I appreciate your request, but unfortunately I can't do that. Apart from a very few exceptions mainly involving WP:BLPs and obvious vandalism, articles are always protected on the current version. The protection I applied is simply to prevent further edit-warring and does not mean I condone any version of the contents; those are for its editors to thrash out either on the talk-page or via dispute resolution. All the best, EyeSerenetalk19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Wim E. Crusio, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
PS: I really appreciate your efforts in creating this article, but I definitely would feel happier without it... Thanks for the appreciation, though! --Crusio (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia dying?
Interesting link. Did you follow through to the article being commented on?
In summary, yes, I think the level of activity has dropped, but not for the reasons the blogger gives. In the beginning, everything needed to be written from scratch. By now, there shouldn't be any major topics that are not reasonably well covered. There will always be more to be done, but not on the scale that there once was.
I'm honestly puzzled by your response at the Pokemon DRV. Literally, I have no idea why those things would remotely be related. Care to explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are quite nice and have the best of intentions. But I think your niceness and involvement in several issues has had unintentional side-effects. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm still mystified by the alleged cause and effect involved in that decision. Yes, I do engage on a number of topics as an editor and perform a number of roles as an administrator... but none of them bear on Pokemon, which is why I considered myself sufficiently uninvolved to close that AfD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commented on you
I just commented on you briefly at User talk:Matheuler. I do not think I said anything to bias the discussion of otherwise inappropriate, but please let me know or remove the relevant text if you disagree. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what u r talking about. I have asked you time and time again to please not write on my talk page. This comment from you is completely non-sequitur. Alright if u want to give me a response, then u can write on my talk page just this once, what is it in reference to? --Firefly322 (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be the first person to congratulate you on Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola being kept. Unless there is a particular administrator who leans a certain way who closes the AfD, it should be kept.
I am very impressed with your efforts to keep this article. I think I speak for all of the squadron when I say we would be honored to have you be a part of the squadron.
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is really heartening to see new names in our growing organization. Can I ask how you heard about ARS? I will look forward to working with you! Check out the little tool below which currently lists all the articles currently tagged for rescue.
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found
Hi, Firefly322, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
--Firefly322 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)==Nicholas Beale==
I think the best way of this article having a chance is to take the original deleted version (not this latest unsourced mess) and put it in userspace, and then improve that version. I can do that for you if you wish. Black Kite05:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yw. but I'm not so sure it's a brain exactly that makes me think this way. It's more like a lot of silly people who happen to have high-IQ's (higher than mine no doubt) truly believe that these ideas are sources of ignorance that must fought off. They really are suffering from a conspiracy theory mindset. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fighting the good fight. Just don't let them get to ya'. 'Cause in the end we will win. I thought you might be interested in glancing at a discussion about the alleged origins of bias on Wikipedia, in which I bring up the Denialism article and the arguments that were put forward during its 2nd nomination. Cheers! --ô¿ô03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern University
I saw you created an article about professor Philip Cary.
Would you mind refactoring this comment a little? Dismissing my contributions to the sourcing is fine - AfD is a good place to discuss whether what coverage there is occurs in usable sources. I would, however, prefer that you avoid terms such as pro-denialist camp, both in general and particularly in reference to my editing. Such accusations of bad faith and cabalism detract from the task of building a quality encyclopedia through collegial discourse and editing. I know you are aware of such behavioral norms as WP:NPA and WP:CIV, so please just dial it back a bit. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are an experienced editor enough to be well aware of WP:3RR. I am. Alas, this seems like a redirection away from answering my points on the talk page. Please keep comments there from now on. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm concerned that you deleted edits that people should be able to see to evaluate the notability of the article. For now, I'll put the refs/language on the AfD page. But can you do one think in the meantime -- explain why you reverted my chrono move of the litigation to where I believe it belongs (lower down)? Also, we should discuss why you are deleting the material, as I think all or nearly all is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was becoming a coatrack. Notability isn't about writing alot or expansion. Need to go slow and be careful. Not sure what "my chrono move of the litigation" means? --Firefly322 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had moved the litigation section down one below where it now stands. You moved it up. It is in better chronological order and makes more sense IMHO if it is move down one section again. OK w/you? Also, if you added the Youtube cites, can you pls address them w/Hipo on the article talk page, as he is seeking to delete those footnotes (I wasn't the one who added them)? tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm addressing it now on the talk page. I didn't notice the litigation section move. I'll take a look (probably move it to where u suggest). If I don't remind me and we can talk about it. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that in a recent deletion you deleted the book infor from the body of the article. If you look at WikiProject Books instructions on article structure for non fiction works, they suggest both the template and the information that you just deleted from the body. I'm not sure why, but my guess is that as with most templates, they repeat info in the body of the article (think of every bio template that reflects the date of birth -- invariably also reflected in the body of the article). Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here's what I understand. Quoting: "A general book article includes:
A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers.
A book synopsis.
Information about its publication.
A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view).
Noteworthy citations and sources."
Where does it say that you need to add that info to the body, even if repeated in the box? One of these 5 points? It might I just don't see it. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep on reading, below it gives greater detail. Under the heading "Intro" it says:
"Infobox (Template:Infobox Book)
add into the infobox the first edition and possibly the first paperback edition ISBN, any others would go in ==Release details== section at the end of the article
And then under the heading "Headers":
Release details / Editions / Publication
{{cite book}} {{cite book |author= | title= | publisher= | year= | id= ISBN 1234567890 | pages= }}
title, author, publisher , year, pages, ISBNs — The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870—1914, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster New York 1977 Octavo, pp. 698, ISBN0671225634, ISBN0671244094 (Pbk.)—David Hackett Fischer (2004). Washington's Crossing, p. 564, Oxford University Press. ISBN0195170342.
year, country, publisher (ISBN), Pub Date, edition — 1989, UK, Fontana (ISBN0006165745), Pub Date 9 February 1989, Paperback
list the first editions and perhaps the most respected current editions, mention if it is a partial list. Possible order: hardcover, paperback, audio book, e-book....
No problem. Thanks for listening. Do you want to be the one to put it back? (since one of our colleagues has suggested that I was edit warring on that page). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is inapropriate to accuse others of supporting Sharia or saying that conversations are "disgusting," or comparing people to NAMBLA is never acceptable. Please review WP:NPA and WP:BLP - and follow them. Consider this your final warning. Hipocrite (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. "WhenAnwar al-Awlaki wrote warm things about Hasan, he might as well have writen warm things about Nambla."
This BLP talk has gone too far. It enables editors to censor discussion, that is inappropriate and adverse to wikipedia's designation as a free encyclopedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you for 55 hours for disruptive editing, for flagrant abuse of BLP. Comparing living individuals in this way is totally unacceptable, and while we normally allow people extra leeway on their user talk pages, this material is defamatory. PeterSymonds (talk)23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is my own talk page. I have been accused of edit waring on my own talk page. That seems like WP:wikilawyering to me.
I don't see how I have violated WP:BLP in anyway, since he is sourceablely evil and I have not insisted on keeping it in the redirect discussion page. Just here.
How can one defame someone who thinks the Fort Hood Shooting is justified by God's law?
Also the context of the quote has been removed by blocking admin.
How can my comment on my own talk page WP:DISRUPT wikipedia?
If unblocked, until there is a consensus one way or the other, I will not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.
As I told the blocking admin on his talk page, I wish to discuss whether or not the community thinks this talkpage comment is acceptable.
Decline reason:
I am declining this unblock request, specifically because of points 2, 3, and 6, which show a grave lack of understanding of the aims of the project and for the levels of decency required for participation in discussions over living persons. MBisanztalk00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm not sure what a discussion of whether someone is evil, or how evil, has to do with writing articles. Once it's objected to why not let it go? If you want to discuss the shooting there are other places. But I think there is a principle (not evenly applied) that we don't disparage article subjects whoever they may be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tradition of disparagement on article subjects. Plenty of AFD's are filled with them, especially the ones headed for deletion. This seems in the spirit of Wikipedia not being WP:CENSORED. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChildoMidnight, thanks for sticking up for the facts of the matter on the Incidents page. Considering that you didn't agree with me here, I would have to say it means you're a bigger person than I. I respect that. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you see article subjects being disparaged, I suggest informing those involved that their behavior is inappropriate. There is a lot that goes on here that's not constructive, but we should strive to do our best and to aspire to maintain the highest levels of integrity, truth and fairness. Your views on article subjects are perfectly valid, but sharing them may not be helpful to building or improving this encyclopedia. I'm not sure our BLP policy applies to puppets, but I'd be willing to check. There's certainly an argument to be made that puppets are innocent while mass murders and other criminals don't deserve to be treated with any respect. But I think our policies make clear that all human subjects be discussed and treated with dignity and without disparagement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that even Wall Street Journal (read what the quote says) has reputation for editors calling each other Nazi's. This too is obviously a strange joke existing even amongst the epitomy of professional editors.--Firefly322 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If unblocked and unless there were a community consensus to do otherwise, I would not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.
I see that a reviewing admin agrees with the blocking admin. I do and will respect this community feedback.
I didn't immediately realize that an admin was editing my talk page. Had I, I would have not reversed his/her edits since I do understand that as an admin he/she already tends to act on community consensus.
The blocking admin warned me for something else entirely than for making a personal attack on other editors. I was blocked as a preventitive measure since I and another editor were reversing my own talkpage diff's that the admin said were inherently inappropriate. (Though, s/he no doubt looked at my recent edits in deciding what to do and that comment in my edit history probably looked awful after having had her/his earlier warnings ignored.)
Obviously, I was beyond WP:BOLD and just over-the-top in this situation and the follow-up to the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion this was taken very badly.
But neither the blocking admin nor I were even discussing reversing that. From the actions s/he interpreted the situation to be one where we on the verge of edit warring over this page.
Also I don't understand someone repeatedly calling this personal attack on other editors. It wasn't. The discussion was already rowdy long before I said anything. I'm sorry for those who honestly interpet it that way, but calling something, which was already water under the bridge, a personal attack again and again against oneself is itself ignoring WP:AGF.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is appropriate. I tried to downplay your unnecessary comments, but they were the tipping point that caused all the drama and led to the redirect being deleted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have a different view. While I think the block for voicing an opinion that a fellow is evil is questionable (and especially inconsistent with treatment of other editors--justice appears anything but blind here), I think that the follow-on of an indefinite block for such a statement is certainly far too long. If any follow-on is appropriate (a matter I think open to dispute), I believe it should be much shorter, in the 2-4 week range.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicion that this editor intentionally sabotaged the RFD. I don't think he should be blocked for comments either, but he was bringing down editors such as yourself, Grundle and Child of Midnight. We all know what we can and cannot say on here, and to me, he intentionally passed that line. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm wrong, and it's known to have happened, this editor can create a new account and actually be constructive rather than deconstructive, whether that was his motive or not. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, I agree with you that Firefly is not on my side. That's somewhat obvious by his edits over the last few days, in which he deleted comments I had inserted into an article under AfD review that helped reflect its notability. That said, whether he is on my side or not doesn't affect my desire to have the rules enforced in an non-partisan manner.
The fact that Firefly was blocked for giving voice to Firefly's opinion that Awlaki is evil--and that Black Kite spoke up in support of such a block and said he would have made it indefinite--is in stark contrast to Black Kite's tolerance and active defense of another editor writing to other editors (living people as well): "You can go fuck yourself", and calling people "you fucking moron" and "idiot" and "bitch" -- while being warned over 20 times. If the second editor attracts only support from Black Kite without the slightest criticism, yet he blocks this editor, justice in this matter is not blind.
This lack of evenhandedness is emphasized by the failure of Black Kite (and any others supporting his view) to take action against YellowFive for his statement in a related discussion (to which Black Kite was party) that a certain living person "hates Muslims".--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final note to Firefly
Firefly, if I am wrong about your intentions, please create a new account and make significant contributions to the project. Do not treat it as though it's a battleground. Once you've done this write "I told you so" on my talk page, and I will understand. Good luck. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that would be in accord with WP rules. It would be viewed as innappropriate avoidance of the block. If he is to contribute, the block would have to (as I believe it should be) be lifted.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although if he returns and edits constructively then we'll never know, although it probably rules them out for admin levels and above. Due to the long term behaviour of this editor I don't think they can expect an unblock in less than 6 months, after a formal request. Verbalchat19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a “thought police” problem on Wikipedia?
While I can not speak to the issue of “repeatedly abusing editing privileges,” I note that the block by PeterSymonds, disclosed above at 23:46, 19 November 2009, appears to be over this statement, where Firefly322 wrote
“
Like Hitler, Awlaki is pure evil and comparing him to a member of Nambla in a comment is like comparing Hitler to one of them (not on an article…
”
The block, in my humble opinion, is unjustified and unconscionable. Who appointed Peter to the Thought Police? Even though Firefly322 did not append the obligatory “IMHO” or some semblance of same to this post, it is clearly a stated opinion. Most importantly, it wasn’t done in articlespace; he made it on his own talk page.
We can not have truth in our articles if vigorous debate can not occur in behind-the-scenes WP-space. The term “vigorous debate” doesn’t mean that one has carte blanche freedom to be uncivil to other editors, but it certainly means that debating about an infamous individual who is in the news is protected speech on Wikipedia when one is discussing edits to an article. No one can possibly make the case that Firefly shocked the conscience of other Wikipedians by stating that Awlaki is evil since every counter-terrorism and federal law enforcement agency is busy trying to figure out how that disaster was allowed to happen.
Are we to have self-appointed Thought Police step in and block me for several dozen hours for stating on a talk page that [IMHO] “Osama bin Laden is an exceedingly evil man” if I am debating an edit to that article? Is Peter going to say that that he finds my opinion offensive and block me because I should have said “Osama bin Laden, while he might be a perfectly fine man in many regards, sure seems to have been capable of making poor choices in the past.”
Peter owes Firefly322 an apology for his original block and the block should be officially struck so the reversal appears on his record. I have no problem with the later extended blocks so long as they are not direct fallout from Firefly objecting to the first block. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this late and have no intention of doing a review of the blow-by-blow. All I can do is read what an admin writes and take it at face value. Since you are saying “not in this particular case,” I assume there is a lot more to the block than Firefly stating his opinion that Awlaki is some sort of poopy-head. I note that Peter cited the following as the basis for his block:
“
…for disruptive editing, for flagrant abuse of BLP. Comparing living individuals in this way is totally unacceptable.
”
If the block on Firefly is for the “disruptive editing” part, I’m fine with that. I am quite alarmed, however, by Peter’s citing “[c]omparing living individuals in this way is totally unacceptable” as a basis for the block. It strikes me as yet more “I am a good and deserving admin for being able to ‘out PC’ you.” As I expect to not have to drink the PC Kool-Aid before trying to get anything actually grownup done here, I assume Peter’s comment was a slip of the fingers and was an attempt at adding more basis over continual provocation. Greg L (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't for "comparing living individuals", it was for "comparing living individuals in this way", a way which was disruptive, against policy, etc. It is also a long term issue with this editor. Verbalchat12:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you: It wasn't for "comparing living individuals", it was for "comparing living individuals in this way". Umm… perhaps. It depends on how one defines “that way.” I see a lot of wiggle room as admins circle the wagon trying to justify a block that can be justified for Firefly editing disruptively but not for one of the reasons stated. If the blocking admin wants to not be criticized for a poor rationale behind a block, said admin should learn what Wikipedia’s policies really are about and cite the proper basis for a block.
If Firefly was blocked for being editing disruptively, that’s perfectly fine. But if this “disruption” was over his insisting on his right to discuss—on his own talk page no less—an article on Awlaki by expressing a legitimate, heart-felt opinion of the accused murderer, then it is permissible and within the scope of a Wikipedian’s prerogative on Wikipedia.
If you think Wikipedia policy sweeps up legitimate discussion about (clearly) infamous individuals, you are mistaken. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a burden of proof required by a the U.S. government—and most Western governments—to deprive an individual of their liberty. In the court of public opinion, thinking someone who witnesses saw kill 13 people is “evil” is a legitimate and widely held view of the man and it is entirely permissible to share this belief on Wikipedia’s discussion pages when debating editorial content. Awlaki is indisputably a notable person of infamy and the discussion pertained to an article about the man; it doesn’t matter that he is a living person given this set of circumstances.
On Wikipedia’s talk pages, editors are free to offer their opinion that someone like Roman Polanski is “scum.” Roman—a living person of infamy—is accused of giving alcohol and a Quaalude to a 13-year-old girl and then raping her (oops… “allegedly engaging in a sexual act that wasn’t in accordance with the laws of a particular state of the U.S., were said laws were probably the product of narrow minded dead white guys who were not sensitive to the ways of other cultures so maybe Polanski made a ‘poor choice’ ”). On Wikipedia, thought may legitimately expressed that Osama bin Laden is “unmitigated, weapons-grade evil” when discussing the tone or content of a germane article. All these people of infamy are living individuals. I can tell you with great confidence that the Wikipedian community will not put up with admin conduct that has a chilling effect so that Wikipedians feel they must write that “Osama bin Laden made poor choices” to avoid being assailed by some admin.
As administrators, it is your responsibility to ensure that an editor is not disruptive to a collaborative writing environment and to ensure Wikipedia’s policies are followed. Period. Please learn to separate that from some fallacy that it is your prerogative to decide what thoughts can and can not be expressed on Wikipedia’s back pages when debating article content. If any administrator thinks Wikipedia’s policies governed FireFly’s statement—per se—they are sorely mistaken. FireFly’s expressing his opinion about Awlaki, in and of itself, was not disruptive whatsoever to Wikipedia because what he wrote is a legitimate “opinion.” If he was editing tendentiously (such as the aforementioned “a community discussion about this user's long-term problem”), then focus on that issue alone.
Peter was in error to cite “Comparing living individuals in this way is totally unacceptable” as a contributing basis for blocking Firefly and should have focused only upon the other disruptive aspects. I am coming to Firefly’s defense to protect his Wikipedian rights to share legitimate, Wikipedia-related thought because infringement on his right to engage in civil, vigorous debate infringes on mine. So long as I am not being uncivil to others, please don’t presume to dictate to me how I may think or how I may express those thoughts here on Wikipedia when discussing the content of articles. Thank you very much. Period. Case closed. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine; he was blocked for “disruption.” Splendid. Then Peter went beyond that and cited how Firefly stated his opinion on his own talk page (*sound of audience gasp*) that Awlaki was “evil”. That was the aspect of this I was addressing. We seem to be talking cross-purpose now. I don’t care about the other stated reasons Firefly was blocked so long as the block is justified on those other reasons and was not for his stating his opinion on a topical and germane editorial matter—or for insisting upon his right to restore that opinion after others delete it. I’m quite done here. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Firefly322! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
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.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope 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 good 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I can only find one link to her from Google News; doesn't seem to have any other coverage in secondary sources.
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.
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.
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. Mais oui! (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppy-throwing Marine viral video 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 notice from the top of the article. Beerest355Talk23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard J. Van Till 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 notice from the top of the article. Jinkinsontalk to me20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:NWofMrTompkins.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:NWofMrTompkins.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The John Templeton mentioned in this article is not the subject of any article on WP. This is a non-notable theological position from a non-notable theologian. All sources found on BEFORE search were book sale sites, no independent reliable items.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taede A. Smedes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical Science for Christian Schools until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
