User talk:Proxima Centauri/Archive 3

Here are some helpful hints

Here're some place you might look for help:

Hello, Proxima Centauri 2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

What did you think about the deletion notice you received?

Hi Proxima Centauri,

In December you received a message about either "Nomination for deletion" or "Proposed deletion" of an article you created. I'd like to ask you a few quick questions:

Was the message helpful? Were the instructions clear and easy to follow?
If not, how do you think the message could be improved?
What do you think about the deletion process in general? Do you understand how to contest a deletion?

You can feel free to answer on my talk page or send me your response by email (mpinchukwikimedia.org). (I won't quote you or link your answers to your username if you don't feel comfortable with that.) Your feedback is incredibly useful for improving the content of deletion notifications, so please take a minute to think about and answer these questions. Thank you! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a difficult one, I think the failure of the authorities to take action makes the case notable, other Wikipedians disagree with me. Other issues concern me more, why for example can the Roman Catholic Church prevent Criticism of Mother Teresa being longer? There is well documented evidence this so-called saint was either grossly misguided or a hypocrite, see

Why Mother Teresa Was Evil Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed, I don't need help. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A statement

I have learned for myself that your beliefs are not true. May Mother Teresa be blessed of God forever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.115.132 (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assume any opposition to religion has to be Satannic deception, readers can judge how reasonable you are. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

I removed your link to Phil Zuckerman in Atheism as the article does not exist. The article should be written before the link is made. Ref: wp:wtaf. Isn't hanging around atheism articles satanic too? :) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to write the article, I've started a draft at User:Proxima Centauri/Phil Zuckerman. Proxima Centauri (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed that I should not have removed that red link [1] [2]. My apology! I copied the content from Talk:Phil Zuckerman to my user sandbox User:Jim1138/Phil Zuckerman for your use in case it disappears in the meantime. You might be able to get an admin to undelete or put a copy of the former content of Phil Zuckerman in one of your sandboxes.

I too had started on this - unlikely to be able to finish soon, so I have taken the liberty of copying what I had into your draft. Hope that's OK. Mcewan (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased you're also working on this, I'm very busy on other websites at the moment, and I need sometime offline. I don't know how long it will be before I can do much more but between us we should get things done in time. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proxima Centauri. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denomination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Maarten Boudry

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Maarten Boudry 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Salih (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

(copied from deleted talk page, to serve as an explanation)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Wikipedia thinks he merits an article and I think he's at least as important as Jack Sheffield who has an article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I planned to summarise "How Convenient! The Epistemic Rationale of Self-validating Belief Systems", then check for other works that Boudry authored. I feel "The Epistemic Rationale of Self-validating Belief Systems" is interesting and would add to Wikipedia. As it is I won't put more work into the article unless I'm sure my work won't be deleted. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What other Wikipedias see fit to include is completely irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. All those other Wikipedias are independent. Here, we have widely accepted and rigorous criteria for inclusion. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more information.

Generally speaking, Boudry's own writings would not confer notability for the purpose of meriting an article here, unless those writings have been reviewed in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources.

On the chance such sources exist, if you wish, I can restore it to your own user space so you can work on it at your leisure without worrying about deletion, and then move it to main space when you are satisfied that it meets the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maarten Boudry

I'd appreciate a copy of the deleted page on my talk page so I can work on it elsewhere. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PC,

We usually place this type of content in a Sandbox, rather than cluttering up a user's talk page with articles. However, per your request, I have copied the deleted article below. The article can be re-created when it meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 14:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Maarten Boudry of the University of Ghent studies the philosophy of science. His interests include, Philosophy of Pseudoscience, Evolutionary theory, Naturalized Epistemology, Irrationality, Skepticism

Boudry supports "The Moral Brain" an interdisciplinary group of Dutch and Belgian researchers who study what makes humans act morally or immorally and what moral judgements involve. This is done paying attention to neuroscience and evolution.

Tenacity of weird beliefs

Boudrey maintains that weird and implausible beliefs are particularly hard to shake off. Those who believe in UFO's, bogus medicine, communication with the dead and the like refuse to change their beliefs in the face of reasonable evidence that may be considered compelling.

References

Category:Belgian atheists Category:Belgian scientists Category:Ghent University

October 2012

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Religion, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. While edits don't always come out perfect on the first try and large edits may need implementation in stages, you were clearly developing and refining your thoughts on the article. Sandboxing and off-line development are the proper ways to do this.
—Sowlos (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a test edit and it wasn't intentional. Someone else edited while I was editing, I tried to keep my edit and also take account of the other person's edit, somehow during this a section got duplicated. The duplicated section was right at the bottom of the page and easily overlooked, therefore I didn't notice it till someone else reverted it. I rarely do things like that but mistakes can't always be avoided.

Most of my edits were constructive and stayed in the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one said your edits were off topic. Criticism of religion is relevant to the article's scope.
Unfortunately, a peril of wikis is any editor may change an article in between your own edits. That is why it's best to work out what you want to say in advance when adding an entire section. As I said, doing so in stages is fine, but each edit should still be in a mostly presentation ready state. This is especially true with high visibility articles and this is why your edits were reversed. Intentionally or not, you were clearly working through multiple drafts of your contribution on the article rather than only submitting the end result of your process.
This is simply to let you know what happened, so you can hopefully avoid it in the future.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madeleine Bunting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proxima Centauri. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

On sources and wording

Hi, in reply to your question about editing The Courtier's Reply, here are my thoughts: the issue seems to be primarily one of pasting in wording rather than conveying the meaning in your own words: not always easy, but to avoid WP:Plagiarism we have to find our own wording, while citing our source and faithfully conveying the meaning of the source. I find it easier to work in a text editor and paste my altered wording in rather than pasting the original in before modifying it, which seems a bit questionable.
There also seems to be an argument about quality of sources: see WP:V and WP:RS. A wiki is generally regarded as lacking editorial control, and hence selfpublished and so unsuitable. If in doubt about a source, it's best to have a look for the source in WP:RSN using the search function. RationalWiki seems to have been dismissed in 2007, with good reasoning by Blueboar who is very knowledgeable about assessing sources. It as also mentioned recently but less conclusively.
So, my advice is to have a look at the sources cited by RationalWiki and base your wording on them, taking care to put it in your own words and not paste in phrases unless you're actually quoting someone in "quote marks". It's then important to WP:CITE those sources, ideally using a template. Citation template generator is an easy way of generating citations, which usually helps a lot.
Afraid I'm short of time and brain power to go into this more deeply just now, hope that's a start. Yours, . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. For future reference, keep WP:USERG in doubt when coming across material sourced to imdb, personal blogs, wikis, etc. Since Rational Wiki is a wiki, going to RSN isn't even necessary. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Hotels

Hello, Proxima Centauri. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your work on Marcial Maciel >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 09:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hope I deserve it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual scandal of Father Marcial Maciel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Edinburgh people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Savar building collapse

Hi Proxima Centauri,

Thank you for editing 2013 Savar building collapse. I realised you made big edits without details. Could you please next time add your reasons so that all editors can follow the changes better?

Cheers, New worl (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idolatry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Keith O'Brien may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Huhne

Hi, Please could you note that refs to news items should cite the source (i.e. name of newspaper) and date of publication. Also, the title of the news item (i.e. its headline) goes in inverted commas. Thanks, -- Alarics (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Keith O'Brien may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits of mine concern you? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problematic edit as it relates to two different living people but it relies on tabloid sourcing in contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES. Please be more careful in the future. --John (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]