User talk:Borock

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know that I've responsded to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people (3rd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This article unfairly makes it look like we are out to get Ms Palin." No it doesn't. The article makes no claims either way about Palin; it presents the topic neutrally and uses plenty of reliable, third-party sources that do the same. You really should read

There are lots of things I don't like. Borock (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't mean they should be deleted just because you don't like them. If we deleted things based on what people didn't like, then I'd have deleted the article on Green Day ages ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll be more careful. I still think that an article about a porno film making fun of a Democrat wouldn't have survived. Borock (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What matters most is if there are reliable, third party sources. And in this case, there are tons of them; the article's pretty close to

the notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Borock. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 07:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I have asked for a

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination). BigJim707 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it "seems like" it can be expanded means nothing. Saying "it just needs sources" means nothing until you prove that sources exist. I looked already and found nothing that would constitute a source. Your argument is completely null and void. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are written about topics, not sources. Borock (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Winston

Diane Winston holds the Knight Chair in Media and Religion at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. A national authority on religion and the media as both a journalist and a scholar, her expertise includes religion, politics and the news media as well as religion and the entertainment media. Professor Winston's current research interests are media coverage of Islam, religion and new media, and the place of religion in American identity.

Red Hot and Righteous: The Urban Religion of the Salvation Army, 1999 Co-editor, Faith in the Market: Religion and the Rise of Urban Commercial Culture, 2002 Editor and Author, Small Screen, Big Picture: Television and Lived Religion, 2009

^[1][2]

Borock (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed them. Borock (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... since you nominated Time for deletion. You may have an opinion about the lede definition. 71.169.190.194 (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I nominated it on April 1. :-) Anyway the discussion seems to be going okay without me. However it will never be resolved since every definition of time uses the concept of time in its wording. Borock (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-physical entity (AfD discussion)
• User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity

You might want to revisit this discussion, which is still open. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borock. Please stop deleting instances of "cite video". The deletion discussion is still open and needs to resolve. You are removing valuable resources, like Têtes_Noires#External_links. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It looked like it was already gone. Borock (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese new religions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of the world (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) 11:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see my closure comments at

Thanks. I am getting so sick of that policy. I guess I was just lashing out with my AfD. I knew it wouldn't work. I will take your suggestion and try the Village Pump. Borock (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Made some comments on the talk page regarding some of the specific edits you've made but I wanted to add that, taken as a whole, your edits appear to push

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm going to ignore the Moon article for a while. What's the point when as soon as you make an edit someone else reverses it, mostly without a discussion. Borock (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely, positively did confuse you with someone else and I apologize. Your comment flipped the switch which led to some investigation which led to this. I would ask you note the similar user names editing the same page as I beg your forgiveness and understanding. I'm sorry. EBY (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New religious movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (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) 10:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit, removing the paragraph which was questionable at best. I had completely changed the article since LDS members had claimed he had no valid degree, using other LDS members as sources. Saying CCU was not accredited, despite the fact it was accredited by the state of Californaia. These people seem to ignore this or say that even that is invalid, despite the fact Harvard and Yale do not have national accreditation either. I added a section on the talk page giving some more details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_Ralston_Martin#Vandalism_by_Cultists Kurioslesouschristos (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borock, just to say that I agree with your exclusion of the word 'ethical' from the definition and concur with your reasoning. A similar edit excluding the term 'philosophical' which I removed from the definition at the List of new religious movements, has just been agressively reverted. Maybe you'd like to join the discussion on the talk page there? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Borock! I see that you're fairly active working on pages about New religious movements and I wanted to get your input on something I've been working on, if you're interested of course. I am working on behalf of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, which has been described as a new religious movement, to improve the entry about the school.

This page currently has some issues, including problems with how information about the school's beliefs and teaching methods are presented. I have now finished writing a new version that addresses these, and some other issues, that I would like other editors to consider. The problem I am having is that it seems I can't find editors to judge my revision on its own merits and compare it to what is currently on the page. I think many editors are resistant to helping simply because of the topic. I even had one editor tell me he thought the current version was more neutral, only to admit later that he hadn't looked very closely at it.

On the discussion page you will find more information about what I suggest changing and why. You will also find a link to what I have written. Though I have written this on behalf of the school, I am not personally a member, however because of my "conflict of interest" I will not edit the entry myself.

I've worked hard to write a new factual entry for the page based on the available reliable sources and I've gotten guidance about Wikipedia's policies and feel like I've done a good job of abiding by them. If you had time to help me out by reading what I've put together and letting me know what you think it would be a big help. Calstarry (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borock! I just saw your message about "cultlike" on the Ramtha's discussion page. I've replied to you there about this. Calstarry (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I left messages the other day for the other editors who had commented on the Ramtha's discussion page but I'm sorry to say I forgot you! Anyhow, I've update my draft (here: Ramtha's School draft) to include the essay about the school by Melton that John Carter and Astynax mentioned. And I also replied on the discussion page about John Carter's suggestion that the topic be split into three articles.

Let me know what you think of my draft once you've had a chance to look at it! Calstarry (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borock. I'm looking to start fresh on the Ramtha's discussion page and hope that you can help. A few editors have now mentioned that it might be better to work through the article section by section and since the discussion has gotten so long and complex I agree.

I'm asking editors to look through just the Research section with me. I'm hoping since you had been part of the earlier conversations on the page that you will be able to look at this new request. Thank you. Calstarry (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article from 2011 was based upon on old and inaccurate source. Further research shows the project began filming December 2013 and is now in post-production. I made corrections/expansions to the article to address the original author's errors and have added a different set of "Find sources" at the AFD. I think the now-better-sourced and somewhat improved article. What you think? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borock. I've suggested merging

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Favorite_betrayal_criterion, as you have commented in prior deletion discussions related to this article. Homunq (࿓) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borock, The latest materials I've been reading have said this movement isn't Hindu or neo-Hindu, and lacks the required level of similarity to be classified as such. Did you want me to try and find the ref and share with you or are you happy for me to revert this edit? Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please revert if it is even in question. I have been working on catgorising a large number of articles and I have probably made more than one mistake. Thank you. Borock (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do - cheers Borock. Danh108 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This message is for recent editors of the Providence(religious movement) article.

I just wanted to inform you all of some of the changes I was hoping to make to the page! I am actually studying theology, and have been spending a lot of time studying Modern East Asian Christian organizations in particular. You might have noticed the deletion tag I applied to the article--actually I am really new to Wikipedia, I created an account specifically to make edits to this article and am still a bit confused on the whole deletion/editing process ;)

Anyway, I came across this article while I was doing research and found a few discrepancies I thought might be good to address! I know the allegations against this group are quite serious, I was shocked by them, by I think it's important that we get the article right for the academic purposes of the encyclopedia :)

Mainly I just noticed that the article is missing information in a few crucial places, i.e. the details of the trial, an extended discussion of the philosophies of the group, etc. Also, at times the tone does feel a bit hostile--again, as scholars, we should do our best to remain neutral, especially when the topic is highly controversial.

Thank you all for your time, and hope that the article can really be well done!

GIOSCali (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just wanted to say that I began a few of the edits I was mentioning in my earlier post regarding the Providence(religious movement article). I just made a small sample of some of the edits I want to make, namely changes that will make the language of the article neutral. Also, there are a lot of dead links for references and many references in foreign languages-- I will be deleting these and would appreciate some help! Also I think it would be good to include actual information on the trial and the Korean judicial system, as well as Joshua Jung's early background if any can be tracked down.

Thanks, and I'm sure the article will turn out great! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually was trying to help with the article, which I think is on an important topic. Borock (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mikael Rothstein 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/Mikael Rothstein 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 notice from the top of the article.

An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sun Myung Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capuchin. 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) 09:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Borock. You're invited to join project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 08:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sun Myung Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic. 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) 10:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borock. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Borock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm actually not requesting an unblock. I broke the rules by having multiple log-ins and I deserve to be blocked, by the rules. However I want to be on the record by saying that my reason for doing so was to keep a low profile and avoid conflicts with other people, not to disrupt Wikipedia. Borock (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; you aren't asking for an unblock, so I'm not considering an unblock. Note that

WP:SO may apply here, even if you aren't a candidate for unblocking sooner. I state that without prejudice, though; I take no position on whether or not an unblock would be appropriate here. Yamla (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Thanks Yamla. I might try the SO thing. Borock (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on your continuing socking after the date of your post, I've reblocked you as a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I want to keep a low profile and avoid conflict.Borock (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading