|The Christianity Barnstar|
|Dear Britannicus, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all of your contributions to WikiProject Christianity, especially your recent creation of National Apostasy. You are making a difference here! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 23:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)|
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/92 Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jamesx12345 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand the dispute over direct evidence. The issue is not clear, so it needs discussion. As far as I can see all the sources are circumstantial rather than direct, because none states that it was a record of the speech as heard.
The talk section does have discussion on the reliability of the sources, but not focused on the issue you raised.
I think your best course was to flag "citation needed", so it was fair for me to revert.
Hey, as someone else involved in the debate on the talk page for the Whigs over whether they should be called 'left-wing', thought I should let you know that another IP has been trying to put the same stuff in. Funny how two non-members have a detailed understanding of infobox code. And that they're arguing the same things as PBS did. But maybe I'm too cynical. Redverton (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of D. G. Boyce
A tag has been placed on D. G. Boyce requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Amortias (T)(C) 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Third Opinion Request Removed
Your request for a third opinion on John Locke's Letter on Toleration has been removed. There is already an RFC on the topic, and an RFC, requesting community opinion, takes precedence over a single request for a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration case request declined
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.
Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.
In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services