As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.
Annette46, having not worked with you before I am a bit surprised that you would make a comment about my "POV" pushing. I have a long and good record as an editor and there are many editors on here than can vouch for my good standing in the wiki community. I work regularly and amicably at the opera project and several editors there will attest to my good work and cooperation on projects. Other than the recent Kathleen Battle conflict, which there were legitimate concerns, I can't really think of what you might be refering to. Regardless, my only concern in this case is that reliable independent third party sources be found. I don't see how that can be POV pushing.Nrswanson (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of Christian Reformed Churches of Australia
Hi Annette46. Just letting you know that the anon who questioned your tagging of Christian Reformed Churches of Australia as possibly not meeting the general notability guideline has read said guideline and begun a discussion on the talk page. (They also edited the tag on the article to draw attention to this, but I have reverted it and offered to let you know directly instead). Blarneytherinosaurgabby?05:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been updated. As I mentioned at the deletion discussion, I'm now unsure if it meets the notability standard. Please take another look and see if you are still of the opinion that it should be deleted. I have no opinion either way. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks for participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Absolute. I hope you don't mind that I tagged your repeated Delete !votes, even though they were obviously in good faith. I was concerned about the possible appearance of votestacking, which could potentially drive a Keep !voter to appeal the AfD on grounds of bad faith deletion.
It might be in better form to either
attach subsequent comments to the original Delete vote, or
add subsequent comments as '''Comment''' .
This is not a bad-faith accusation—it is clear you were adding new reasons and making it clear that your !vote remained Delete. I sincerely appreciate the continued attention you gave this discussion. / edg☺☭23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have questions about the article content, please raise them on the article talk page instead of repeatedly deleting verifiable, relevant and sourced information. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page, since they appear to be increasingly tendentious? For example, marking the origins of the mantra's name as "dubious" even though this had been discussed and several citations pointed for this non-contentious fact. Abecedare (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern, just would like to clear up any confusion...my IP is 72.218.20.128.....yes I am from Chesapeake, My guess would be a friend who knew I was working on the page felt like they would help me. or just a really weird coincidence which i doubt.Travisharger 22:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)
At the time (and at present), there were concerns that embedded code inside the softwares were used for surveillance to identify WP users. Please first experience living within an "enemy" country with strong surveillance and censorship before raising such intellectual queries. Annette46 (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find unsourced claims in an article (especially a BLP) feel free to remove them if they are in your opinion either, (1) false (i.e., not only unsourced), (2) contentious negative information about a living person, or (3) irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. In other cases, it is better to either find sources for unsourced statements yourself, or to add an appropriate tag (such as {{cn}}, or {{dubious}}). If the subject of the article is non-notable, or if the biography reads like an attack page, feel free to nominate the page for speedy/non-speedy deletion.
Some of your recent blanking of articles and sections has gone beyond the above listed practices, and I plan to revert some of such edits. Again, feel free to tag the pages/statements or nominate them for deletion instead. Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is clear and I quote, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". The onus is on the contributing editor to provide sources. You may also note that I am not blanking pages indiscriminately, I am carefully going througb these BLP articles section by section, and often sentence by sentence, to evaluate the sources (rarely supplied BTW) and render the articles encyclopedic. IMO, WP:BLP (mandatory) takes precedence over WP:SOFIXIT (optional). and JFYI, I use "involving or likely to cause controversy" as my duck test for "contentious". I hardly touched well referenced articles like Debi Prasad Pal, and left Ashoke Kumar Sen and Shanti Bhushan unchanged. Annette46 (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you contend that the information is false (whether positive, negative, or neutral), of course, you are encouraged to remove it immediately, but contentious is not simply a synonymous for unsourced. For example, you blanked the article Gopal Subramaniam, which simply said that he is the Solicitor General of India. Do you believe this to be false ? Abecedare (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but where does the term "false" come from ? I have never claimed that "contentious" = "unsourced". I have clearly stated that contentious includes material that is likely to be controversial. For example in Gopal Subramaniam was I expected to ferret out that he was born in 1958 or studied at St Xaviers High School, or that the post of SG is "the second most law officer after the AG" (which statement BTW is false) - of course not. For poorly sourced articles the baby is going to be thrown out with the bathwater. Annette46 (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You had the option of adding citation tags. Or, you could have simply googled his name and verified all the claims in the article. Treating wikipedia as a battleground is not really a productive use of your and others' time; much more useful to, use good judgment, try to contribute to this knowledge base, and build an encyclopedia (which of course includes removing false, or irrelevant information). Abecedare (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you said adding a citation tag was an option, but Gopal Subramaniam has been tagged since Aug 2009. Removing unsourced BLP is however, not an option but an imperative and it is to be done immediately and without discussion. As an almost confirmed deletionist, I strongly believe that my way of sorting out articles is equally necessary to preserve sanity at WP and is complementary to people who want to save articles by searching for sources. You would also have noticed that I do not revert / delete material which is reasonably sourced and have contributed (by locating sources) to preserving articles I believe should be retained such as OggConvert at its Afd [1]Annette46 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annete46, I'll be honest here: I think you are a bright educated person, who has much to contribute to this project. However some of your edits seem more inclined to serve a wiki-ideology, rather than serve the best interests of building an encyclopedia. If you wish you can argue that the latter is just an option, and you cannot be forced to do anything, which is all true; but is that really a level of discussion two mature adults should adopt ? I hope you'll look over my recommendations above, and rethink your strategy. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Annette46. I want to thank you for taking a special interest with Highgrove Luxury Condominiums. Seeing as how I have been discouraged from editing this document further, I would like to point out some errors in what you have written in your edits. Firstly, the subsection "Foundation Problems" is entirely misleading. There are no problems with the foundation, but rather because of substantial amount of bedrock, no basement can be built. This has no indication of a poor foundation. Second, the low income housing issue has been settled long ago. The article you cited was from 2004. Ceebraid Signal has donated its off-site sales center, which is over 5,000 square feet, to Saint Luke's, thus fulfilling the affordable housing situation.
Additionally, I do not believe that the subsection "Developer Woes" should be included, as the Florida branch of Ceebraid Signal has no bearing on Highgrove, and the development there of. Also, I have spoken with User:Atama to rewrite the previous amenities section, as the information is critical to the Wikipedia page. I will ask you the same, because no edits have been made by Atama as of yet. I am asking because the amenities at Highgrove seem to be one of a kind not only in the town but also in the state. No other buildings provide private elevators to each residence, a pool with retractable ceiling, a private climate-controlled wine cellar designed by Wine Enthusiast, or a screening room. Because they are so unique I believe they do deserve to be represented in the article. Please help if you can. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todtanis (talk • contribs) 20:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Moonrock Basic Compiler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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 or image 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Annette46: Thanks for bringing some neutrality on the Wikipedia page for Barefoot College. However, there are many grey areas which need to be carefully scrutinized before they become embedded on the Wikipedia page for Barefoot College. Wiredbee (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional material being inserted into the Barefoot College Wiki
Annette46: Please stop inserting promotional material into the Barefoot College Wiki. Barefoot College aka Social Work & Research Centre is an NGO. Kindly refer to other NGO wiki pages, e.g. Seva_Mandir or Tarun_Bharat_Sangh to understand how to portray NGOs. I'm removing some of your material. Wiredbee (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. Do you really think that for the official 100 descriptions hosted on the TIME site that they are not fully standing behind the factual claims of their winners? that is complete and utter non-sense. please revert yourself and join the discussion on the RS notice board.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
