User talk:AbrahamCat

Hi AbrahamCat, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Roleplayer (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Clerkenwell cinema fire

The article Clerkenwell cinema fire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. This page itself says, "The incident is now almost entirely forgotten...".

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Clerkenwell cinema fire for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Clerkenwell cinema fire, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clerkenwell cinema fire until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Beer Club

AbrahamCat: You have weighed in about the Rare Beer Club article, and I respect your opinion, but I must say that I'm bewildered by it. Please note that the article Wine of the Month Club, which was my model in creating this page, exists with much more dubious sources, and no one has recommended it for deletion. Wikipedia seems to have a major consistency problem, with some articles targeted for alleged violations of rules, while very similar articles are left alone. I have mentioned in my defense of the Rare Beer Club article that I worked on another article about the famous Indian film Pather Panchali, and promoted it as a Today's Featured Article, though it contains an entire section, "Release and reception," dedicated to reviews of the film. There were, admittedly, some less than positive reactions as well as the expected raves, and I included both. It so happens that I could not find any negative reviews for the Rare Beer Club, but if I had, I would have included them. It seems to me that, by your logic, all film articles like that for Pather Panchali, as well as articles about albums, video games, and other commercially available products that contain reviews of any kind would need to be deleted as "promotional." Again, I'm surprised and disappointed by your views on the Rare Beer Club article, and would appreciate it if you would possibly reconsider them. Thanks. --Dylanexpert (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AbrahamCat: I realize that I have acted impulsively and perhaps unfairly in second-guessing your comments about the Rare Beer Club article. If the above comments are offensive to you, I apologize and ask that you disregard them. Thank you. Dylanexpert (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dylan. The aspect which worried me about the Rare Beer Club was that all the sources seemed to have the same writing style and delivery, which made it apparent that it was the same source in lots of different locations and second-hand. I think a better approach would be to have an article on beer clubs (as the Wine of the Month Club does), and include the Rare Beer Club as one of the examples therein, instead of diving straight in with the Rare Beer Club article. I'm sorry that my opinion will probably result in the article's deletion - I am loathe to see articles removed on the whole, I like the subject matter, and I disliked Highking's tone in relation to the matter - but when I studied the sources in depth and noticed their similarities, I realised there wasn't much room for leniancy. Please be assured it's nothing personal or vindictive. AbrahamCat (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Global catastrophic risk shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AbrahamCat, since you today again re-added content, I want to remind you to not add against consensus. prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]