Amthernandez

Correct use of user talk pages

Do not use your talk page to hold copies of articles from the article namespace. Please see WP:UTP for a discussion of how user talk pages are used. TJRC (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very pleased to meet you, Dr. Porter

Uh, what? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write anything, I just removed some comments that didn't belong in the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. ‎

This is not an acceptable contribution by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Merely was a quote from CNN. CNN is not acceptable? Amthernandez (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

CNN did not say, "Questions have also been raised whether Gates was confrontational. Wikipedia cannot answer this question," you did. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger Ebert

This is not an acceptable contribution. Just because you think Ebert is gay, doesn't mean we edit the article based on your beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop moving pages without consensus

We already have Lobster (disambiguation) and your move has now created two dab pages. Please use the talk page for any new moves you decide. If you had simply read the article, you would have noticed that it says, "Though several different groups of crustaceans are known as "lobsters," the clawed lobsters are most often associated with the name." And, your conversion of Lobster into a disambiguation page already duplicates Lobster (disambiguation). Furthermore it is incorrect, as "Clawed lobsters are not closely related to spiny lobsters or slipper lobsters." Again, you seem to be editing Wikipedia based on your beliefs rather than the information contained within the articles. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of "please stop moving pages without consensus" are you having problems understanding? Please use the talk page to propose your controversial move, first. Is any of this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You had it moved with no consensus. Amthernandez (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. I asked an administrator to restore the page that you moved. As the mover, you need to propose and discuss your move on the talk page. So far, you have not given a good reason why you are moving the page and changing the disambiguation. Please stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me. I asked you not to and you just erased my politely written message to you. I made a neutral correction rather than taking the American viewpoint. Wikipedia requires disambiguation pages if there are two equal sides. Both lobsters are common. I am not asking for the rare lobsters to be given the same status. Amthernandez (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you. I'm correcting your erroneous edits. Your recent changes to Lobster violate disambiguation best practices and go against consensus. Please stop. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A key part of the WP:BRD style of editing is not reverting while discussion is happening. In the face of opposition, consensus is needed before a move. Get it before moving the page again, please. lifebaka++ 05:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Amthernandez! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 351 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Thomas Porter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Porter

The article Thomas Porter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable academic

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. ...William 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Thomas Porter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Porter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Porter 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 template from the top of the article. ...William 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)