User talk:Zeke pbuh

Dear Zeke pbuh:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click

Sorry about reverting overtop your edits in Scientology earlier. Wiki doesn't have a safety feature (as with edits) to detect and warn about changes by other users during reverts. I try to get in and revert quickly, but during the window when I was doing that, your edit was saved then squashed seconds later. Oops! AndroidCat 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you tried to nominate

• Categorization. You've categorized a number of articles with the category tag [[Category:Scientology|*]], such as Sonny Bono. The general rule on categorization is that an article which is already in a sub-category doesn't need to be in a parent category as well. Sonny Bono was already in Category:Scientologists, so there isn't a need to add him to Category:Scientology as well. There are some exceptions to the rule, but it may be better to wait until you've got more experience to tackle those. Also, the use of "*" in a category tag has a special meaning in Wikipedia convention. If a category tag contains a pipe symbol (the "|") after the category name, whatever is after the pipe symbol becomes the sorting tag for the article in that category. Thus, [[Category:Scientologists|Bono, Sonny]] would make sure that Sonny Bono shows up on the category page for Category:Scientologists and make sure he shows up in the "B"s. Using a "*" for the sorting tag means the article will go in a special section before all other articles in the category. As you can imagine, an article should only receive that sorting tag if it has a very special relationship to the category (such as Scientology has with Category:Scientology, for example, or as List of Scientologists has with Category:Scientologists.) Otherwise, it should usually be sorted under the article title -- exceptions would be people, who are generally sorted by their last names first (hence why "Bono, Sonny") and articles whose titles incorporate part of the category name (hence why articles in the form "Scientology and X" usually have "X, Scientology and" as their sorting tag.)
• CamelCase redirects. You might notice articles with names like "ScientologY" and "DianeticS" -- in fact, I know you noticed one, because you marked it for deletion. Your reason for deletion indicated that you thought it existed in case of accidental misspelling. Actually, it dates back to a time when all article titles on Wikipedia had to be
  WP:RfD to get a better sense of the process. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Judging by some of your contributions, it looks like you live in Nashville. If so, add your name to the list: User:RockOfVictory#Users around Nashville. --J. J. 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You deleted some text from the J.E. page today, I was wondering if you'd be a bit more forthcoming about why. The article itself mentioned the test, critique of the test, and I believe a rebuttal. Seems valid to include, I'll look up the refs when I have the time, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with wholesale removal. Thanks, WLU 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response

Hi. I deleted a few poorly written lines mentioning a poorly framed "test" by a "researcher" with a vested interest in "proving" psychic abilities exist, and sound arguments debunking the "tests" as not valid. If bad testing and the repeated debunking of bad testing is worthy of inclusion (which sometimes is the case), the bad tests should not be referenced as potentially valid. zeke_pbuh

I'll look into the references and get back to you.WLU 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreadlocke and I have been discussing and making changes to the John Edward article. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus and do not make controversial edits without discussing them on the talk page. Thanks. — Elembis 02:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed [1] some text you added at

The Southwestern Community College article is about a school in North Carolina. The (absurd) incident with Steve Bitterman involves a school in Iowa which does not have an article. This should be removed and possibly you could create a separate page for the Iowa school. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, thanks for catching that. --Zeke pbuh 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you please consider chiming in at Talk:Ron_Paul#NPOV_dispute? Thank you! Photouploaded 11:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A

]

Proposed deletion of Hibernate Core

A

Hibernate Core

, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Seems like Hibernate (Java) is a duplicate of this article, and much more detailed.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

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. M4gnum0n (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Unreferenced BLPs

unreferencedBLP

}} tag. Here is the article:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth Organization

The article

The Earth Organization has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

no notability established in 2 years; no refs and other things indicating notability

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

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. L.tak (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies

The article

Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

Blatant copyright violation, and in the four years since this was previously proposed for deletion, organization has not gained notability.

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

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IchWeigereMich (ʎ /ʘ) 18:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George McManus (gambler)

The article George McManus (gambler) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable criminal. Unreferenced.

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. Speciate (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Jenni Engebretsen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenni Engebretsen 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/Jenni Engebretsen 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jayrock

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus

. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jenni Engebretsen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenni Engebretsen 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/Jenni Engebretsen (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]