User talk:Borock

Welcome!

Hello, Borock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Clinton

Hi, I am guessing you are talking about this, as you can see it is reverted already. Thanks for notifying us! (If I missed an other "joke", please accept my apologies!) If you need further help, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page or to put {{helpme}} followed by your question on this page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Borock (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borock!!!

You appear to be new here, welcome! I like your edits.

At Insight magazine, I went ahead and reverted a recent minor edit of yours, please note that I am not necessarily in disagreement with your edit, but there is a precarious balance among editors in a heated debate over precise words. The propagation of the story is an important aspect. Happy to have you join the discussion (the page needs you, trust me), but allow me to suggest that you visit the talk pages of articles that might be contentious, and look for this tag.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

If you see it, it's probably good to review the discussion and discuss changes before making them, especially if you are new to the page. Again, I think you made a good edit there, but in the current state...let's discuss. See you at the Insight talk page!!!! WNDL42 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My changes to the page were very minor. Borock (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi Borock! I have redirected Obamacon to Obama Republican. If in the future, you need to redirect a page to an article just use the format #REDIRECT Your article here Cheers, —dima /talk/ 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Devils 22.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Devils 22.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability template

I've reverted your addition of {{Notability}} to John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. The article currently has 29 different sources, so seems to have met the requirements requested by the template. If you have questions about the lasting notability of the article, it is probably best covered in an AFD than the application of a template. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Borock (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Borock. You might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Jin Moon. Redddogg (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination

Hi Borock. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman

Since you commented the article in it's first AfD, it has since come under a second AfD. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on this one as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman (2nd nomination). Thanks! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion?

Hi Borock. I'm considering nominating Hak Ja Han for deletion. Would you like to discuss the issue on the article's talk page? Redddogg (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hak Ja Han

I do not disagree with your changes - but just be careful please when making changes to the lede - it appears you accidentally merged pieces of sentences together which created factual and chronological inaccuracies. No worries, I fixed it but leaved out the stuff from the lede you had objected to. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please not have one-sentence-long paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there was a change of subject. Borock (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article related to Unification Church ?

You seem to have a significant interest in articles relating to the topic Unification Church. A longer term project of mine is to eventually improve the quality of the article about the multiple award-winning film Ticket to Heaven. Care to collaborate with me on this project, perhaps specifically research and expansion of the Reception subsection? On a side note, do you know of other examples of notable instances of media/film/fiction etc. that have focused on this topic in popular culture? If articles do not yet exist yet on these subjects I may think about doing some extra research and then writing them myself. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might check out Mao II. As far as I know it's the most famous use of the UC in fiction. Borock (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will check it out. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a documentary from a couple years ago, "My Big Fat Moonie Wedding". That could be worth checking out. Borock (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, you think it is notable enough for an article? If so I will do some research on that. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find quite a few reviews.Borock (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article: My Big Fat Moonie Wedding Borock (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was redirected very quickly after you started it :( [1]. That is why it is generally a good idea to do a large amount of research and compile as many sources as you can first, before starting a new article in a controversial subject. I will do some research, but not sure if I will find enough discussion in sources to satisfy WP:NOTE - will keep you posted. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, live and learn I guess. The person who redirected it didn't even notify me.Borock (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that certainly would have been a nice courtesy to have extended to you... Cirt (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Unification Church political views

An article that you have been involved in editing, Unification Church political views, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church political views. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

When you add new citations to Hak Ja Han, can you please format them using the templates at WP:CIT? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Borock (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. :) Cirt (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Leslie

Rather than just say an article is "trash", why not offer specific reasons for your assessment and suggestions for improvement. Indeed, you could actually help improve the article. As they stand, your comments are not very helpful. Suggest you respond at Talk:Michelle Leslie.--Merbabu (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are aware of the WP:3RR rule. --Merbabu (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't apply in living persons cases. I put a notice on the BLP board. Borock (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate you feel strongly about this article, but implying that other editors are perverts from whom you need armed protection, are personal attacks. Please comment only on contributions rather than contributors, and avoid attributing motives like these to others. Changes to the article would require consensus, which is unlikely to be achieved if discussion descends to personal abuse. Euryalus (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michelle Leslie. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on talk page. Borock (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michelle Leslie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article for deletion. Borock (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you two get this resolved. Good luck. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on doing anything more with this article since I see that some good cops are on the case. :-) Borock (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

If it weren't for WP:BEANS, I'd want to add to WP:NOT your bit about "WP is not a conspiracy starting service" :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- :-) Borock (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But I was contacting people who might know or be interested in the subject of the article. I have no way of knowing how they will vote. Borock (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the message you left on my talk page, I'd tend to agree with your comment. I took a look at the AfD and I shall watch it with interest but I'm not getting involved just yet! I made a few edits to the college's page because I happened to stumble across it and it had references and links all over the place and seemed very POV in places so I tidied it up. I don't know anything about the subject, though the heads up is appreciated- lurking at controversial AfDs is something of a hobby! Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did go a little overboard in letting people know. :-) Borock (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AfD

Hi Borock, i'm not a main contributer to that article. I've only reverted vandalism to the article using Huggle. Thanks anyway! Have a nice day John Sloan @ 11:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]