User talk:Stijn Calle/2010

CfD nomination of Category:Senioren-Convent

Contact

M. Calle,

You seem to be an expert on Malachi Martin. I am writing a published encyclopedia article on him; I would like to contact you. You might email me at article@binkmail.com and then delete this entry. I have internet access sporadically and will get back to you when I can, probably next week.

AD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.180.171 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, just an in interested reader. --Stijn Calle (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the reputation of the Angelqueen website. On the other hand, the objections made against Martin there are common in a larger community. The remarks are not taken as fact, but as a starting point of discussion a particular point (relevant to Martin) and all different opinions are mentioned. They are put into context. These points (in their whole) have relevance to the article. So they should not be omitted. --Stijn Calle (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think this was meant for me below. Thank you for your reply. Looking at the wikipedia article on Reliable Sources: A reliable source has three related meanings: the piece of work, the writer and the publisher.

The publisher (ie angelqueen) is not a reliable source as I think you agree;

The writer Grasmeier is not a published author (I cannot find any published work by him http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22john+grasmeier%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0);

The article (while not necessarily disagreeing with Grasmeier) contains errors. For example, in Grasmeier's claim "setting up a Swiss bank account" (Exhibit A) the source only mention the transfer of funds to a foreign account (not the setting up and not swiss);

I think the angelqueen source fails to meet any of the wikipedia RS criteria. Further I cannot find another Reliable Source that repeats Grasmeier's claims. It all seems to be the speculation of one man and should not be included in the article. To dare is to do (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of House of Vilafermosa

The article House of Vilafermosa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for this article as written, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Martin article

Greetings! I notice that you had restored the edits I made thinking it was vandalism? I have now created a user account as wikipedia suggests. I do not think that the angelqueen website is a relaible source. To dare is to do (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]