User talk:Npendleton

Speedy deletion of Frederick Pryor

A tag has been placed on Frederick Pryor 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (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. Calvin 1998 (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user had created both Frederick Pryor and Frederick Pryor. Need to be merged.-- Matthead DisOuß 08:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in Space

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Writing in Space, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Writing in Space. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Writing in Space

I have nominated Writing in Space, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writing in Space. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 10:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Writing in Space

A tag has been placed on Writing in Space, 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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Flag Desecration Amendment, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Stillwaterising (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are appreciated, but please provide references in support of your Backside Flag assertions. First Amendment law comes within the purview of my practice, and I have never heard it suggested that the Flag Desecration Amendment would have any bearing whatsoever on military activities, or that it has been the impetus behind any uniform alterations. bd2412 T 23:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Backside Flag

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Backside Flag. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backside Flag. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at District of Columbia voting rights. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tim Song (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to State's rights. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to State's rights. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Use of primary sources in the manner you used them is called original research. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Please provide secondary sources to support your interpretation. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you above. You are interpreting primary sources (i.e. the Constitution). That's original research and synthesis. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Please provide secondary sources to support your interpretation. Surely you can find some? Yworo (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite happy with quoting the US Constitution and linking US Census. Please edit the text I added in good faith, not just delete with UNDO, so all can benefit from both our perspectives. The crux of our difference of opinion is here: [1]

Npendleton (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules say you must use secondary sources. So use them. As long as you continue to add improperly sourced original research, it will be reverted. Source for example the "three tiers" description. Yworo (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to United States Congress, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yworo (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you really like the one man VETO through UNDO.

Diff of what you don't like: [2]

I would be happy to add links, since you don't like US Constitution links and quotes, where do you want the goal posts now? Please undelete my "Good Faith Edit" and tell me which words and concepts you believe requires support so we can both fix it. Npendleton (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing has to be sourced to secondary sources. Find your secondary sources and write from them. The burden of verifiability is on the person who wishes to add material. Yworo (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Npendleton, you need to start listening to Yworo. They have not "moved the goalposts" they have been very clear in their statements and remarkably patient with your repeated ignoring of those statements. You have certain opinions about what the US Constitution says. Simply linking to the US Constitution does not support your interpretation of what the US Constitution says. You need to provide reliable sources that interpret the US Constitution in the same way you do, otherwise your work will be reverted as original research. Edward321 (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]