Hi Beingsshepherd! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Abby Martin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!)06:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abby Martin
There are actually quite a few problems
You need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, or they will be deleted. Self-created or editable sources are not independent, and YouTube is not usually acceptable as a source.
It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: A surprisingly accessible television celebrity... Champions (whole section is unsourced)... she's prolific in producing wild, abstract, acrylics and collages... large and intimate...
Personal opinions have no place in an encyclopaedia. Your personal unsourced observations includes politically left-wing, tall, deep-voiced and often provocatively dressed; with crimson hair, tattooed legs and a ring in her left nostril... her television performance is outspoken, occasionally satirical; peppers monologues with sarcasm and pseudo-soliloquys... Has a cleft chin
There shouldn't be any url links in text, only in refs or an external links section. That's not reason for deletion, just something to bear in mind
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dianna (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2000s (decade), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chelsea and London Transport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi there, I am just dropping in to inform you that it's common courtesy to inform the tagged wikiproject and creator of an article when you nominate it for deletion. Regards, — -dainomite18:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I declined your prod. I do not necessarily see it as a must keep, but do believe that if you want to delete it, it should be handled through WP:AFD. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2000s (decade), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ATM, Fundamental and John Simpson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
BS, if you dislike the article on Bill Biggart, you can always nominate it for deletion. The discussion on the talk page seems at this directionless, pointless and non-productive. Please note that the article is being revised. As of now, it is no longer a stub. Do you think it's a stub? You reverted my assessment earlier, and so I would ask you to please leave a note if you revert (as a courtesy). Before you do, please see this scale. I've made a lot of assessment over WP and the sources are good in this article and it is now useful and written in better style. Of course, the article is not complete, but it doesn't have the problems associated with a start and doesn't have to be complete to be C status article. You may leave your message here. Crtew (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits on the talk page, undoing people with no comment, is not acceptable behavior. However, I see that you have been blocked for doing something else on other talk pages yesterday. That's all an indicator that you need to learn more about Wikipedia rules.Crtew (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You stated your opinion. Then when other people disagreed with you, you went ahead against consensus and did what you wanted. I agree with you that the information is probably not acceptable as is. But it can still be included if modified. The reason I haven't bothered doing so is because I'm not particularly partial to the idea of working with you, unless you make it necessary. We are not opponents. We are collaborators. If you wish to see us as opponents, then we will behave as such. Still, if you can bother to treat other people like sentient beings, maybe we can come to some agreement that suits all of our positions. Serendipodous21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I challenged two separate points (it's not clear that a consensus existed), was ignored for several days, so assumed there was no further contest. I didn't realize my attitude merited ostracism. It's your prerogative to snub, but you shouldn't contradict legitimate deletions on the grounds of grudges and procrastinations.Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]
Are you surprised you were ignored? Calling other people's edits "ludicrous" and then snidely dismissing others' objections would be considered trolling on an internet forum. Trolls are generally ignored. But from your talk page I can see you are guilty of far worse behaviour. And given that you have already repeated such behaviour after a 48-hour block, you are probably soon to be blocked for a far longer period. If so then I see no point in continuing this conversation. Serendipodous05:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well while I'm enjoying my liberty: you actually graced me with a reply after 'ludicrous'(without complaint), then I challenged your objection head-on with a quotation from the award's Wikipedia article; which you've still yet to address.Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]
I could do something to address the issue; I just don't think it will make any difference, because from your past behaviour it seems you like to argue, and no matter what I do will find some fault to carry this little dance on. Serendipodous09:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the mention of how much lower down the rankings her great-grandfather's award really was (which isn't relevant, unless we're challenging his war record) I don't see any difference between what you wrote and what I wrote. Serendipodous14:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason to mention his name (was he famous?) its date nor what the award was for. I'm unsure if what you put in brackets was a concession or criticism, but if it was the latter: I'm suggesting the inclusion of its lesser status, to show that her belief was in the vicinity of truth (to say: which turned out to be false; would be true, but mean spirited. Possibly implying she's a fantasist/liar). Imo, the UK TV series reference, merits no more prominence than a typical concealed citation; plus, the truth was revealed to more than just Rowling.Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]
Barbara Olson
Hi. A belated welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Barbara Olson. However, the edit had to be reverted, for the following reasons:
If the material you add is broken up into multiple paragraphs, even if it is all supported by the same source, please make sure that each paragraph has a citation, so that readers know where it comes from.
Websites w/ user-generated content, such as open forums, imdb, other wikis, etc., are not considered reliable per WP:USERG, and 911myths.com is a wiki.
Also, two minor points:
The subject of a Wikipedia article should be referred to by their surname (unless they're more commonly known by a nickname or pseudonym, of course), and all other persons with the same surname should be differentiated by referring to them by their given name.
Spaces do not go in front of citations, per WP:PAIC.
If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scanned document cited, was from the FBI. It just happened to be hosted in an unreliable site.
Re multiple paragraphs: ok; but one can see where it comes from, by looking for the ending citation.
Both people's full names were given. I then referred to the subject by their first and their husband's by their last, so as to economically distinguish between the two (exactly as the FBI did).
I understand it was an FBI document, but I think we should be able to find a more reliable site hosting it.
The problem with this is that a reader may not know what the ending citation is. How are they to know that a citation for one paragraph is the one located at the end of the second paragraph following it? They don't necessarily know that. They don't know that all three paragraphs were added in the same edit by the same editor. From their point of view, it's possible that they were added by three different editors in three different edits over the course of months or even years, and that the third and final paragraph is the only one supported by a citation. Also, since articles are constantly being edited, with content being added, removed, shifted around, etc. you don't know that future editors are going to keep the material in the exact arrangement you left it. That's why it's important to let 'em know where each piece of info comes from.
Again, we don't refer to the subject by their first name, since that indicates a level of familiarity not in keeping with the formal tone of an encyclopedia. Formally requires us to refer to them by their surname, as indicated by WP:SURNAME, and if we have to refer to others with the same surname, we do so by referring to those others by their given name. Referring to Olson as "Barabara" and her husband as "Olson" gets it backwards. The fact that the FBI does it does not mean that we have to.
I reverted the last three edits to American Airlines Flight 11 for formatting and style reasons, rather than any other concern - please remember that that article is a featured article, and has been reviewed for style, language and format. We don't put citations in the lead paragraph(s) - they're referenced in the body of the article, which is summarized by the lead, therefore cite requests aren't appropriate in the lead. Your note about 41% identification would itself need a cite, and should be integrated into the prose, not tagged on after a reference. In my view the original impact and fire read better than your change, which seemed awkward. I left your change to "members" rather than "terrorist", as I believe it's supported by the MoS (see WP:TERRORIST for support for your position). Acroterion(talk)13:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that 41% needs a citation, after calculating the cited evidence. Just basic (and I believe interesting) mathematics.
According to the official story, the 'impact and fire' claim is false; irrespective of how nicely it reads.
I feel quite indignant that you have the authority to overrule my edits on subjective grounds;
but thanks for keeping in the members change. Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]
The article very clearly continued to show the number of hijackers after my edit.
'Fatalities 60, plus 5 hijackers' - Why is this preferable? The number of onboard fatalities was purportedly 65. It seems as if you're so hostile to the alleged hijackers, that you can't bear to include them in a shared death toll.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Betty Ong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calling card (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I've deleted your comments from the draft page per the BLP policy. Your original research is neither helpful nor constructive. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've deleted the talkpage per BLP. If you're going to troll people on Twitter, please keep it there: it's completely unacceptable here. Acroterion(talk)14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^Behold oppressive "regimes" of the Islamic world: in stark contrast to your totalitarian, stone age ways; here in the morally-superior liberal West, we are free to civilly express unpopular views. HA! Beingsshepherd (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? Wikipedia isn't a haven for free speech, it's an encyclopedia, and you're expected to abide by its rules, which include not using it as a platform for attacking people as "warmongers." If you want to denounce someone, use a blog. Acroterion(talk)14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision.
You've made your views quite clear. This comment [2], in addition to the commentary visible immediately above this section, and a history of skating on the edge of a wide variety of 9/11 related articles, indicates that editing restrictions may need to be requested. Acroterion(talk)10:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear flag-waver (yes, I've glanced at your chauvinistic user page), if that message is important, (for obvious reasons) please relay it to this page. Thanks. Beingsshepherd (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]
March 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Boko Haram. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Well was my (single) edit disruptive or did it just 'appear' to be?
Your opinion of my editing history is irrelevant, as is the sourcing of an invidious, rule-breaching term, which I rightly and charitably deleted (See 'AA Flight 11' section above). Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Beingsshepherd. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
No no, thank you : '4. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles.' Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Beingsshepherd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hello, Beingsshepherd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
