User talk:BURNyA

Welcome!

Hello, BURNyA, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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!

Longview Baptist Temple

Greetings! The prior article on Longview Baptist Temple was deleted by consensus: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple. Accordingly, the new article is subject to speedy deletion. If you like, I can move your text to a user subpage, e.g. User:BURNyA/Longview Baptist Temple while you work on the article and try to get it through deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of the notability coin is verifiability. I thought long and hard about the article. Ultimately I deleted it because the only independent source, a newspaper article, covered the arrest of the principal of a school run by the church. That doesn't meet the criterion for coverage of the church—and it doesn't make the article different enough from the version deleted at AfD earlier to call it a new article. That said, if the church had a feature article in a national magazine written about it, that could be used as a source, and that could establish notability and verifiability.

Ultimately, I think the article will need to go to deletion review to ensure there is consensus support for the article. The problem is, as it stands right now, any administrator can delete the article, no questions asked, because of the prior deletion discussion. So even if I agree that the article is okay, that isn't binding on any other admin. Deletion review would let the community as a whole discuss the article. Conveniently, by my speedy-deleting the article yesterday, you can now appeal there on the grounds that the article has changed enough from the earlier AfD that you aren't recreating deleted material, but you've created a new article. (For the record, since I'm sure I'll get quoted if this goes to DRV, the article neither established notability on its own nor changed enough to be called a new article, so I deleted it as recreated material (G4). That said, if clear consensus is that the article is changed enough or is now notable, I will respect that and undelete.)

Finally, regarding your assertion about multiple people attempting to create the article: I show that before yesterday, the article had only been created one time. Who else had tried to recreate it and when? —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me then. I'll see if I can research it more to make it viable. I'm still a bit new and learning some of the ropes, although I've tried to read as much as possible about standards and procedure. Hope it's not causing any problems. I was referenceing the vandalism of the article, it seemed like it had to be rewritten/restored on more than one occasion, but I may be mistaken. Where can I find the original article? (off the record, this has been frustrating. Not you, the research. I have found multiple areas where information has been removed due to threats of litigation and from pure vandalism, not necessarily on Wikipedia, on other sites. Much of the information, positive negative or otherwise, that I have found have been hard copies. Any archives that should be present seem to be missing. Bit of a mystery really.) BURNyA 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question for you. Did you start the LBT article entirely from scratch, or did you work from the old version of the article? I need to know whether I need to restore the edit history of the old version or not. I talked to another editor, and he said to go ahead and move the article back to the mainspace, if I judge it's different/improved enough. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original article was from scratch. I tried to find the other persons article, but couldn't. I think I have collected enough info over the last few days to make it a viable article though. I still need to do a little clean up and fix some of my POV issues first. I also need to learn how to rollback versions of articles. LBT seems to be the subject of vandals not only on Wikipedia, but also on other websites, message boards and blogs I've seen. So do I need to contact you when it's finished? Thanks BURNyA 18:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move it back to the mainspace tonight. The one thing I needed to check on was about whether I needed to give credit to the other editors, but it seems I do not. I want to wait the move until tonight so I can be around to see how it progresses; I'm at work with limited ability to monitor things right now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'll need a couple of hours to clean it up anyway, I'm at work too. Please let me know if anything needs changing or clarification. Thanks again BURNyA 19:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Shook

No problem, thanks for the explanatory note! -- But|seriously|folks 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unref/unsourced templates

Hey. In the future, can you make sure you capitalize the first letter of the month name when using the unreferenced/unsourced tags? This will ensure that they end up in the proper category. Thanks. --- RockMFR 02:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

I'm really sorry; the version I saw was what I thought was a mistaken revert, so I accidentally reverted to the wrong version. I'm really sorry! Happy editing! Cheers, Neranei (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are too! Thanks for dropping me a note; I appreciate finding out when I screw up. Thanks again! Happy editing, Neranei (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report at WP:AIV

You reported Manson 0015 (talk · contribs) to WP:AIV, but none of this user's edits appear to qualify as vandalism. When the user asked how his edits were vandalism, you just answered "Read." I assume you are referring to the creation of inappropriate pages. However, it must be clear to the user that the page creation is inappropriate and could lead to a block before you report the user. Please try to be more helpful to inexperienced good faith users in the future. Cheers! --Ginkgo100^talk 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven wonders

In reply to your message [1], no tools needed (and I am not an admin); all I did was fork the main article as per WP:SS and then move the results per the talk page discussion. Please double-check my changes and let me know if I missed (or broke) anything. Thanks again for your help in resolving the issue! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service! Please let me know if there is anything else I can ever do for you. :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?

Please do not post useless garbage on my talk page. Please get over Cecil Peoples. I already admitted to doing it with intent to troll the man not that he would ever see it. It was more of a means for the MMA community to blow off steam and they sure did. It seems you are not a fan of Mixed Martial Arts so I doubt you are aware of the travesty's this man has brought down upon this sport with his completely illogical decisions. About half an hour as of this time Peoples stuck again at UFC 75 and robbed Matt Hamill of a win against Mike Bisping. The MMA community was rightfully outraged and thus... well you saw the page. Leave me in peace now so I can actually make a real page for the dirty rat. UnknownToaster 22:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "useless garbage" that I have posted on your talk page are Wikipedia policy warnings. Creating a page for the sole purpose of attacking a person can get you banned from posting on wikipedia. It is slander. It's not "garbage" and it's not a joke. I don't put that info on this talk page to be a pain, but to let you know wikipedia policies. BURNyA 22:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi BURNyA. Thanks for your friendly welcome. I have had some pages marked "conflict of interest" which I now completely understand. However, the pages do stick to the facts and I don't think there is any "marketing speak" on there. Obviously I won't contribute to these pages any further, but I was just wondering if it's possible to request to have another (more experienced) user verify the pages to confirm the facts? If not, what's the normal course of action when a page is marked conflict of interest? Thanks in advance for any help / advice. Devoninspiration 09:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)DevonInspiration[reply]

Punyamurtula S. Kishore, M.D.

Hello,

I have made edits and added references to the article and question whether the article meets the notability guideline. If so can your posting be removed from the top of the article?

Thanks.--Tugntt31 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Tugntt31 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOLWUT

You recently posted useless garbage that I made person attacks on my page. I can put up with a warning about making articles about small bands but that idiotic claim is enough. I expect an apology, or I shall be reporting this to wikipedia sysops. MilesM11 10:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote here

...I expect an apology, or I shall be reporting this to wikipedia sysops. MilesM11 10:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And here

...Now GTFO with your idiotic talk, or would it be more 'appropriate' for me to turn REAL articles into my sandbox? MilesM11 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Where on top of everything else, you have decided to resort to insults and threats. Obviously I was correct in my judgement or the page would be the same as it was previously. Unfortunately, based on these facts, you will be recieving no apology. I look forward to speaking to your "wikipedia sysops". Cheers! BURNyA 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello BURNyA! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 12:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi BURNyA,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Nomination of Longview Baptist Temple for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Longview Baptist Temple is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BilCat (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]