User talk:Chrisallen87

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:TeleSuite System 3.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:TeleSuite System.jpg. The copy called Image:TeleSuite System.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ikake

A tag has been placed on Ikake, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gromlakh (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced page

Is the reason you want the "Managed Video as a Service" page deleted just because it has quotes in the title, or do you not want the page to go live at all? If you just want to change the title, you can move it ... provided it doesnt get deleted first. If so you can always re-create it with a proper name. —Soap— 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I note that Managed video as a service was deleted a few days ago. —Soap— 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Please do not use this site for promotion or advertising. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did happen to notice, but the article was very self-promotional and cited no third-party references. You may wish to check WP:CORP before creating an article on a company or corporation. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1s

Hi Chris. Adding +1s to old discussions without engaging with other editors' arguments as you did here and here is not constructive. Please consider reverting those additions and going forward, please avoid these kinds of comments. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I engaged quite extensively, writing numerous paragraphs. Chrisallen87 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically meant the comments I linked above, not the new discussion you started. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These comments were closely related to my raised discussion, and constructive, in that, I am showing support for the other discussions that were made relatively recently on the very same point that I am raising again. It is clear that this very specific criticism of this article is being raised over and over and over, and I believe it is necessary to show support for the other discussions that were similar in nature. Chrisallen87 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if another dozen editors were to add their "I agree"s or "I disagree"s, where would that leave us? How would that move the discussion forward? I don't see how.

It is clear that this very specific criticism of this article is being raised over and over and over This happens in most subject areas of controversy. The amount of times a certain criticism is raised doesn't necessarily speak to the validity of the criticism. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It leaves us with some sense of consensus. Chrisallen87 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. You didn't engage with the rebuttals but just indicated your agreement with the original comments.

Anyway, judging from the current discussion at Stephen C. Meyer and as others have pointed out there, you seem to have some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. In a nutshell, Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources report, not what we as individuals believe. See WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:PSCI. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Stephen C. Meyer are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Ixocactus (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t discussion. Dissenters stated their reasoning that it was “unfalsifiable”, thereby requiring a rebuttal for the pure purpose of rightly removing “pseudoscience” from the article. It has, since, been resolved, for now. But all comments were done with a singular objective of righting a wrong that currently exists on that article, and I intend to continue to work toward that end until logic prevails. It has become clear that this issue is centered on the fact that the entire subject of “Intelligent Design” has been relegated to pseudoscience. This is the true issue at hand that needs addressed.

In order to speak intelligently on the matter, I intend to obtain several books that dissent to intelligent design so that I can resolutely understand their arguments, then I will return and address the Intelligent Design page, which, as of now, I believe is in error. Who knows, perhaps I will change my opinion as I openly engage the best arguments against it. We shall see.

But I still contend that all commentary was done in the spirit of ensuring the encyclopedia is accurate. Chrisallen87 (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]