User talk:Zinbielnov

Proposed deletion of University of Science and Philosophy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article University of Science and Philosophy, 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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Arbcom ruling

Please note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories. If you continue to act disruptively on 9/11 articles, you may be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of University of Science and Philosophy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article University of Science and Philosophy, 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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The previous {{prod}} was removed by the article author. I'm afraid this needs to be taken to AfD, if not speedied. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New World Order Conspiracy article

I saw your criticism on the discussion page of this article. I may or may not share your ideologies on the matter, but share your concern about the obvious POV problems of its current edit. Without implying the gathering of concensus in any way because even if allowed I frown upon yes mannism (a word?) I more highly frown upon article ownership and discouraging new editors. In short, stop by the discussion page, it's likely to get interesting. [[1]]Your comment was far too intelligent for the rude reception it got. Batvette (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, it's been awhile! As you may have seen, I loitered there locking horns with the primary editor for a long time, only recently relenting as it did seem those he would ridicule are indeed more ridiculous than he. Your commentary was welcome and quite astute, I have found those labelling themselves as "progressive" are usually anything but. Labels are troubling though so I try to refrain from using them as much as possible- which is almost never. hehe. 03:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batvette (talk • contribs)