User talk:TerraGoz

TerraGoz, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi TerraGoz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Unbelievable Mysteries Solved

The article Unbelievable Mysteries Solved has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Recollected • 02:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Gutheinz

Are you one of Gutheinz's graduate students? I ask this out of WP:COI concerns. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been in one of his classes for three years. No one working on the Joseph Gutheinz page was in his class at the time they worked on this page and two of the primary people have never been in his class. One of whom was simply interested in the project and the other was a former NASA employee.TerraGoz (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Do any of your edits concern you? I'm sure you realize that COI needs to be declared in such cases, so I hope you'll bring this up with the people involved. Thanks for letting me know. – S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have always based all my submissions on published materials. Just the facts. That was how we agreed to do it from the beginning. We wanted to write this page like a published article and be authorities on this one topic. For example, we knew Gutheinz hated and I mean hated the documentary Lunarcy which was a comedy take on a couple of the topics in the moon rock project and we agreed to insert a tasteful segment on it in our article in an effort to be neutral in our coverage. The producer pulled a Bruno on Gutheinz to get some great footage-very funny. The moon rock project is like a real worls scavenger hunt and the class I took was unique, but just because I like Professor Gutheinz and the class I took back in August of 2010, I value my objectivity more. If tomorrow I read something that was negative towards Gutheinz and it were relevant to the page I would put it in.TerraGoz (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI. You will see that I reverted your edit on the professor. I saw it earlier today and have mulled it over for a few hours. Basically, the source is a lousy one. Its' not a publisher in any sense, seems to be promotional, and probably has no reputation for fact checking one way or the other. If you like to WP:BRD on the talk page, I will be happy to engage. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more selective with my sources. You know your stuff and I am happy that you have helped us with this page. It looks radically different and much improved. I don't know why we didn't structure it this way from the beginning.TerraGoz TerraGoz (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gutheinz

Please see my remark on the Gutheinz talk page about WP:Bombardment and WP:CITEKILL. Please enlist your fellow Gutheinz editors to get on the stick and fix up the article. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2013 (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) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]