User talk:ConfuciusOrnis

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Good to see the nice work that you have done on Portal:Atheism. I had a little plan to have the atheists in Portal:Atheism/Selected biography in an alphabetical order for the first 26. Got myself stuffed up at H. Not sure if there is actually an atheist for every letter of the alphabet but there could well be. BUT that is not a very formal and encyclopaedic manner for one to go about creating the worlds foremost source of knowledge.... -- Alan Liefting talk 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right...lol, I just threw them in at random (except for douglas adams), sorry. I was thinking, that since the best articles are basically the biographies, that it might be nice the theme each week around a bio, so for instance dawkins might be associated with metaphysical naturalism, hitchens with antitheism, d'holbach with history of atheism, rushdie with apostasy in islam, for instance. It might be a stretch though to find appropriate articles. Oh and how do you like the colour scheme? ornis (t) 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the colour scheme is a bit nicer that the rather washed out colours that were there originally. The theme thing sounds like a nice idea but it may go over the heads of most visitors (or perhaps won't be so obvious). I don't have a lot of time at the moment. I SHOULD be studying and am spending TOO MUCH time on WP. Will keep in touch when I have more time. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting talk 09:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking of it as more of an organising principle than anything else. I might knock together a couple of preview versions tomorrow to see how it looks. ornis (t) 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stop. I haven't introduced anything non-factual into the black hole article. If you think I have, the burden is on you to either show that I haven't espoused the consensus view or at the very least defend your changes in talk. I look forward to your response in the black hole talk page. You may begin by citing non-factual information you suggest I inserted. I'll wait a reasonable amount of time and then I'll simply revert your nonsense. SteakNotShake 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No the burden is on you to provide a reliable source. You appear to be pushing an extreme fringe point of view, against consensus, and introducing weasel words. Also there's nothing I can say to you that hasn't already been said on the talk page regarding your edits. I notice further that rather than responding to it, you are engaging in a slow edit war. I suggest you re-read WP:NPOV and pay close attention to the section on undue weight and pseudoscience. ornis (t) 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that ConfuciusOrnis is incapable of taking constructive criticism and even of having links to his edit history posted here on his talk page. For the sake of brevity I will not reinsert the evidence I placed here which has been deleted. Instead, I will simply post a link to the material that ConficiusOrnis seems to be so ashamed of that he deletes it wholly from his talk page. Are these the actions of an innocent user? SteakNotShake 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. ornis (t) 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As are you. SteakNotShake 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,I truly did not know where to report this as I usually don't get insulted. I usually simply revert minor cases of vandalism but I fear that this case is getting out of hand, and I am not interested in a slug-feast. Must I do anything else? Flamarande 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep an eye on the thread and and answer any questions reviewers might have. Beyond that, you may end up having to go through some sort of dispute resolution, depending on the situation. ornis (t) 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, I truly wasn't expecting such a quick answer and such quick action. Now I need to know how someone can restore the affected articles. I mean, can I simply restore them? Is there a deadline or something similar? As for dispute resolution, fine by me. I have nothing to hide. I placed the incidents page in my watchlist. It may take a while before I answer though as I'm not always at home (I do have a live besides Wikipedia :). Flamarande 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that really depends on how many times you've reverted today, remember if you violate the three revert rule you can be blocked. So if you've only made one or two reverts on that article today, you should be ok if you restore it right now. It's better though in all cases to discuss the matter on the talk page if possible and try to get consensus. ornis (t) 16:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ConfuciusOrnis! I am RS1900. Thanks for infobox you created for atheism. I am also an atheist. I think you have done a great job for the article 'Atheism'. All the best. RS1900 05:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I read some comments on your talk page and few users suggested that 'there is no real proof of Evolution'. Who are these people? They don't understand anything about evolution. RS1900 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has nominated the article Introduction to evolution for deletion! See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution. What's going on? The article shouldn't be deleted! Please support the article. All the best! RS1900 06:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too concerned about such poorly thought out AfD's as that. Just keep an eye on his contribs, he also likes to tag smaller atheism related articles that don't get much attention for speedy deletion, without notifying the articles creator, and unfortunately admins don't always check the article actually meets the criteria unless someone contests the deletion. As for the people above suggesting there is no real proof for evolution, I think you'll find that all but one of them is joking. ;) ornis (t) 07:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thought — would the article Introduction to evolution be better placed in Wikibooks? One thing I see a lot of on the C++ and Java articles are complaints about Wikipedia not being for tutorials, etc. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, see to me, that sounds like a variant of the "..that's what simple english wikipedia is for.." argument. Wikibooks is a different project, with different goals and a different format for presenting information. Certainly there should be a wikibook introducing evolution, genetics, relativity et al, but that's no reason why we shouldn't also strive to make technical subjects as accessible as possible to all readers within reason. Intro forks are simply just the neatest way of achieving that. ornis (t) 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with other intro forks (and I'm also pretty sure that the wikibook suggestion was not the motivation for the AfD), but looking at the policy in question (4th point), it does seem ambiguous. Obviously (to me, at least), this article is both presenting facts and "[teaching] subject matter". Don't get me wrong, this is not a crusade I'm on, and I don't really care if that policy subpoint is strictly adhered to, but I did think it prudent to throw it out for people to be aware of. OTOH, this article does not have "leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples", so perhaps one could argue that it's not teaching subject matter. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I just read Sander Säde's comment on the AfD and I thought it was very well said. I don't really have anything to add to that discussion (and there already seems to be an overwhelming consensus), so I'm curious as to whether WP:VOTE would suggest I not leave my comment, or whether that guideline is just stating that the arguments matter more than the vote, etc. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec+exp)The articles in question, either are, or are striving to, present the material in essentially the same manner as their parent article, with the difference they take a less technical approach to make them more accessible to younger or lay readers. As for the AfD it's not just a vote, so voicing support is always useful though in this case, it's pretty much snowballed. ornis (t) 13:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I was adding the category was to get it alphabetically correct in the category itself. I'm doing this to all of those "I" items that aren't really "I" items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that, I'm trying to fix it so the template sorts them properly, give me a bit. ornis (t) 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, they should now sort properly without manually including the cat. ornis (t) 13:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have not yet taken to playing with templates myself. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's actually pretty straightforward, I just had to pipe the article name variable to the category's sorting argument.[1] ornis (t) 14:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. After looking at the diff, and then the full template (and {{Introduction/doc}}), I think I have a good idea of how they work now. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this isn't really relevant to the matter in hand - if the article meets the criteria set out in deletion policy. I have asked the original nominator to remove this comment. Would you mind if I move the discussion about User:Memestream to the discussion page of this deletion discussion? Tim Vickers 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all, I wasn't planning to continue it, I was simply reacting to the implication of bad faith on the part of the nominator. ornis (t) 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the discussion to the talk page and hidden the offending comment using noinclude tags. Hopefully the nominator will respond to my request on their talk page to rephrase their nomination. Tim Vickers 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound a little odd with the offending phrase excised. ornis (t) 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, shit happens. :) I'm not rewriting it for them! Tim Vickers 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was considering sticking [the nominator] into the sentence so it's at least grammatical. ornis (t) 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked from wikipedia or editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing. ornis (t) 11:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spryde 13:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ornis (t) 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you really think the author of a book is a valid source for the number of books he has sold, especially when there is not other documentation for that number?.......standards have really come down on wikipedia if this is a valid source for this claim. Hardyplants 10:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, rather than whinging and edit warring, with even a brief google search could you could have turned up better references. Just a thought. ornis (t) 13:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've blocked the IP you reported to AIV. Just a quick note however, when reporting to AIV it's not really accepted that anonymous IP's are known as accounts let alone a vandalism only account. This rationale is only really applied to a registered editor who's sole aim is to disrupt Wikipedia, and having only vandalism edits to the account, we would then block the account indefinitely as a vandalism only account. As we are unsure if it's the same editor behind an IP address at any given time we cannot issue a permanent blocks to anonymous IP's. Oh and let's not see any more of this please? Any problems please don't hesitate to give me a shout. ^Khukri 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righty oh then. ornis (t) 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just having a look at what you're editing alot, and you most probably have it bookmarked, but hope it helps all the best. ^Khukri 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes I've got it bookmarked! Cheers all the same :). ornis (t) 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was that vandalism?EMSPhydeaux 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You realise I have no idea what your talking about right? Got a diff? – ornis⚙ 13:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Dave Souza has much improved the section, the argument is moot. •Jim62sch• 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You marked my article SparkPeople for speedy deletion. This page had been live and running for about a year when it was deleted. I re-created it with relevant information including citations to being named Best of the Web by BusinessWeek two years in a row in the Health category as well as being listed by Hitwise as the 6th most popular health site in January 2007. The company is a legitimate player in online health. I'd be happy to take any constructive criticism you may provide.Jknepfle 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very low tolerance for companies using wikipedia as free advertising. If you've left a note on the talk page, then it's up to the reviewing admin whether it stays at all. If it does, then you're probably going to have to re-write it from scratch, loose the peacock terms, the mission statment and the glowing marketing copy. Keep it to when the company was formed, what it's done, and any notable independent media coverage it's had. – ornis⚙ 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I readded it. It's a damned advertisement, hence it is Spam. •Jim62sch• 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least discuss? I'm REALLY trying to make a legit entry, and used other Web companies as a template to create this. I'm happy to listen to constructive criticism.Jknepfle 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WEBSITE for the criteria. You may be able to get this article in under Criteria #2 (Awards) but take ConfuciusOrnis's recommendations to heart. As it is, the spam red flag has gone of multiple times in my head. Think layman, not marketing. Spryde 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, SparkPeople was founded to empower people to make life changes using health and fitness as a springboard to achieving personal, relationship, and career goals. is an advertisement (as well as being piffle-prose). •Jim62sch• 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the specific constructive criticism. I've made a change. Hopefully it addresses your concern. Jknepfle 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more edits, but it still needs a lot more. Things like "...which uses tools, content, and support to lead to help users make lifestyle changes." rankle the hell out of me. What tools? What content? What does it mean? If you want, contact me on my user page. •Jim62sch• 17:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very good catch.[2] EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... well, I can't actually take credit for that [3] ;)  –  ornis⚙ 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverting my edits for no good reason, I know you dislike me, but that's no reason to revert good-faith quality edits.

You've been banned before and if you keep reverting good edits you will likely get banned again.

Just stop now.

--RucasHost 15:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making bad edits and I won't have to keep reverting them.  –  ornis⚙ 15:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know they're not bad edits. --RucasHost 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep telling yourself that till it starts to sound true.  –  ornis⚙ 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, ill read through all the stuff you gave me!!

Cf38 14:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What edit...are you reffering to ConfuciusOrnis--Angel David 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are what I'm talking about. Don't do that please, it's incredibly poor etiquette to change someone else's choice of spelling, particularly when that choice is for religious reasons, and we don't mess with each other's sigs. Ever.  – ornis⚙ 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remember User:rbj who got banned for numerous reasons, one of which was vandalizing my spelling of G_d. It's not poor etiquette, it is anti-Semitism, plain and simple. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's only eleven, so I wouldn't read too much into it.  – ornis⚙ 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's better to assume ignorance than anti-Semitism, here. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ornis, I need help. Someone called 'dudesleeper' is continuasly putting the wrong info on joe anyon even though I have warned him many times. Ive tried to semi-protect the page, but it doesnt work. Any help?

ty Cf38 11:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk.  – ornis⚙ 11:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no issues with anyone, and I certainly didn't intend for my comment to come across as "snippy". I was just wondering why yourself, OM, Filll and Jim62sch show a continued tendency to reply to third-party posts on each others' talk pages as if you were the intended recipient, which is unusual etiquette here on Wikipedia. I can certainly say that if someone presumed to reply on my behalf on my talk page then I would be none too pleased, to say the least. However, it's clearly no big deal. Can I humbly suggest based on this that you may have a tendency to overreact somewhat? Badgerpatrol 11:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've still completely failed to address why is was that you felt the need to make that remark on OM's talk page. I mean let's face it, it added nothing to the discussion, hell it wasn't even tangentially relevant. Was it just to provoke a reaction? If so then why would you wish to do that? What interest do you have in the matter? I don't think you've ever edited the homeopathy article, so it's rather mystery isn't it.  – ornis⚙ 12:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever you think. I rest my case. All the best, Badgerpatrol 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You rest your case? What case? You still haven't answered what you hoped to achieve by this.  – ornis⚙ 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So badgerpatrol, you come in here and make a false accusation. But no balls to try to prove it. BTW, I haven't posted on CO's page in months. Filll's probably longer. Jim's the same. CO recently posted on my page because he noted an unfair block. So you better apologize NOW, or write up a sockpuppet and RfCU today. I know you won't because your MO has been to make accusations and slither away. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk page. You have some pretty serious civility issues and a bad temper, OM. Badgerpatrol 14:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have taken a decidedly creepy turn BP. I don't particularly wish to talk to your now or in the foreseeable future, so please stop posting on my talk page. Thank you.  – ornis⚙ 14:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem- please delete this and any previous comments as you wish. Badgerpatrol 14:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. First BP demonstrates extremely poor judgement at one of OM's articles. Then BP violates some of the rules associated with admin priveleges. Then BP arises to accuse us all of being socks, when it is clear we edit different things at different times and live in different parts of the world. This would mean we never sleep I guess.

I would think that our styles or editing are sufficiently different that anyone could tell us apart quite easily. We sometimes edit conflict with each other, which might be a bit difficult to do if we are all the same person, unless we are signed on simultaneously to two or three or four computers with different names, all routed through different IP addresses. This just is a bit much to suggest, frankly.--Filll 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BP isn't an admin. Oh and whoever said you were the puppet master eh? ;).  – ornis⚙ 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to keep bothering, but "Dudesleeper" keeps repeatadly deleting everything I write. Everytime I write something on an article, when I visit again he has deleted it. I've left messages on his talk page and in articles histories, and tried to do a mediation thing, but he still does not listen. Any help please mate?

Cf38 12:59, 11 October 2007 (GMT)

Alright, give me a bit, I'll have a look and see if I can figure out what's going on. Just sit tight, don't keep reverting, it's not the end of the world.  – ornis⚙ 12:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested he do some background reading on how to use Wikipedia. Of course, rather than do so, he deleted my suggestion. He seems to be another in a long line of excited football fans who want to wax lyrical about his team. My patience has somewhat worn out. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I guess, I've left a similar suggestion on his talk page. Have you considered asking for page protection? It might encourage him to use the talk page.  – ornis⚙ 12:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion doesn't seem to be his forté. I think it's easier just to keep an eye on his edits. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the vandalism on my user page! ... discospinster _talk 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem at all, I followed them from another article they vandalised.  – ornis⚙ 00:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Simply identifying the edits as "bad" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page. I'm not interested in discussing the matter here. I reverted your edits because they were contentious and made without discussion.  – ornis⚙ 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ignostic isn't a misspelling of agnostic. An ignostic believes the question of gods existence is basically meaningless, as opposed to unanswerable.  – ornis⚙ 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for that. I've learned a new word--or at any rate coinage--today. My bot has been duly educated! I think I'll stick to militant atheism for myself though :) Cheers, CmdrObot 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, the tagging was to bring it to other editors's attention. Tim Vickers 23:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I understand, I kind of assumed you were quite rightly trying to avoid a one-on-one revert war. In an hour or so, I'll put something up on the fringe theory noticeboard so we can get some more eyes on it. – ornis⚙ 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ConfuciusOrnis I notice you've tagged User:69.106.230.196 as a sock of Auno3. The same person is using User:69.106.250.135 to troll Talk:feminism. I've tagged that page based on the logic that they are the same user and that the arguments amde by these IPs closely resembles Auno3 and their sockpuppets (even if its a different topic). If I see anything further I'll dop you a line--Cailil ^talk 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Alright, I'm not sure this is exactly kosher..." <--- This made me laugh because I thought you were talking about the article "Ashkenazi intelligence" not being exactly kosher ... but, now I see what you meant. FYI there was a deletion debate for that article alone some time ago and the result was "keep" You might want to read through it. futurebird 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, after I left that comment I sort of stopped and thought, "..hang on.. ". Thanks for pointing that out the AfD. Looking at it, it looks like to me more like a default keep due to lack of consensus for deletion. Nonetheless, I see there were plenty of comments in favour of merging it to somewhere, so I think this time around there's a better chance of getting the lot merged into something manageable and NPOV. – ornis⚙ 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ConfuciusOrnis: Being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. Futhermore, in your sweeping nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history) you did not list Ashkenazi intelligence as part of the original group in the AfD until another user pointed the article out to you and you then decided to add it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what you did. For the sake of clarity, I urge you to remove the Ashkenazi intelligence from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which you included it. As you are aware, the Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If you wish to have a new nomination, go ahead, but it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Thank you, IZAK 05:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote: "I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met: (1) There is a single place to discuss all the pages. (2) It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages. (3) They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created. As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just split the AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd). The article was not part of the original listing and was also not part of the series on Race and Intelligence. As this article was causing too much distraction from the actual discussion, I split it to a separate AfD. Hope you don't mind. Cheers, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you seem to have it cracked, can you help me with the navagation on my talk page? (for example = profile--talk--edits--images_uploaded etc...) and you know the little templates you can put on your user page (example) and is it possible to create your own, and if not where can I find a large collection of them?

thanks,

Cf38 18:38 (edit: 19:47), 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if you already know this , but your name appears on the list here. Cheers! :) Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering...--Filll (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've neutrally contributed to it in the past, I thought you might want to look in once more on the article's present state and current RfC. arimareiji (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). 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) 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?

I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job. Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.

Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robert III de Brus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As this person never held the lordship of Annandale, or any other noble title, or did anything else of note, I question if he merits his own article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]