User talk:Crimsonmargarine/Ancient relics

Proposed deletion of Bibliism

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bibliism, 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. —Snigbrook 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No wikification of Disambiguation pages

Hi there, Just a note to say that the standard is to NOT wikify Disambiguation pages. That is, only one link per line-entry is required. Regards, JohnI (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Thank you, JohnI. I'll remember that.

TVF article

Hey, thanks for showing up to help moderate. Unfortunately your comments missed the current dispute. You can find the mediation tag at the top of the Lorentzian Relativity section. I know there's a lot in the article's discussion page so I've posted a summary of my perspective on the dispute on my talk page if that would be helpful. Thanks again. Mikevf (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My thanks, too. There is a lot of discussion to pour through over the TVF article. Kudos to anyone who wants to read it all and lend a helping hand. Akuvar (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I will continue to do my best. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb|contributions|talk 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know that I replied to your resent post on TVF's discussion board that you are helping to moderate.Akuvar (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ⓔⓒⓦ.ⓣⓔⓒⓗⓝⓞⓘⓓ.ⓓⓦⓔⓔⓑ | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 18:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that after your last posting, editor 6324 took it upon himself to edit the article, removing his line about relativity. However, he did not restore the whole quote. While you moderate, are we supposed to be editing the article? If so, I am happy to restore the whole NPA quote from their website. I think this is the only fair thing to do. paraphrasing and cutting out things that an organization says about itself doesn't seem right. If we are not supposed to be editing, then I think that it is time editor 6324 be removed as an editor of this article for his consistent non-NPOV behavior. Akuvar (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

By all means, edit! :-) Paraphrasing can be used correctly, or it can be used to mislead. This paraphrase seems misleading. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor 6324 was the one who introduced the Natural Philosophy Alliance quote, in it's paraphrased format, and now that we have you, a moderator, saying that the paraphrasing is non-NPOV, editor 6324 has removed it from the article because it no longer suites his non-NPOV purpose. My problem is that editor 6324 has been cited for non-NPOV behavior, and even now continues to edit the article in a manner that is derogatory towards the article's subject. Editor 6324 refuses to cite references when posting on the discussion page and has been caught violating the 3 edit/undo/revision rule for this article. It is a daily task to come to this article and see what non-NPOV editor 6324 has done to it. Frankly, I do not think that is the purpose of wikipedia. What can be done? Since the subject of the article is deceased, can the article be locked from edits? Bannin editor 6324 from making changes is pointless because he could re-appear as another annonymous user. This is very frustrating. Akuvar (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest reinserting the quote in its unaltered state. I suggest requesting, civilly and politely, that 6324 refrain from making unhelpful edits to the article. I hope this helps. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 22:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I recommend encouraging 6324 to make helpful edits. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

East Coast-West Coast hip hop rivalry

Your rights to use Twinkle can be removed if you abuse the tool as you recently did in the East Coast-West Coast hip hop rivalry article. Please review our no original research policy WP:NOR and verifiability policy WP:V. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed at any time. If you have sources please do come forward with them until that time take it to the discussion page. JBsupreme (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, JBsupreme. I misunderstood, thinking that material that seems reasonably scholarly should be retained with a {{unsourced}} template. Thank you. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for any difficulty which my actions have caused you. I shall refrain from further editing until I have completed the systematic reading of all Wikipedia policies which I have undertaken. Thank you for your guidance and assistance of my growth as a Wikipedian. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 11:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Too many policies, and too little time. I have thought extensively, and have decided that I can help Wikipedia more by continuing editing and doing my best work than ignoring the encyclopedia for the sake of learning all its policies' intricacies. I don't want to become like Lisa... ...and never edit for fear of breaking the rules. ;-) If anyone objects to this, by all means, tell me, please. Previous unsigned comment by Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

P. S. JBSupreme, I reckon Twinkle is more of a privelage than a right... :-) Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Ontology Bronco.svg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Ontology Bronco.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Crotchet rest plain-svg.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Crotchet rest plain-svg.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of THE DIARY OF AMOS LEE

The article THE DIARY OF AMOS LEE has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, please see the inclusion guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (books).

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)