User talk:TheGreatWhiteBuffalo

The Evolution of Religion

This is the next step for those that believe and don't believe. This is a bridge for Science and Religion, a compelling thought that removes the Devil from the Details. While the past is filled with religious wars and great sacrilege in the Administration of so many Organized religions a new Church is to be established.

This New Church that is inclusive and available for those that do believe and those that do not believe establishes and completes the final process for the Evolution of Religion.

For information on the Domestic, Social, and Political Bridge to All Religions search Evolution of Religion TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 01:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in Wikipedia!

As I noted the first time I removed it, please see the page Talk:Icons of Evolution for dicussion of the edit you have made. Thanks! Jokestress 00:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not going to be easy is it? TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also could you send me back the original article that I wrote, I'm rather tired and I need to get ready for work tomorrow, I'll check back in on this issue tomorrow, maybe the founder will be able to straighten out what seems to me to be a great addition to Wikipedia. As I said before, I am a quick study and have been saving some of my more recent contributions.

Actually, it is very easy. Wikipedia has a number of established protocols to which you will need to adhere in order to participate. They are very simple to follow. Once you have reviewed Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:No Original Research and the other policies linked on that page, I think you will understand why your edits are being revised. We hope you will participate, but you will need to follow established policies in order to have your edits accepted.

No revisions are ever lost. If you ever want to see an edit you made, they are kept in the history section for each article. Simply click the history tab at the top, and you can see all changes ever made to the artcle, and you can even compare the differences. Jokestress 03:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the article was deleted, sorry I've spent some time looking and trying to retrieve what I wrote and to see if any changes or comments were made about my work. This although original certainly is old science just put into a new light.

Evolution of Religion

Sorry, but it's not an encyclopedia article; it's well into the category of original research/personal essay, neither of which wikipedia allows. Feel free to put forward your ideas in various forums, but not this one. -R. fiend 04:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that the article that I wrote was an encyclopedia article, the one that you deleted. It reffered to my works and therefore, establishes the proper crossover between the two ideas that have yet to be joined. The bridge between the function of Religion and the Physical Sciences the allow us to understand our world and universe. Most scientists discount the idea of something greater outside of nothing, while most people have an inate sense that there is more to life than just live up to 100 years and die. Some people see the Earth as a living Spirit, and maybe even the Universe is also. For all we know? That could be reality. If it is, we could be in for a long and bumpy ride, as we are the cancer to our host. I believe we should all get along together, if we can. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Wikipedia isn't really the place for personal essays ("my works") or new ideas ("that have yet to be joined"); they explicitly qualify as Original Research. Perhaps you should consider creating a website for this? When it reaches national or international attention, has a few books written about it, or appears in significant magazines or journals, it goes in Wikipedia; that's the measure of whether it's an encyclopedic article or not, and this is not. Ziggurat 01:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IF RELIGION DOESN'T EVOLVE???

How would you fix the problems in our world? Shall we allow things to progress as they have for the past several thousands of years? We keep repeating the same cycles, bigotry and bias, have caused some to feel they are above others or more blessed. First consider the hypothesis, an infinite universe could never be created. All matter and energy that exists is also infinite, and is in constant flux. The universe is GOD, or the fabric of the universe, the 'ether' is GOD. All matter is composed of GOD and that puts GOD in everything. GOD is the dust of the universe as well as the universe it self. GOD is in ALL living.

Or for those that would rather believe that there is no god. Then for them GOD does not exist.

Do you need a Church building to worship GOD? What of all of the money spent on Church buildings could that money help the poor? Could the poor use large buildings for shelter? Could the Churches be put to a better use? The new Church would become the Earth, and as you have your being on this planet you would be responsible for your own actions. You should want to please GOD, or yourself. You become accountable to you and society. An innocent man should never be found guilty because of perjury, or false reports. Wrongs should be corrected.TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public Radio Talent Quest

A tag has been placed on Public Radio Talent Quest, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.131.10.60 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Right

I checked our your annonymous profile, there is no talk page, you just flexed your muscle to remove my entry like the bully you are. I'm just not smart enough to create a good entry for the intellectuals that wish to control and lord over us poor people trying to contribute to our growing world community. To read more follow this URL: http://communati.com/main/wikipedia of course I'm upset that my entry was deleted. Was I advertising? No I simply provided the information about the contest and a link for people to find out more. What more needed to be done?

Not providing a chance to put forth a rebuttle certainly takes away any chance for your offensive behavior to be defended against. Only cowards do things anonymously you're worse than a liar! TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 23:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on User_talk:TheGreatWhiteBuffalo: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please note that the reason that the talk page was not created was because you declined to create it. If you wish to assert the notability (a requirement for inclusion of articles) of an article that has been proposed for deletion, it is your responsibility to do so. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC). PS: I didn't delete your article, nor did I list it for deletion. Just trying to explain the way the system works.[reply]

Thanks Bfigura

The talk page that is in question is not the one to reinstate the article, I had no idea that there was a link to do that and after making the above comment found it and followed through, it was more of a hidden link and obscure. So here I am miffed and late, but hey, I'll still defend the article as an article and not spam. What really upset me was when I followed the link or address and if you try it you'll find that the last sentence requests me to go to their talk page which I'm assuming is located at their IP address,"Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.131.10.60 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)" where else would I find their talk page? The address doesn't exist, the person making the judgement might not even be a participant, who knows? That is real frustrating, and if you follow my http://communati.com/main/wikipedia link you'll see that I'm not alone in this observation. Knowing this brings down the participation at Wikipedia and prevents valuable information from being included in the site. The question to our community is do we want information or do we not?

It seems that only a certain type of person is permitted to make entries, and instead of helping to make the entries good they just get deleted and that is the easy way out. We need to work together.TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting things. But what it sounds like to me is that someone flagged your page for speedy deletion, and since you didn't know any better, you didn't contest it on the talk page because it said the talk page didn't exist. (Which it didn't, because pages don't exist until someone types something onto them -- kinda counter-intuitive, but it's the way Wikipedia is set up). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I didn't know about how to stop the speedy deletion but that obviously wasn't the real problem of why I am so frustrated. You Missed What I was trying to convey as the real source of my frustration. When I first found out that my entry was deleted and not knowing there was another link, I thought that the last line left for me; to contest, talk about, or talk out this problem was the link that I needed to follow. So once again allow me to post that last line and source of my frustration, ,"Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.131.10.60 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)" I went and clicked on the IP address to go to the person's talk page to see if the deletion could be stopped or how I could re-write the article in a better format to be more acceptable. But to my surprise, the IP address leads to a dead end, NO USER exists... How do you contact a non-existant user? Now that is really frustrating! How do you fix anything if you can't communicate? Get it now?TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, all of that said, the reason the page was deleted was because someone thought it was spam, as defined here. Yes, And who is the someone and how do I get in contact with a non-existant user? How can a non-existant user define anything as spam?TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you avoid getting something marked as spam? First, make sure the subject of the article meets the notability criteria. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, only notable articles are allowed. Second, make sure it's verifiable, as defined here. If the article meets both criteria, and is written in a neutral tone that avoids conflicts of interest, it'll stay. All that said, it's a kind of a bad idea to write an article about something you're personally involved in. (Ie, if I write my own biography, I'll be biased, which makes for a bad article -- see WP:AUTOBIO. Hope all that helps, and isn't too discouraging. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concerned with people deleting material by marking it as spam just to remove entries created in order to punish or violate another person. I understand that trolls exist and it is a shame that good content can be excluded because of the bias or prejudice of an unknown user. Do you understand the problem and do you see the danger in allowing; non-existant, secret, or anonymous users the right to delete or change content tracking such changes might be possible for the administrators but it just isn't worth it to me, if you read through my post at my link that I provided you'll find that the entry wasn't all that important to me, but what is important to me is the fact that an anonymous user was allowed to remove that entry and then get away with out explaining their position. I feel like I've just had something stolen from me, as though I was violated. You wouldn't like to feel that way, and you could probably do something to stop it from happening. And don't tell me that if I don't like it I don't have to participate, I want to be a contributing member, not participating isn't the answer that gives the bullies exactly what they want. Let's work together on making a better world community... TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you don't like the idea of other users reviewing pages, but I should point out that this is the way Wikipedia works. Anyone can nominate any page for deletion, so long as they have a good reason for doing so (see deletion policy). And none of this is actually secret or anonymous. If you click on the history of a page, you can see who made what changes, and when. And if a page has been deleted, you can check the deletion logs to see who deleted it, and why. Now in your case, the page was flagged for deletion by an ip-editor, then deleted by an admin (see this page]. That admin found it to be advertising, and removed the article. If you feel that this was unjust, you can take it to deletion review, and ask that it be undeleted.

And as far as people making deletions for poor reasons, or out of hate: don't sweat it too much. There's enough people watching pages flagged for deletion that if someone does nominate pages in bad faith, they get caught and banned from wikipedia pretty quickly (ex. of watchers: these guys). I hope that helps, if not let me know, or just reply below me (I'll keep an eye on this page for changes). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with others reviewing pages, but I do wish that the IP editor was accessible as they claimed they would be by leaving me the note to contact them about this issue. If 'you' (the IP editor) are honestly identifying an article for deletion 'you' don't just disappear into thin air, that is why I question the integrity of the IP editor, that person (the IP editor) became non-existant putting a cloud over the whole process. How can we trust the integrity of this community? What motivates participation and support to an organization that is so secretive and suspicious in their administration? If you want people to support Wikipedia you need to offer a service so that contributions can be made. Creating a user friendly environment is what all good growing service minded companies should be doing. I'm not trying to give away free advertising, I'm just putting forth the information.

Yes,I found the link tonight by accident to re-instate my article, I hope that will be sufficient to get the deletion review to take another look at the entry and reconsider. Thank you for the conversation and the advice. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best of luck. (I should point out that you can create/leave a note on an ip-editor's talk page, there's just no guarantee the person will read it. But if they are a persistent vandal, then something will get done, sooner or later). --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Public Radio Talent Quest

Per your request on my userpage, I've undeleted Talk:Public Radio Talent Quest and tagged it to delay for at least 5 days. The Criteria for speedy deletion recognizes that talk pages without associated articles are generally speedily deletable. My deletion was without any bearing related to the deletion of the article (that I did not delete). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A discussion on a talk page of a deleted article is generally not an effective means of having it restored. Better methods would be to contact the deleting admin directly (perhaps asking if they would consider listing on WP:AFD instead) or bringing it up at Deletion Review. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You :) TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this page was deleted again, as a talk page without an article by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrgggghhhhh! If it quacks like a duck it just might be a duck? How do I talk about something that doesn't exist, and if I missed my mark this deletion should be restored. Thanks Xaosflux TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Radio Talent Quest

Hello GWB. I did delete the page and yes I did feel that it read like spam, albeit not the worst I've seen around here. Nevertheless, you have to calm down. What's this nonsense about feeling violated by the deletion? It was a two-line article providing no content besides an external link, it was not categorized and it was orphaned which means that in all likelihood nobody ever even read the article before Alaibot tagged it as uncategorized. The article was not deleted because someone is trying to "punish you for participating in Wikipedia" and this is not part of some great conspiracy. I see you also took it extremely personally when the article Evolution of Religion was deleted a while back but that won't get you anywhere. You can take the whole thing to deletion review but the deletion was appropriate. Pascal.Tesson 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pascal.Tesson Yes, the deletions of my entries are concerning to me as you have noticed, and this one was orphaned as I was hoping that of the 1,450+ participants in the contest at least one other or a few would take interest or enough interest in their contest to augment the article with the needed information to complete the entry. No I didn't create the article for advertising but as I've stated all along it is simply a statement of fact. The contest is currently running the contest exists and a number of people participated. My own reason for dropping participation has to do with the fact that I've seen some rather blatant abuses to interfere with participants. So my desire to nurture and watch this entry was lost as a result of what I viewed as corruption in their system. What I never expected was to see the entry deleted as I tried to be very careful in how I created the entry to keep it to just the facts, neutral and succinct. The entry was the beginning of a larger article that would follow when all of the results are finalized. Again, I was really hoping that others would join in adding content and I was watching for community participation. So yes, I was and am disappointed that the article has been speedily deleted and I am willing to defend the inclusion of the entry even though I feel personally attached to the entry as the creator of the entry, I certainly would welcome others to add and coach people in how to make a better and more complete entry. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you can take it to deletion review. But you're going to have to tone down the victimization act. You are not being persecuted: take it to deletion review, make a sound argument that the article should be restored and trust that the Wikipedia community can make the right decision on whether or not to undelete that entry. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad that you didn't see my tone as offensive when you went back to your talk page, and I thank you for your reply below... :) Sometimes the tone you apply is really a tone in your own mind, but you know that already don't you? ;) I meant to mention that before, I was certainly hoping you would consider the written material in a different light. Peace TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again GWB. I understand that you're upset about the page being deleted, but having read the posts in question, Pascal is right: your tone isn't really appropriate. It won't help anything, and will only probably make this worse. It would be much more productive to take a sounds case to Deleteion Review. (Or, if you're interested, I'd be happy to help you put together a new article that would be more likely to not get deleted). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bfigura, :) I would like your help and would greatly appreciate a few pointers, my time is limited tonight and if the page is available and we can coroborate on this over the next couple of days I would love to try to fix the entry and make it right. Thank you for that offer, and any advice or direction that you can point me in would be greatly appreciated. :) TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just leave a note on my talk page if you want help. But if you'd like to work on a draft, you can create a page in your userspace (which is generally safe from deletion unless you're being offensive or something), by adding a slash after your username, and typing a title. Like so: User:TheGreatWhiteBuffalo/Draft. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Bfigura, Thank you very much :) That will be very helpful, and hopefully we will grow a global community together.TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on philosophy. However, I don't quite understand what the value of the planet or the value of money has to do with the deletion of a two-line article about some obscure radio contest which you happen to participate in. As I have already told you twice and as Bfigura has also told you, you can submit the article to deletion review. Pascal.Tesson 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Professor you are fast and you beat me to my reply here ;) Actually I'm not at all inspired to take it to the deletion team I would rather work with someone to tweak the bugs out of that entry and learn to make a better entry that I might do another that I have in mind. What I don't want is to have every entry I make, deleted. I'd rather learn how to do it right. :)

P.S. The value of the Earth is directly related to the number of poor that will sleep tonight hungry and with out a home. Some deservedly so and others are victims that need a hand up. From there we can work on the issue of war, but that would be a much longer discussion than I have time to type tonight. ;) TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS, Those questions are related to a discussion I was having with another person from Texas, he was posting stuff about the American GDP and according to the numbers that he offered the total GDP would be around $1,437(trillion) I doubt the entire globe has a GDP of that much in fact the worth of the world might not even reach that value, but I'm not really sure where to begin to make an accurate calculation. That would be nearly 1.5 Quadrillion dollars wouldn't it?TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the contents here. What you need to do is make sure that

a) the content is properly sourced

b) the article is categorized appropriately

c) the article demonstrates sufficient notability.

If that can be done, then I'm certainly open to recreating the article. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Pascal.Tesson, Thank you very much :)TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]