User talk:Shoessss/Archive 1(counter)d
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Shoessss. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I closed this discussion as delete, and userfied the article here as requested. Take care. 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You're invited...
You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
June 14, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University
In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.
Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?
In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Cooneyite/Chr.Conventions articles
I see you were involved in the proposal to delete the Cooneyite article last year. As this and 2 related articles had lain dormant for some time without citations, I went through the CC article to get it down to information which could be cited. I had also begun to do this for the related Cooneyites and William Irvine article (if those edits preempted anything you were about to add, my apologies to you and Cirt, as at the time I didn't know you two had proposed adding some citations). At this point, the editor who had proposed deleting the Cooneyite article has returned and is disputing RS on the citations, restoring uncited information, and proposing using editor consenus instead of citable sources. I haven't seen this proposed before, so I was wondering if you might comment as to whether this would be valid. I personally do think the citations are RS (but I've spent many days tracking down citations, so I'm hardly without bias). My worry is that editor consensus without citation seems to be an open invitation for someone to delete material wholesale, or again propose Afd'ing the articles themselves. Is editor consensus a substitute for citing sources? Not sure I can preserve a cool head, as this comes on the heels of another member who insisted and dispute-tagged everything on what seems to be a premise that the group cannot be described at all. • Astynax talk 19:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay getting back to you...but yes, I'll take a look at over the next day or two. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 12:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tuan Nguyen, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikibin.org/articles/tuan-nguyen.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Tuan Nguyen
A tag has been placed on Tuan Nguyen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jonathan Hall (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- AGGGGGGGGGGGGG - Please look at edit history and source before nominating for speedy. See article talk page. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if the criteria is wrong, you can't remove a speedy deletion tag from an article you created. I've deleted the article because you made very little improvement from the last deleted version. Keep working on it. When you are ready to move it to the main space, move it instead of creating a new one. That will preserve relevant history. Use {{helpme}} to get input before moving it again. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- First, I did not remove the Speedy delete; I placed a hang-on on the article. Second, the reason the piece went to AFD was because the piece was un-sourced. If you note, the piece is now sourced – in line cited and referenced. Third, now that you deleted the piece I have lost all history. Please reinstate or place article in my subpage. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your copy has been restored. For future reference, do not remove the speedy tag, place the hangon below it(see above). If you remove the tag, the reviewing admin does not see why the article was nominated and it does not remain categorized properly. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- First, thanks for the restore, and not to kick a dead horse, I did not remove the Speedy Tag, I placed a hang-on under the tag as policy dictates. Either way, again thanks for the restore. ShoesssS Talk 12:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your copy has been restored. For future reference, do not remove the speedy tag, place the hangon below it(see above). If you remove the tag, the reviewing admin does not see why the article was nominated and it does not remain categorized properly. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. My mistake entirely. I saw Removed tag - no copyright violation after I had deleted it and had a brain fart. I apologize. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- LOL - Not a problem....Take Care. ShoesssS Talk 12:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. My mistake entirely. I saw Removed tag - no copyright violation after I had deleted it and had a brain fart. I apologize. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a new Topic to get you started
Just a new Topic to get you started ShoesssS Talk 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you favor deleting Josh Segall as there is nothing unrelated to the election as well? BrianY (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment – Yes I would. On the other hand, here is a politician am actually supporting under a Keep opinion in aAFD discussion as it pertains too Brad Lander. The difference between the two is that Mr. Lander, in my opinion, established notability outside the political arena, (i.e. other than running for office). Hope this helps in explaining my current opinion, Delete, with regards to the article for Mr. Ellmore. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, support and friendly style of strangers like me. Chelovechek (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Your welcome…and welcome aboard. ShoesssS Talk 12:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You're invited!
You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
September 12, 2009
Time: 3 pm
Location: University City, Philadelphia
NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.
The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the Wiki Takes Philadelphia event. We'll discuss logistics, establish jobs, and coordinate with participating groups.
The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.
Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Richard Anthony Jay
I saw your post on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ding_Day and I was interested in your comment that "it is not the responsibility of ONE individual to produce evidence of notability but the responsibility of the individual proposing the deletion to support the reasons of why NOT the article does not meet current Wikipedia standards of notability for inclusion".
I seem to be running into a brickwall at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Anthony_Jay despite having demonstrated notability under several criteria, in many references. Can you point me to an entry that bears out your above statement ? Or alternatively, give me your opinion on my page and how I can satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(music) if you believe I haven't already done it ? Burningpetals (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Burningpetals first , let me welcome you to Wikipedia and start off by saying that any and all contributions are welcomed. Regarding your question "...what mandates the responsibility of the individual proposing the deletion to support the reasons of why NOT the article does not meet current Wikipedia standards of notability for inclusion." is addressed in BEFORE. This policy, as shown by the clicking on the blue link, requires the nominating editor to investigate if there are creditable - verifiable - reliable - 3rd party sources that validate the pieces inclusion in Wikipedia before nominating the article for deletion. Sorry to say, this overlooked many times. However, in this case the nominator did do a Good job. His responce is what I had a problem with.
- With regards to the specific topic of Richard Anthony Jay, sorry to say, I would express a Delete opinon. In looking for creditable - verifiable - reliable - 3rd party sources that validate the pieces inclusion in Wikipedia, my first step is to look at Google News. If I do not find any references there, and depending on the subject, I look to Google Scholar and Google Book. Failing all thee search areas, my last resort, is plain old Google. However, it should be noted, that Blogs - Facebook - MySpace and other such sites are not and can not be considered as creditable - verifiable - reliable - 3rd party sources and are not considered for establishing notability.
- Hope this answers your question, and if you have any more or just need some additional information, just drop me a line.
- And once again, "Welcome Aboard" ShoesssS Talk 00:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your reply. But why are the references I have cited not (easily) enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(music) multiple times ?:
- 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition'[1][2]
- 'Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable'"MUSO". Impromptu Publishing. 2009: 56. ISSN 1476-9212.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) and [3][4] - 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc'[5][6] Burningpetals (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)
| The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | |||||
Could you please answer the question asked at User talk:Graeme Bartlett#Declined G12 on Gmsh? MLauba (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Short descriptions of free software are not copyrighted. All this article does is give a short description (2 sentences). How else would you describe it? Hope that helps. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 11:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hello MLauba - typically short descriptions of a product are not copyrighted. In that the thought process for copyrighting is to protect intellectual property. In that the description is not giving away a unique view or perception of the product just describing the basic use, that an average individual would also describe in the same manner, there is nothing to copyright. If you would feel more comfortable, I would be more than happy to reword. But as I mentioned above, in such a short description, the differences would be slight. Better explanation :-)? ShoesssS Talk 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The wording at present is certainly not generic enough to be ineligible for protection, and further, the sequence of edit summaries from both Graeme and yourself mentioning the GPL as reason to clear are, in my reading of the situation, incorrect in any case. If you believe you can reword, the text is not so generic as not being copyrightable, and I'd absolutely be more comfortable if you would do so. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem....give me an hour. Take care ShoesssS Talk 13:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Check it now....I have also added references and in-line cites. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 14:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem....give me an hour. Take care ShoesssS Talk 13:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The wording at present is certainly not generic enough to be ineligible for protection, and further, the sequence of edit summaries from both Graeme and yourself mentioning the GPL as reason to clear are, in my reading of the situation, incorrect in any case. If you believe you can reword, the text is not so generic as not being copyrightable, and I'd absolutely be more comfortable if you would do so. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hello MLauba - typically short descriptions of a product are not copyrighted. In that the thought process for copyrighting is to protect intellectual property. In that the description is not giving away a unique view or perception of the product just describing the basic use, that an average individual would also describe in the same manner, there is nothing to copyright. If you would feel more comfortable, I would be more than happy to reword. But as I mentioned above, in such a short description, the differences would be slight. Better explanation :-)? ShoesssS Talk 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Short descriptions of free software are not copyrighted. All this article does is give a short description (2 sentences). How else would you describe it? Hope that helps. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 11:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for American Sound Studio
|
On August 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Sound Studio, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
NW (Talk) 23:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Treadmill with Vibration Isolation System
|
|
On September 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Treadmill with Vibration Isolation System, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Jake Wartenberg 05:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
RE:AFDs
Hey there! I'd love to, I completely forgot to merge those. I didn't delete them, though; the content can be found here (CAS) and here (CFS). I would have put them on your subpage myself, but I wasn't sure what subpage you were referring to. Cheers, and keep up the great work! Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Guy....aprreciate the help. ShoesssS Talk 11:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Coghill is applicable. ;-) Cunard (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that Cunard. Duhh! I was going through a listing of about five names that were all releated but taken to AFD as seperate discussions, but the same basic premise and just carried it one discussion to far. Removed ny comment from the discussion page. Thanks again for the catch. ShoesssS Talk 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. I make silly mistakes all the time. Less than an hour ago, I did this. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that Cunard. Duhh! I was going through a listing of about five names that were all releated but taken to AFD as seperate discussions, but the same basic premise and just carried it one discussion to far. Removed ny comment from the discussion page. Thanks again for the catch. ShoesssS Talk 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why thank you, sir.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- No thanks necessary.....you deserve it...Nice job ShoesssS Talk 23:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Inre this diff...
Your courtesy is greatly appreciated. And I am so sorry that I did not hold onto the userfied Radio Tales articles longer. All 63 being nominated at the same time was overwhelming. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Michael not a problem, you did a nice job bringing it up to speed. I believe if you look through my history, you will find that we are actually reading from the same book. Just different pages from time to time. Likewise, I am part of the ARS project. In fact, my approach to saving articles is very similar to yours. First look for sourcess - source the piece, rewrite if necessary - then debate like hell :-). Regarding the Radio Tales, no big deal, I'll just start from stract and see what I can do. In the mean time, take care. ShoesssS Talk 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Good Luck with Radio Tales (Time Machine). All I can suggest is to source the ever-lovin' crap out of 'em, since you'll be fighting the bias against recreating a deleted page. Make 'em shine and the deleting admin will have to agree that your version is both unique and better. And actually, not having the originals in front of you, your individual way of approaching the article may well reap positive benefits. Let him know that from perusing the AfD, you are aware that many of the 63 were not unique, and that your new offering is the same only in title... not in content. Best always, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Michael, yeah I know the procedures. So far, I have been lucky! All the articles I have brought back have stuck, even with an AFD based on a recently deleted article. Easiest way to handle is just address the concerns of the previous AFD and than what is there to discuss :-). ShoesssS Talk 03:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good Luck with Radio Tales (Time Machine). All I can suggest is to source the ever-lovin' crap out of 'em, since you'll be fighting the bias against recreating a deleted page. Make 'em shine and the deleting admin will have to agree that your version is both unique and better. And actually, not having the originals in front of you, your individual way of approaching the article may well reap positive benefits. Let him know that from perusing the AfD, you are aware that many of the 63 were not unique, and that your new offering is the same only in title... not in content. Best always, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you very much for the recognition and for your guidance regarding AfD. I will always cherish my first barnstar. Hananekosan (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- LOL- Just the first of many to come. Just take your time, you do a good job. ShoesssS Talk 02:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Institute of Business Finance
I noticed you made some edits to this new page and probably tried to help it survive. I removed some text that was not supported by references. Feel free to revert my changes. Cheers! Lattefever (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Lattefever
- Well hello and welcome aboard Lattefever. Those changes you made are fine, in fact, thanks for catching them, appreciate your help and once again, Welcome Aboard. ShoesssS Talk 15:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Oi! : )
I had just written a comment agreeing with your comment about my comment and then you went and deleted it from the AfD. I can take some robust criticism. This is what I wrote: "::: Comment - fair summary, although perhaps it would better to say that "I don't have the time to go and find reliable sources for an author who wrote 20 years ago." This takes extensive time and effort which to my mind is not worth it. I suppose I see that this person has written some 15 books about an area of early Australian history and thus is notable and over time more interested people than me will improve the article. I know this doesn't fit with how we do things around here but it seems more valuable to us to have this entry than to delete it. I am delighted that Google is providing you the sources you require. I find as someone who writes about early Australian history that it is rather poor in this area. When it has stuff it's very exciting but more often than not I am left seeking more information. Google is great but it ain't God...yet!
Please don't hang your head in shame. Tis good to have some people trying to keep the quality of WP high. I appreciate the work you are doing. Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Gillyweed, thanks for your comments. The interesting part about this particular article is that I did try and find sources or even a review, and just could not come up with anything. Regarding my remarks, though not uncivil where on the biting edge and that is why I struck. Any editor that takes the time to express an opinion, even if it is different from mine :-), deserves the right to express that opinion without satire. ShoesssS Talk 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination), which was closed as no consensus and later relisted after DRV decision, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - expressed my opinion. ShoesssS Talk 11:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Zoids
Do you really need me to list all of them for deletion? Given the current trend, it is quite obvious what will happen with the rest. TTN (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- No it is not. In fact it is just the oppiste. You nominate for delete and the consensus is either Keep or Merger. Not Delete and Redirect. Sorry, major disagreement here. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoids - the OER, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NJR Zoids, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Blox, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoids Remodelling Sets, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreleased Zoids all ended in delete. The rest have been redirected and the only one to have been closed "merge" is that recent one. AfDs closed as "merge" don't actually have to be merged, just so you know. It'll be the same for the rest of them. TTN (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Pay through the nose
Hi, I just saw this at NPP. While the content is well sourced and it will be helpful to readers; don't you think this type of material would be more appropriate over at Wiktionary? ThemFromSpace 03:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - LOL - I know what you are saying. In fact 49.9% agrees with the rational that this is more of a Dictionary term versus a spot here on Wikipedia. However, the term itself strikes a chord that the implications and use of the term could be expanded on. If it goes to AFD I understand. But expect a mild argument from at least one editor :-). Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 03:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's ok. I won't nom it for AfD for the reason you mentioned about expansion. But seriously, if you have the time you might want to conssider giving Wiktionary a helping hand, they're in need of this type of work. ThemFromSpace 03:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - LOL - I know what you are saying. In fact 49.9% agrees with the rational that this is more of a Dictionary term versus a spot here on Wikipedia. However, the term itself strikes a chord that the implications and use of the term could be expanded on. If it goes to AFD I understand. But expect a mild argument from at least one editor :-). Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 03:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia
You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
October 4, 2009
Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia
Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.
Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Japanisches palais.jpg
File:Japanisches palais.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Japanisches palais.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Japanisches palais.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Your RfA
Seems all malformed and fucked up, baby. Crafty (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- LOL- I know it has been so long, I forgot how to do it....Working on it now :-)ShoesssS Talk 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Gotta get teh paperwerks right. :) Crafty (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- LOL- I know it has been so long, I forgot how to do it....Working on it now :-)ShoesssS Talk 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If I were you, I would consider withdrawing the RFA. That's just my opinion, but I hope that you will consider it. Please consider coaching though when all is said and done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- No - I'm OK with the RFA- Gives everyone an opportunity to vent. But thanks for the advice. Regarding coaching, I feel it is a personality issue on expression more than the technical aspects of my contributions. Would coaching help me there or zyntec? In fairness to all opinions expressed at the RFA, I know at times I come across as short or sarcastic, but to be honest, I really do not mean it that way. A lot a times, rather than tell another editor how to do a particular function step - by - step or do it for them, I would rather point them on how to do it and let them learn either a new approach or a technical aspect like a redirect. That way everyone gains. Wikipedia gets another editor that is better armed and the editor has one more tool in their bag. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 14:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that coaching could address the personality issue in that the next RFA nomination will allow for you to be nominated by a hopefully trustworthy person and you'll be more inclined to pass because of it. As for the RFA at this point, I think it's just going to be repetitive opposes as people pile on top of the people before them. And from what I've been told by past editors, killing it now looks better than keeping it and prolonging the "agony". See my talk page archives if you want to confirm that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding coaching, if you look at my second RFA you will see I have gone through that process with my coache(s) blessing. In fact I had two very well respected editos/administrators as mentors. Regarding having an individual nominate an editor, I actually support self-nominations. As I explained earlier, and will not point to this or that case, but address the issue as I see it personally. To put it simply, I did not want to jeopardize a nominator’s respect in the community, depending how this RFA goes, and wanted to gather consensus on Shoessss’s rather than the feelings of the community with regards to my nominator/nominators. I know personally when I recognize the nominator of an individual, depending on the nominator, I will investigate the candidate either more thoroughly or less, depending on the nominator. For me, I wanted no influence other than my name involved. I know, long convoluted answer to an easy question. Now to withdrawning, it really is not that big a deal which way this turns out. Most likely I will not get the tools. If that happens so be it. I’ll just continue on the way I currently do and bug another administrator in those situations where I need access or need a administrator function performed. My reasoning for running again was I would not have to do that, but as the old adage says “…Shit happens”. Either way, I’ll edit along. Take care.ShoesssS Talk 18:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely. I'm changing my vote because this is one of the best responses I've gotten from someone, as most people just leave 10 word answers to a question. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- LOL - I think you will find I cannot say hello in less than 50 words. But thank you. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 22:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely. I'm changing my vote because this is one of the best responses I've gotten from someone, as most people just leave 10 word answers to a question. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding coaching, if you look at my second RFA you will see I have gone through that process with my coache(s) blessing. In fact I had two very well respected editos/administrators as mentors. Regarding having an individual nominate an editor, I actually support self-nominations. As I explained earlier, and will not point to this or that case, but address the issue as I see it personally. To put it simply, I did not want to jeopardize a nominator’s respect in the community, depending how this RFA goes, and wanted to gather consensus on Shoessss’s rather than the feelings of the community with regards to my nominator/nominators. I know personally when I recognize the nominator of an individual, depending on the nominator, I will investigate the candidate either more thoroughly or less, depending on the nominator. For me, I wanted no influence other than my name involved. I know, long convoluted answer to an easy question. Now to withdrawning, it really is not that big a deal which way this turns out. Most likely I will not get the tools. If that happens so be it. I’ll just continue on the way I currently do and bug another administrator in those situations where I need access or need a administrator function performed. My reasoning for running again was I would not have to do that, but as the old adage says “…Shit happens”. Either way, I’ll edit along. Take care.ShoesssS Talk 18:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that coaching could address the personality issue in that the next RFA nomination will allow for you to be nominated by a hopefully trustworthy person and you'll be more inclined to pass because of it. As for the RFA at this point, I think it's just going to be repetitive opposes as people pile on top of the people before them. And from what I've been told by past editors, killing it now looks better than keeping it and prolonging the "agony". See my talk page archives if you want to confirm that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- No - I'm OK with the RFA- Gives everyone an opportunity to vent. But thanks for the advice. Regarding coaching, I feel it is a personality issue on expression more than the technical aspects of my contributions. Would coaching help me there or zyntec? In fairness to all opinions expressed at the RFA, I know at times I come across as short or sarcastic, but to be honest, I really do not mean it that way. A lot a times, rather than tell another editor how to do a particular function step - by - step or do it for them, I would rather point them on how to do it and let them learn either a new approach or a technical aspect like a redirect. That way everyone gains. Wikipedia gets another editor that is better armed and the editor has one more tool in their bag. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 14:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Shoes, if I may ask, when you type out wikilinks like editor, are you actually typing it by hand, or is there a script of some sort? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know saying using a script would alleviate at least one discouraging opinion but, believe it or not by hand. I just got in the habit of doing it to either emphasis a particular point, versus bolding, and like all habits, tough to break. I did take that particular comment to heart, and can understand the editors point. See that, three sentences in a row without blue linking :-). ShoesssS Talk 02:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you could turn it into a good habit if you would link helpful things instead of just repetitive things. In the large paragraph above you linked RFA twice, even though we all know what RFA stands for. Why not link here and here instead, especially given that your name is hard to remember (especially given that names are case sensitive)? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good Pints to remeber. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 14:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you could turn it into a good habit if you would link helpful things instead of just repetitive things. In the large paragraph above you linked RFA twice, even though we all know what RFA stands for. Why not link here and here instead, especially given that your name is hard to remember (especially given that names are case sensitive)? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know saying using a script would alleviate at least one discouraging opinion but, believe it or not by hand. I just got in the habit of doing it to either emphasis a particular point, versus bolding, and like all habits, tough to break. I did take that particular comment to heart, and can understand the editors point. See that, three sentences in a row without blue linking :-). ShoesssS Talk 02:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly consider withdrawing your RFA soon as it is unlikely to change much in the next few days. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Kevin you are probably right, but I have no problem waiting to see the final outcome. ShoesssS Talk 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- At least you're being a good sport about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Kevin thanks, but to be honest, it is not about being a “Good Sport” or “Bad Sport” it is about accepting consensus. Is consensus always right, depends on which side of the consensus you are on. :-) However, to edit here at Wikipedia, you have to accept consensus or move on. The one thing to remember, especially here on Wikipedia, is that you are dealing across not only multiple mind-sets of opinion, but also multiple lines of culture. What one individual finds as a friendly gesture, such as shaking hands, another finds offense. (see Muslim greetings). The only advise I can offer in situations is to be yourself. If you are right, you are right. Even if it goes against popular opinion. If you find you are wrong, admit it - apologize, and move on. The most important part is to do is what; “…you think is right”, and let the chips fall as they may. Good luck to you! You are definitely on the right track….always question. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, you really cannot say hello in less than 50 words, haha. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- LOL - I warned you. ShoesssS Talk 17:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, you really cannot say hello in less than 50 words, haha. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Kevin thanks, but to be honest, it is not about being a “Good Sport” or “Bad Sport” it is about accepting consensus. Is consensus always right, depends on which side of the consensus you are on. :-) However, to edit here at Wikipedia, you have to accept consensus or move on. The one thing to remember, especially here on Wikipedia, is that you are dealing across not only multiple mind-sets of opinion, but also multiple lines of culture. What one individual finds as a friendly gesture, such as shaking hands, another finds offense. (see Muslim greetings). The only advise I can offer in situations is to be yourself. If you are right, you are right. Even if it goes against popular opinion. If you find you are wrong, admit it - apologize, and move on. The most important part is to do is what; “…you think is right”, and let the chips fall as they may. Good luck to you! You are definitely on the right track….always question. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- At least you're being a good sport about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Kevin you are probably right, but I have no problem waiting to see the final outcome. ShoesssS Talk 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually know how to close it. Perhaps you should ask one of the 'crats. Or just add a statement that you're withdrawing at the top of the nomination, and someone will do it properly. I'm sorry this happened--personally I do not regard the material referred to there as justifying the negative comments, & I would have said so after Julian had answered my question. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem.....I can now go back to being my nasty self :-). Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Per your request, which I stumbled upon at DGG's page, I've closed your RFA. Sorry it didn't work out; it's good to see above that you're maintaining a good attitude about it. In the imortal words of Ed Koch, "the voters have spoken, and now the voters must be punished." --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- LOL - thanks Floquenbeam, just when I was making a come back : -).ShoesssS Talk 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Meat on the bone
On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M eat on the Bone (2nd nomination) you said that you thought that there might be an article in the topic if it was written properly. This is just to let you know that I have written something and it is at Meat on the bone. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent Job....more than happy to support. Again, Nice Job.ShoesssS Talk 01:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Replaceable non-free file
I know it was awhile ago, but on this file did you intentionally mark |Replaceability= Yes?--Rockfang (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the catch. ShoesssS Talk 10:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:American_Sound.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:American_Sound.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rockfang (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I wasn't disputing the use of this file, it just needed a copyright tag. I've added it.--Rockfang (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Regarding copyright as it pertains to written material, it is pretty much straight forward. With images, there are so many factors to take into account, especially in the gray areas, that I usually depend on the experts. Thanks for looking at it. ShoesssS Talk 17:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Style and perception
I think your style has rubbed some editors the wrong way. If you're interested in trying again for adminship in the future I would suggest avoiding the use of bolding (or at least using it very selectively), refraining from ALL CAPS, and resisting sarcasm and personal expressions of your personality and sense of humor. Otherwise, you can be yourself and join the ranks of the elite non-admin paramilitary cabal that actually runs this site ;). But seriously, you do seem to be getting some good feedback that you'd do well to consider. I hope you won't be discouraged and I thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia building effort. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well hello there ChildofMidnight. As always, it is a pleasure to hear from you. I do think you Understated your perception on my personality and how others perceive it :-). Regarding some of the remarks, I did take a few to heart. Especially those concerning the bolding and blue linking. I can understand how they may be perceived, though the intention on my part was not meant that way. Those comments I do appreciate. In the mean time, take care and THANK YOU (just could not resist one last time) for your note. ShoesssS Talk 22:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
RFA spam
| Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
|---|---|
| |
| Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing | |
AfD Compromise
Hey, having looked at the comments on the AfD, I've proposed a compromise...no idea if I can actually do it, but I followed WP:IAR and just went ahead and did it anyways. Would love to hear your feedback. Frmatt (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reply Hey Frmatt I appreciate your mediation in the discussion. However, my opinion on delete was based on Original Research. My feelings and personal opinion about Wikipedia is that my opinion is based on the premise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. My understanding of an encyclopedia is a Reference work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or that it treats a particular branch of knowledge comprehensively. It is self-contained and explains subjects in greater detail than a dictionary with references and citations to other works that support the conclusion. With regards to this particular piece, I find that we have an individual, who has done a great job in researching - writing and referencing a piece but has come to their own conclusion. The article as it now stands could, (and maybe should be submitted to a journal for publication). However, Wikipedia is not a Journal - Scholarly peer review - or a publisher of Original material. We are a encyclopedia that forwards the findings of others, after it has been vented by 3rd party - verifiable - creditable and independent sources, and not a publication house for great, but unproven, thesis. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hews in Hollywood
Do you think that ALL discussion that is undernead the "compromise" heading should be moved to the article talk page? Isn't that where discussion meant to improve articles belongs, on the article talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds great. In fact, I was going to post a response to Noleander’s comments to address my concerns. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 13:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the thing to do is to find an uninvolved administrator, because all discussion about improving the articl itself should be removed from the RfD page to the article talk page. I am pretty involved and cannot act in a neutral way. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Typically I would go to DGG in discussions similar to this. However, I noticed that he has commented on the piece, Keep by the way, so that strikes him. Another great administrator would be Uncle G. However, be prepared for his style. At times he does come off abrasive, but I have always found his advice informative and balanced, though biting. To me that is no big deal, but especially neophyte editors may take offense. One administrator who has dealt with this topic and I respect for their balanced approach to articles that even have a whiff of racisms is AniMate. If you like, I can drop a note on his talk page to see if he has the time to participate. Hope that helps. ShoesssS Talk 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I trust your judgment on this, another possibility would be User:Andrew c - good judgment and experienced. But I leave it to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I'll leave a note on AniMate's page and also talk with DGG, who will most likely monitor the page anyway as he has participated in the discussions. He is excellent in making sure it remains unbiased. In the mean time take care, I’ll be back in a week (looking forward to a cruise we have planned for the next 10 days – and sorry, I am not spending the outrageous fees they charge for internet connections on the ships). Happy editing. ShoesssS Talk 12:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I trust your judgment on this, another possibility would be User:Andrew c - good judgment and experienced. But I leave it to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Typically I would go to DGG in discussions similar to this. However, I noticed that he has commented on the piece, Keep by the way, so that strikes him. Another great administrator would be Uncle G. However, be prepared for his style. At times he does come off abrasive, but I have always found his advice informative and balanced, though biting. To me that is no big deal, but especially neophyte editors may take offense. One administrator who has dealt with this topic and I respect for their balanced approach to articles that even have a whiff of racisms is AniMate. If you like, I can drop a note on his talk page to see if he has the time to participate. Hope that helps. ShoesssS Talk 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the thing to do is to find an uninvolved administrator, because all discussion about improving the articl itself should be removed from the RfD page to the article talk page. I am pretty involved and cannot act in a neutral way. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds great. In fact, I was going to post a response to Noleander’s comments to address my concerns. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 13:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Wording suggestion
Shoesssss: I saw you use the word "venting" ... I think maybe you meant "vetting"? I know I certainly make lots of spelling mistakes, and Id like to think the other people would point them out :-)
- Regards
- Thank you! You are absolutely right. I have a tendency to follow Ben Franklin’s rules regarding spelling. If it sounds this way, you spell it that way, right or wrong. Appreciate you letting me know. Take care. ShoesssS Talk 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regards
Message at Talk:Buddhist_Initiation_Ritual
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
| ||||
d#c-Erwin85Bot-2009-09-28T19:52:00.000Z-NowCommons:_File:Japanisches_palais.jpg){kind=link}
d#c-Rockfang-2009-10-05T09:20:00.000Z-File_copyright_problem_with_File:American_Sound.jpg){kind=link}
Content
You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia
You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
April 11, 2010
Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia
Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.
Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Bolan's Rock Shrine
Ooh, good find. Please to be adding to the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment – Thank you. I’ll add some sources over the next couple of days. Thanks again. ShoesssS Talk 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Repost
Created at User:Shoessss/ChuDraft. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Danke Herr Fox...ShoesssS Talk 19:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Irving Literary Society
Please see my reply to your recent comment here. Regards, Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Another look
I've now reflected enough in the article itself that I believe it will be clear to all that the book is notable. See Win Shares (book). You may want to reconsider your !vote (and then again, you may not!).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Irving Literary Society
I've read through the Closing comments, and worked up a new page for eventually republishing. Could you look at and provide some thoughts? The page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmagha Thanks so much. --Cmagha (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha
Klemens Murańka
Restored and userfied to User:Shoessss/Klemens Murańka. Let me know if you need anything else. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Irving Literary Society Userify
Hi ! I have rewritten the article AfD'd last spring, and am working with the administrator to repost. Could you review and offer suggestions? It is HERE. --Cmagha (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not entirely accurate as I just G4ed the article after it was restored to mainspace as another editor raised significant concerns about the handling of the sources and alleged that they do not say what Cmagha claims. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Rescue
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
earlier AfD
You closed the first AfD, but the article re-created with some additional sources. I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Salama (2nd nomination), and you may wish to comment there DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks David….I’ll have a look. ShoesssS Talk 17:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page and AFD contributions
Like this one]. I signed it for you. Thanks. Edison (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks....that happens from time to time. ShoesssS Talk 19:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLP kept at AfD from your !vote
Last December, your keep !vote was one of the main reason that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William "Bill" Douglass survived AfD. 11 months on, it is still unreferenced to independent reliable sources. Can you please provide suitable references to it, or if your feelings on BLP notability have changed at all, renominate it for deletion or merge it as you suggested. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Slavery and reliable sources
Re: this edit, Absoluteastronomy.com is not a reliable source, and most of the articles are mirrors of Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)