:What?, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 05:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Math-symbols

A template you created, Template:Math-symbols, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 23:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish atheists up for deletion

Hello, I just discovered that you are the creator of Category:Jewish atheists, so I figured you'd want to know that it's been nominated for deletion (after less than 2 weeks of life!) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_25#Category:Jewish_atheists. I really don't understand why it is that notification of a category's creator isn't required, just the same as when an article is up for deletion. This category seems to have stirred up a visceral reaction on the part of more than a few editors -- and I am feeling rather like Horatio at the bridge in my defense. Btw, there were 4 articles in the cat when I first came across the CFD -- I've been adding more articles very carefully (20 so far) in hopes of demonstrating that the nom's arguments are fallacious. Anyway, if you want to make a case for retaining this category, please make haste. Cgingold 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anote

A template you created, Template:Anote, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atg-timeline

A template you created, Template:Atg-timeline, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 04:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Crass commercialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Crass commercialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crass commercialism. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting talk 04:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Anarcho-, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Skomorokh ^incite 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Leni Riefenstahl.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leni Riefenstahl.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of WP:RFA/SV

RfD nomination of WP:RFAR/SV

RfD nomination of WP:RFAR/SVRFA

RfD nomination of WP:RFAR/TDC

Image source problem with Image:SteveBiko.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:SteveBiko.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Law

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Universal Law, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Bsherr 23:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vfd-ab

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Vfd-ab, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 02:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroterrorism

In view of your many contributions to the terrorism article, would you please consider commenting at Pyroterrorism DRV. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 00:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Merkin POTD

In view of your many contributions to the Beauty article that includes Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, you may wish to participate in the discussion on Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg at the admin noticeboard since listing the image on the Main Page may bring more traffic to the Beauty article. -- Jreferee t/c 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Savedgate.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Savedgate.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Savedgate.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Savedgate.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sexuality

A template you created, Template:Sexuality, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Religiousconcepts

Template:Religiousconcepts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MainPageIntro/draft

A template you created, Template:MainPageIntro/draft, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quantum

Hi Stevertigo, I notice you have made significant contributions to Template:Quantum. Over time the template has become very large and I believe this is part of the reason that so few of the articles listed include the template. I have created a compact version which you can see at Template_talk:Quantum#Compact_template. I would be interested to get your feedback on this. --DJIndica (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MayaDeren.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MayaDeren.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of The Bevis Frond

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Bevis Frond, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Bevis Frond seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Bevis Frond, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Conspiracy theorists

Category:Conspiracy theorists, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor's name

Hi,

In the past you took part in a discussion about the name of the emperors of Japan. This discussion has just opened again (once again!). You are free to express your opinion here. ThanksŠvitrigaila (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stephen Hawking1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stephen Hawking1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive understanding

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Intuitive understanding, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East and West

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article East and West, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Civics

A tag has been placed on Template:Civics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Functions

Template:Functions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Empires

A tag has been placed on Template:Empires requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mtheory.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Mtheory.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stannered (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Han

A tag has been placed on Template:Han requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		I, Nothing444 award Stevertigo this Content Creativity Barnstar for his drawings of the Wikipede.

Speedy deletion of Template:MedComOpenTasks/New

A tag has been placed on Template:MedComOpenTasks/New requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest

I feel that the discussion at:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Wolfkeeper and WP:LEAD

could benefit from your participation.

Background reading includes:

Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#That_the_lead_should_contain_a_definition_is_policy

You would be most welcome.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Visible Human

A tag has been placed on Template:Visible Human requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rallcartn.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rallcartn.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User Consistent Life Ethic2

A tag has been placed on Template:User Consistent Life Ethic2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User MT

A tag has been placed on Template:User MT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User doke

A tag has been placed on Template:User doke requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User kok

A tag has been placed on Template:User kok requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User moderate2

A tag has been placed on Template:User moderate2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User skeptic2

A tag has been placed on Template:User skeptic2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User thc

A tag has been placed on Template:User thc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pubescent

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Pubescent, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:CFD header

A tag has been placed on Template:CFD header requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The war

A tag has been placed on The war, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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 (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. JaGa (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD was placed by mistake; this was a redirect that you created that was vandalized. Another editor has already reverted the page to its correct version. I've reported the vandal at WP:AIV. Nothing more to see here - everyone can move on. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Citag

A tag has been placed on Template:Citag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carbon applications

Hello. Since you have contributed to this article in the past, could you spare a minute to discuss the fate of this article? xpclient (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Economy

The discussion about fuel economy is being reopened on Infobox Automobile. You had an opinion once, are you still of the same mind?Skyemoor (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Brion Vibber

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brion Vibber, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brion Vibber (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Unsolved

Template:Unsolved has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — scetoaux (T|C) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Google Watch

I have nominated Google Watch, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (2nd nomination). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? rootology (T) 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Troikoalogo (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Wikistress.psd

A tag has been placed on Image:Wikistress.psd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 [[ Talk:Image:Wikistress.psd|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. JaGa^talk 02:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Hwh

Template:Hwh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Google Watch

I have nominated Google Watch, an article 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/Google Watch (3rd nomination). 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. George The Dragon (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC) George The Dragon (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Whitewash

Template:Whitewash has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 12:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiliver Rebbe

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Shiliver Rebbe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Maethordaer (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Administrative detention

On 29 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Administrative detention, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Religious concept

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

Notability, unreferenced, orphan, not encyclopedic

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. Editor2020 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:CHSpurgeon.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:CHSpurgeon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Egypt-region-map-cities.png

Thanks for uploading File:Egypt-region-map-cities.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbara

Please don't vandalize articles, as you did with these edits to Hasbara. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarene

A reply awaits you at Talk:Nazarene#Hebrew. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English suffix

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of English suffix, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.xmission.com/~ladyslvr/wlk/suffixes.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to read the talk page!

Now will you please revert yourself, and next time AGF? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try reading the section, "Stevertigo's edit?" Hint: it is at the bottom, where the most recent additions to the talk page go. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring. I'm not sure if you are familiar with WP:BRD. In a nutshell, it is totally fine to make a bold edit out of the blue. But if someone, in good faith, reverts that edit, it is not totally fine to just place the disputed, new text back into the article. What you should do instead is go discuss your proposed changes on the talk page and try to raise consensus for the change or reach a new compromise. You three times inserted your bold new change with no efforts to discuss or seek consensus, and totally oblivious to another's objections. Edit warring like that seems to spit in the face of the community, were we should all try to work together. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and I highly recommend avoiding it at all costs (not only because it is more civil and in the spirit of community to do so, but also excessive edit warring can lead to you being blocked from editing). So hopefully, in the future, you will be less likely to try to FORCE your preferred edits by edit warring, and more likely to discuss the matter with others and work with everyone. Thanks for your consideration in this matter.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you yesterday about trying to force edits, and about not restoring controversial edits without prior talk page consensus. Accordingly, I have reported you for 3RR, and if I wasn't involved I would have blocked you myself under these conditions.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' name

You wrote:

that Judaic sources on Hebrew not claim authoritarian ownership of that language. I would love for you to present the sources you claim contradict the Yeshua transliteration. I for one am curious as to the nature of the so-called controversy you describe

I am not sure what you mean about "Judaic sources" claiming "authoritarian ownership of Hebrew. Which sources? Did you mean Alkalai and Chomski? I think they are authorities because of their research as linguists, not because they are Jewish (and I can only assume they are from their names, but I have no idea whatsoever how they self-identify or what their beliefs are). The textbook on Biblical Hebrew I used in college was definitely written by a Gentile, I do not have it on hand; the Hebrew-English Concordance we used, Brown-Drivers-Briggs, was not by Jews. So when you refer to "Judaic sources" I really do not know what you are talking about and you have to spell it out for me.
You want my sources contradicting your transliteration? Please read my first comment on the talk page again. Please read the second one. Please read Andrew Card's. I never claimed to have any sources contradicting your transliteration, indeed, I said - and I wrote this yesterday, it was in my first comment - I said your reconstruction was plausible. our reason for reverting it is not because we have sources contradicting it. It is because we know of no historical sources that provide Jesus' name in Hebrew or Aramaic (which by the way I never said were unrelated. Never.) Andre, Leadwind, and I are reverting your edit because we are supporting a consensus reached by many editors, who reached that conclusion because no historian has ever provided a historical source for Jesus' name in Hebrew or in Aramaic. Will Durant speculated what Jesus' Hebrew or Aramaic name would have been but it is a speculation. There is no mainstream view, because there are no historical sources. I said this several times: N-O S-O-U-R-C-E-S. Why do you ask me for my source when I gave as my reason the fact that there are n...o s...o..u..r..c..e..s?
You want to know the controversy I describe. The Yeshu stories in the Talmud are considered by some modern scholars to be about Jesus (and by the way, those modern scholars do not see them as pejorative of Jesus but as reflecting through stories Jews' ambivalent feelings about Jesus and Christianity), but many modern scholars as well as medieval scholars argue that they are not about Jesus (in which case they cannot possibly be pejorative about Jesus and Christianity). One reason why there is this controversy (is it Jesus? is it not?) is because it is unclear what "ha notzri" means - many argue that it is a reference to a religious community described by Jerimiah (long before Jesus was born, and not "Nazarene"). And of course the other reason is that it is not at all clear that Yeshu or Yeshua was Jesus' name in Aramaic. All of this controversy does not mean that Yeshu or Yeshua was not Jesus' name in Aramaic. It does mean that we do not know. My point was that the one case where we definitely have an Aramaic name, the earliest text with an Aramaic name one might think was Jesus's Aramaic name, there is lots of controversy as to whether this name has any connection to Jesus, and whether the name is proper Aramaic, and what the name means or who it refers to. If there is all this controversy over the earliest texts we have with an Aramaic name, it seems to me that the most one could do today is say that Jesus' Aramaic name may have been Yeshu or Yeshua. We just have no reliable historical documents relating to this question.

Without any reliable sources, any claim as to what Jesus' Hebrew or Aramaic name was would be original research, and that is forbidden by Wikipedia policy.

Get it? I am not saying my sources about Jesus' are better than your and I never said my sources were better than yours (I simply pointed out what was false in some claims you made about Hebrew and Aramaic. And that has nothing to do with someone being Jewish and someone being Christian, it was you who suggested and seem to continue to suggest that. You are not wrong "because" you are Christian. You are just wrong. And Christian who is also a scholar of Biblical Hebrew and of Aramaic and of Ancient Near Eastern history would also tell you you were wrong about your claims about Hebrew and Aramaic). I am saying that THERE ARE NO HISTORICAL SOURCES AS TO JESUS" HEBREW OR ARAMAIC NAME so any Wikipedian making a reconstruction IS VIOLATING NOR.

Why do I have to repeat this? Reread my first comment to you explaining my revert. I continue to stand my it. Every sentence of my first comment is true. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinaman is not the issue here

Um, at present we are not actually talking about the Yeshua transliteration for the simple reason that I removed it and made little reference to it. What we are dealing with is the edits to the lede that deal with the Nicene concepts of incarnation and the trinity, not to mention the inappropriate elevation of Islam in imporance with reference to Jesus. I greatly appreciate your response above, and I will get to it, but for the moment let's please deal with your actions of the past couple hours; reverting my edits to the lede without so much as a comment let alone an explanation. -Ste vertigo 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jesus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Could not post to WP ANI) He also appears to be acting like a ninja, instead of an admin. Calling my edits "edit warring" seems to ignore the fact that the other editors have not bothered to deal with me on talk. Further, Orangemarlin decided it was appropriate to act like a ninja on my talk page - commenting to me, while deleting my responses on his talk. -SV

Indeed, you can't post, because you are blocked. For violating WP:3RR. See the WP:AN3 thread William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. It also means I can't defend myself or my actions on the wiki. SLR has had a chance to say a few choice things on AN3, to which I would like to respond. If I did so here, would it be possible to copy that text to AN3 in response to SLR? -Ste vertigo 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Or at least, I won't. Someone else might, who knows? I recommend you reading the AN3 thread carefully William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have. SLR's chronology of today's events is wrong. At no time did he deal with the substance of my edits today, and in no way was the comment he made on the talk related to the actual edit I made, or to his revert. -Ste vertigo 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in a civil discussion with a couple of the editor that you are involved in , and in looking at what they were doing elsewhere, I stumbled on this. If you read the 3rr page carefully, you will notice that SLR is contrite, acknowledges that his actions were not policy Kosher, and has said that he will refrain from violating the policy. Notice that another admin has said the same rules apply to all. I expect if your tone, etc. match that of SLR and you stop the behavior that got you blocked, you will likely be unblocked. If your message matches the tone of SLR and acknowledges that there was a problem, I would be happy to post your comments there for their consideration. I have no informed opinion on the matter of Hebraic transliteration of the anglicized Greek Jesus. No dog in the fight. Post here in the next wee-wiley and I'll repost for you. I got some things to do soon.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer Dixie. Ive posted this and [1] to Wikien. I'd appreciate it if you could add these links to the AN3 page and say they are from me. Thanks again. -Ste vertigo 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it, but I don't think that this will get you unblocked. I've been blocked a couple of times. It seems that blocks are not punitive in theory. They are designed to prevent disruption of the project. It seems that there is some consensus that your actions are disruptive. I only see one option other than the 48 hour block, which is contrition, regardless of how you feel the other editors behaved. You can also use the unblock template on this page and ask other admins to review the block. Read the unblock essay/policy on tips on effective unblock request. You'll find they mirror my advice earlier.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my advice to you. Feel free to make bold edits on high profile articles (but do so ONLY ONCE). If an established editor reverts you, NEVER re-instate the edit. If you follow this rule, you can never be blocked for 3RR (because of WP:0R). It appears that you believe you have a right to have your edits not altered or completely removed as long as the other editor doesn't give you a reason that you deem valid. This simply isn't the case. If you are reverting, even if you think you are more justified than your opponent, and even if you think you have a better reason than your opponent, it matters not. Reverting is reverting and 3RR is 3RR. Even after being told multiple times of 3RR, you continued reverting, and went on to post about how SLR and OM were in the wrong. Hey, maybe they should have been more communicative, maybe they have worse reasons for reverting than you, but that matters not. The issue is YOUR behavior. It is NEVER ok to re-insert controversial new material if other editors in good standing dispute it. I know your first attempt yesterday to discuss things on the talk page didn't go well, but that doesn't mean you needed to ignore the talk page today. Seriously, I strongly advise you to, once your block expires, follow the advice in my first few sentences. If you stop blaming other editors for your choice to continue reverting, if you acknowledge that your edit warring was a form of disruptive editing (irregardless of the actions of other editors), if you truly understand these things are regret doing them, and if you promise not do continue such disruptive editing in the future, an admin may consider removing your block. But from the two posts you linked to above, it seems like you don't want to acknowledge your disruptive editing and would rather blame others. I hope you'll consider this. At the very least, in the future, if you encounter someone who reverts you and doesn't discuss the revert. Go to the talk page after you've been reverted (but before re-instating the content), start a thread proposing your text, and if no one replies after giving it enough time (1 day to a week), consider that a silent consensus and only then re-instate your edit. There are ways to deal with uncommunicative editors besides edit warring.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I to understand this concept of "established editors" versus (presumably) "less established" editors like myself. Is there a peerage system going on here? I will guess my total edit count since '02 to be 30K. Ive dealt with SLR a number of times since then and know very well how established he is. But how can I consider his edits (disregarding the editors themselves) in good standing if they are just reverts, and done without explanation germane to the particular edit? This hardline concept of 3RR could be dealt with by a bot could it not? If its a legitimate way of dealing with people, why be subjective about it? I will agree that a half-hour wait might not be enough, and that a longer wait would be more AGF. But keep in mind what a revert is: it's the "fuck you" of edits; the communication being that this edit is not worth keeping. If its worth a revert, its worth an explanation isn't it? Someone would have to seriously violate DBAD to think that no explanation is necessary to revert an "established editor" such as myself. -Ste vertigo 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was confusing. You misunderstand the concept of "established editors". I was not trying to suggest that there was some sort of hierarchical class of editors, and I would never suggest that you were on a lower "rung" if you will. I was only alluding to the rare instances where 3RR is more flexible (vandalism, sock puppets/banned users: i.e. non-established editors). Sorry again for any confusion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the same advice, all over again. And: you're blocked for 3RR. That would have happened no matter what talk page contributions you made. I'm still looking for some evidence that you realise you broke 3RR, and that you should not have done so. For bonus points, starting the list thread with "Jesus edit ninjas" was almost comic self-sabotage William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another admin who thinks every crossing of the line is an occasion to break out his majestic cluestick. Keep in mind I was dealing with three different edit ninjas - only the first actually attempting to resolve things on the talk page. I will be more careful in the future, but I can't state enough how useless admins can be when they offer only cluesticks and not intelligent mediation. -Ste vertigo 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] [[3]] should help you work this out if read with careful attention.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Thank you for your apology, which I am glad to accept. I realized that antisemitism could very well not have been your motive. I really was just genuinely confused as to why you did not simply accept my initial explanation for reverting you, which was supported by AndrewC's explanation. Your responses seemed to be making distinctions (between Hebrew and Jewish, between rabbis and priests) the relevance of which i simply did not understand, which led to my hasty judgment. If you want to change the consensus version, I suggest you spell out your reasoning on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicene Creed

My recollection is that other editors discussed this issue and also reached a consensus. But I admit I do not know enough of the history to judge one way or the other. I hope you will discuss this with other editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you just made the lead more wordy, when details can be spelled out in the body or in linked articles. Be that as it may, this is a controversial article and the current form is the result of a lot of consensus building - if anyone wants to make a substantive change, they should discuss it on the talk page first. But you are welcome to follow BRD - but that means that you make a bold edit and if reverted, assume the revert was in good faith and discuss it on the talk page. I resent being called a ninja when I was reverting what I considered nonsensical edits. If you want to restore the various edits you made before you were blocked, I will detail my objections on the talk page and see what others say before making further edits. But it is a massive sign of bad faith to accuse people who reverted your edits as being ninjas when you seemed not to be able to justify them on the talk page. I'll give you another chance if you wish but you should take seriously the thought and care of the other people who work on this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud

is not related to Yehudah or Yehudi. The Biblical etymology for Judah is a combination of God (yod heh vav) and praise (daled heh); neither word is related to Ehud (aleph hey daled - no alecph in Yehudah). The yud can be unvocalized, to my knowledge always at the end of a word (like, well, yehudi (the first yod is vocalized, the final one is not) ... or the more common name, Eli (my God). Or Adonai (my lord)). That it is unvocalized at the end of a word does not mean that it would ever be transposed as an aleph at the beginning of a word (as in Ehud). As far as I know there is no accepted etymology for Ehud. I wonder whether it is derived from another language (Akkadian, Uggaritic) as is often the case when a Hebrew word does not really seem to fit. You could look at the Anchor Bible volume of Judges to see where Ehud first appears; if there is any accepted etymology of the word it would be in that commentary.

Unless you can provide a notable and reliable source that states that Ehud is related to Yehudah, I don't see any connection between the two. I hope I answered your questions. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus article

I am sorry for the confusion Stevertigo on Talk:Jesus. I was not charging you with making personal attacks at all. In fact, the comment was not aimed at you at all, but rather towards 76's decision to title the section with the words "this article is both stupid and insulting to the Christian Faith". You obviously acted perfectly within good faith and kept a cool head. Once again, I was not responding to you, I am so sorry for not being clear. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Criticism of government

A tag has been placed on Criticism of government 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. -Zeus- 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeshua

I am glad that you now understand the reasoning behind the consensus at the Jesus page about keeping speculative reconstructions out of the lead. that said, I do not see any reason to ammend the names guideline. The key thing at Wikipedia is always to give the benefit of the doubt to active editors working on a page when they have discussed an issue and formed a consensus, it does not matter what the topic is, and we do not need to write this in every policy and guideline, everyone knows it. Besides, I read through the guideline and I di dnot see anywhere where it demands that "original" names be conjured up. I went to the section you directed me to and it seems to me to be about contemporary names, where a person place or thing is commonly identified using multiple names. This is quite different from reconstructing some historically "original" name, isn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-hating Jew

You raise some good points. I've reverted my edits. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS – When you post your sub-page to a Talk page, you should use "subst:" before the name of the subpage so its contents are copied to the Talk page. Otherwise the contents are transcluded. See WP:SUBST and WP:TRANS if what I wrote sounds like gobbledygook. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of BIL (conference)

A tag has been placed on BIL (conference) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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. -Zeus-^u_c 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big trout

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

I, -Zeus-^u_c, have the honor of presenting you with the much bigger trout, for creating BIL (conference), then being wrong about its elegilibity for speedy deletion, then presenting me with a wet trout for nominating it as such. -Zeus-^u_c 14:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]