This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't know what your problem is but I was CORRECTING Daunte Culpepper's page, which had been incorrectly edited with unsourced information that he had signed with the New Orleans Saints, which he has not. Please do not revert this edit as the previous one (which stated he had signed in New Orleans) was not correct.
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Prentice School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Copyvios have been cleaned up. Is OK now. Thank you. Ged UK 08:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
While you are correct that this article is not a copyright issue if it is from a public domain source (such as a federal government work), it does still need to clearly establish that it is copied from such sources or it remains a problem under WP:PLAGIARISM. Just thought you should know. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure your reversion of Esoglou's edit was a good-faith attempt to correct what you perceived to be vandalism. However, if you look at the Esoglou's edit summary, what he was trying to say was that the words "you must be joking!" were a verbatim quote from the cited source. While it is acceptable to drop words from a quote, the removed words should be replaced by an ellipsis (i.e. "..."). You may think doing this would be appropriate but before insisting on this, please discuss it on the article's Talk Page. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
One more thing... it is considered good form to look carefully before templating the regulars. Actually, the advice is: don't template the regulars. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elmhurst Primary School 959, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: schools not eligible for A7. Thank you. 7 06:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand. I had a hard time convincing my instructor that this would be a valid subject for my paper. Now, I am having an even more difficult time convincing Ms. Morgan that I am serious about an interview and not just some guy chasing her down. I am trying to find out more about how it all started… the history. I want to also include more information about the technology that was used to create it. I can include this information in my paper and I believe it would also be useful on Wikipedia. I found some more reference links and added them. I took a look at my lead in paragraph and made some minor changes. Then I compared it to the ones on the Second Life and Red Light Center pages. Let me know if you think it still sounds like an advertisement.
I am new to the contributor side of Wikipedia and your help has been valuable. Darnel Franklin ( talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I want to redirect users from the "Professor Ali" page over to "Professor_Ali_(Producer)" but I got an error: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: * Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dldudley444 ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
If you think removal of the sole External link from Elmer S Gish School is appropriate, no problemo. I don't agree, per WP:ELNO, and I don't see WP:NOTE referenced in WP:ELNO, but I'm happy to discuss it here or the talk page. However, given that you believe it is an inappropriate link, should not the now-empty "External Links" section also be deleted, per WP:EL? Thanks, JoeSperrazza ( talk) 19:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
♠ TomasBat 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Truth is to verify. Definitions are verified BY truth therefore your "core policy" is mangled if in fact your statement is TRUE. Ok, moving on; thank-you for taking the time to reply in such detail, I do realize you must be very busy. We have a problem.
1.Problem You wrote: "Note that Biblical citations are primary sources; secondary sources would be commentary by a prominent scholar."
Please explain what authority I should consult to find this "prominent scholar" you speak of. There is not one according to the book I use who is qualified that you would recognize as being "prominent". What reference can be sure outside the 40+ men and women whose work comprises the bible anyway who will make due as qualified; I will be happy to enquire of them and yet I will explain that according to the verifiable source of Christianity (the Bible), that there are none qualified outside of that book. Furthermore, my definitions are really simple and common sense knowledge based on 6th grade level English and usage as should be; not everyone can comprehend past 9th Grade reading (according to Texas G.E.D. preparation standards; State of Texas (do I need to find the citation for that source?)) and we don't want to leave out the young students who have not even reached the 9th grade yet... "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." Luke 18:16 KJV
He is stating FACT here and God is His verifiable source to this statement according to 1jn. 5:7 below, what further verifiable source are you going to require of Him?
"1Jo:5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Not like I'm preaching but I AM citing: Are these not reliable SECONDARY sources?
LET ACCURACY PREVAIL!!! 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wkdemers (
talk •
contribs)
Please understand, I'm not here trying to indoctrinate or push any views of anything but I AM here to help by pointing out ERROR and helping people get the WHOLE story instead of someone's watered-down version cause instead of calling a gun a WEAPON they want to call it a "protection device". Man, SOMEONE has to stand up for what our fathers died for which was being able to enjoy access to knowledge and freedom from a states oppression by suppression of information and perversion of facts.
Below is my very own definition of the word "dictionary", NOT my opinion, not my INTERPRETATION or just the way I see it... I used the exact same principle in defining terms that I found here on WP that needed work and I happen to know in depth their CORRECT definitions.
Dictionary: A book of or list of words usually in alphabetical order that gives their meaning(s); usually containing details of a words origin sometimes giving examples of it's usage and a summary of it's evolution.
My definitions never imply any doctrine, teaching or idea etc... Miriam Webster made a book of definitions, in my definition above I don't say His is best or not as good but I give it like it is. JUST for here though I will go as far as to state another fact about ol' Webster that might make someone angry; "He didn't know it all". But this kind of activity I have refrained from IN MY WORK knowing that would taint it. My definitions are correct and I must defend them because what is there is either mis-leading, lacking or just flat out INCORRECT.
Another fact and this one doesn't need any verification; future generations will suffer greatly from our ignorance.
Thank-you for your time Zach I'm tired now. LET ACCURACY PREVAIL!!! 06:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers ( talk • contribs)
This definition contains errors, sir.
A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion "period" <--fact
that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. <---not fact.
Thats why they are denominations, because they do not operate the same. It's not about POV it's about fact. Fact is part two of the definition is incorrect, there is no support for this statement and it is not even clear. Sir. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zachlipton. Thanks for pointing out my mistake in citations for Malati Dasi. Answered your AfD nomination for Malati Dasi there. See if this is better now. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You tagged this page as db-person. The page is an attack on the subject. It clearly falls as db-attack instead of db-person. This is important because db-attack is a quicker CSD than normal. Also, it more appropriately warns the user. Please be sure to read the content of articles before you tag them.--v/r - T P 20:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
In recognition of your great work you've been doing in new-page-patrol and recent changes patrol. ;) œ ™ 10:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC) |
I Think that he is a significant person do to his job which is political in nature. I don't Know why you want to delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuyraisgood ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Zachlipton! I noticed that my article on Women Preachers was deleted under copyright violations. But the problem is, it's not a violation - I am the original author. I posted it under the believe that historical/contextual/scriptural backing should be included in any topic that is of concern to the church, especially when so many people across the globe look to Wikipedia to provide them with relevant information on the issues that matter to them.
And yes, it has been spread across the internet. People are intrigued and eager to hear more about a subject that has become quite personal to many of them. When anyone is faced with opposition as to why they should not follow their dreams, I believe they should be able to stand their ground, and not be subject to what other people say should and should not be done. Especially when there is overwhelming evidence in favor of what they are doing.
Which is why you may have noted on the link that was provided in the report (here: Women Preachers )
that in the very beginning it says, "Please pass on for free!" I have allowed for anyone who wishes to, to pass it along to others. I do not believe that anyone should have to pay to know more about history. Don't you agree?
I do believe it's quite sad that a post about historical facts and ancient words/text is considered a POV article and furthermore, a soapbox, when this site is all about bringing to light the issues that face our world today, without bias of what the topic is about. If the part about KJV being the most accurate translation of the Bible is going to be problematic, I would be pleased to reword it for you.
I would like to humbly request that my post is re-instated, as the original author, and a fellow human being who believes that anyone who wishes to have knowledge, should have it freely.
Kind regards.
Ph.D. Theologian.
PhDofTHEOLOGY ( talk) 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zachlipton. Thank you for deleting vandalism by 68.44.137.48, 174.89.30.208, and others, off my talk page and other pages. All the best, -- Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Context reflux. The reason I declined it is because it's not clear that this is a hoax - it could quite posibly be a term used in some company. I do thnk that the page should be deleted (note that I left the PROD tag) - I just think that speedy G3 is the wrong way to go with it. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you have lots of badges which, as I see, does not help much not to be a mindless eraser. Good luck with erasing and collecting titles anddécors. Genezistan ( talk) 18:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could tell my why you dispute the neutrality of the page Jarrod Glover and why you dispute it's notability? Enidblyton11 ( talk) 17:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've fixed a few things, but I'm a new user. Could you check the page and tell me if anything needs to be done? Thanks Enidblyton11 ( talk) 18:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added a few more refernces, including info about him from anti-racist group fightdemback. He also has a blog: http://onenationconservativenation.blogspot.com/
In this blog he states he lives in Newcastle. Enidblyton11 ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if this is redundant...I'm still new to wikipedia, but I sent you a message. Thanks, Mounir
A couple of your disabiguation edits were incorrect (for Nostoc and Geosiphon). There is no relevant article for disambiguation of the former usage. I have added the appropriate sense to the disambiguation, but have not linked it, since a separate article about the subject is not likely. There needs to be some sort of article about the organization of tissues in plants and algae. For the latter, the correct link is the Hypha option listed on the disambiguation page. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zachlipton, I see you recently uploaded File:Spit-Like-This.jpg in the public domain, following a FFU request. However, please note that this file is not in the public domain, because as you can read here, the file was released only for 'non-profit' use, which contravenes to all free licenses, and especially PD. Thanks for taking a look and taking the appropriate action. [CharlieEchoTango] 03:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, you have obviously not been to Vang Vieng recently, if at all. If you have been recently, then you have not been previously , say 10 years ago to compare it then and now subjectively. Hence my comments are valid and actually more accurate than yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 ( talk) 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Wow you are efficient. I thought I'd have a few minutes to add and straighten up. THANKS
I hope I didn't complicate your work by trying to add in while you are working. Deeply grateful for the help. I was trying to tie this to an orphan page Annette Brissett. Again nice to meet you EstherLaver ( talk) 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)EstherLaver
You uploaded a photo from Flickr of I-joists, but the photo is not of I-joists, and the description is vastly different from the one on Flickr. They are old solid timber joists which have sustained fire damage, not engineered lumber.
Any idea where the wires got crossed? Were you expecting the upload to be of a different photo? If so, any chance that you might root it out? JonSenior ( talk) 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zach, I am William Greiner the subject of the page started by philip dunham. philip had great difficulty uploading a few examples of my work, so I was trying to assist in this effort. I still do not understand what needs to be done to accomplish this? I think a few examples of my work is appropriate and warranted? I need your help to tell me exactly what I need to do to make this happen. Thank you for your time and help. Regards Wm. Greiner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.162.6 ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir I thank you for your kind attention to my advice to correct a gross mistake regarding Kai-lan.I am not familiar with your procedures, so I will not take part in a discussion. If you are a collaborator of Wikipedia and want to improve it, then please report my advice. Personally I consider it odd that removing, that is, correcting a redirect doesn' belong to the section redirects.It tase a minute to click on the website of Sakata.com. Anyway, this is not my business. With my best wishes Prof.A.C. 93.43.238.196 ( talk) 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article and your edits. Yes the article is an original piece. I will correct the footnotes and add additional links per your request.
Bravewell Bravewell ( talk) 19:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I've been struggling to create a page for a professional association, and I keep getting rejected. I was wondering if you could provide some more advice. In the note you offered for rejecting the current version (for the IADC), you said I needed a third party source other than the association's Web site. I tried to fashion my entry on a similar association entry that is posted to Wiki and it doesn't have a third party source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Research_Institute.
I'm finding Wiki to be quite confusing so I appreciate your help. Thanks.
Marble30 ( talk) 15:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Zach Lipton,
Thanks for your help. You are obviously a pro at this, and I am just a beginner, trying to learn. I think I need a Tutor to "Adopt" me. Can I please email you the Bio/CV of Kimmo and let you tell me if he is worth more work? I am not related, but am sure he is famous in European art circles.
I'd ALSO like to learn about the requirements to put only a "STUB" online, so I can go onto more gratifying Contributions. The reason I added all the FinnJet info, was to support WHY he is so important. He is in major Collections across Europe in Museums and has been in many US and world exhibitions. RonRice ( talk) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
How Do I do a stub? r RonRice ( talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
When do you expect to answer this? RonRice ( talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Go to the site already and try to search. It's broken. Google needs a big 'ol slap in the yap to convince them to fix it -- contacting support has done nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.228.45 ( talk) 06:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Barbara Jackman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. nancy 10:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Please read this : Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and I add that it's better I do it as carefully as possible and look also for bad redirection(s). Regards. 204.174.87.29 ( talk) 09:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) 204.174.87.29: By definition, reverting an edit that violates a rule, policy, guideline, etc., at Wikipedia is a necessary revert and therefore does not run afoul of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (shortcut → WP:ROWN). Therefore, WP:ROWN does not apply. Moreover, were it to apply, WP:ROWN is an essay, not a rule, policy, guideline, etc., at Wikipedia: It is thus unenforceable. Consequently, the only issue left is your violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, an enforceable Wikipedia guideline. No amount of wikilawyering on your part will change that.
Zachlipton: Please also see the discussion at User talk:204.174.87.29#"Fixing" Links to Redirects. I wanted to apprise you of it.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't know what your problem is but I was CORRECTING Daunte Culpepper's page, which had been incorrectly edited with unsourced information that he had signed with the New Orleans Saints, which he has not. Please do not revert this edit as the previous one (which stated he had signed in New Orleans) was not correct.
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Prentice School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Copyvios have been cleaned up. Is OK now. Thank you. Ged UK 08:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
While you are correct that this article is not a copyright issue if it is from a public domain source (such as a federal government work), it does still need to clearly establish that it is copied from such sources or it remains a problem under WP:PLAGIARISM. Just thought you should know. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure your reversion of Esoglou's edit was a good-faith attempt to correct what you perceived to be vandalism. However, if you look at the Esoglou's edit summary, what he was trying to say was that the words "you must be joking!" were a verbatim quote from the cited source. While it is acceptable to drop words from a quote, the removed words should be replaced by an ellipsis (i.e. "..."). You may think doing this would be appropriate but before insisting on this, please discuss it on the article's Talk Page. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
One more thing... it is considered good form to look carefully before templating the regulars. Actually, the advice is: don't template the regulars. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Elmhurst Primary School 959, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: schools not eligible for A7. Thank you. 7 06:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand. I had a hard time convincing my instructor that this would be a valid subject for my paper. Now, I am having an even more difficult time convincing Ms. Morgan that I am serious about an interview and not just some guy chasing her down. I am trying to find out more about how it all started… the history. I want to also include more information about the technology that was used to create it. I can include this information in my paper and I believe it would also be useful on Wikipedia. I found some more reference links and added them. I took a look at my lead in paragraph and made some minor changes. Then I compared it to the ones on the Second Life and Red Light Center pages. Let me know if you think it still sounds like an advertisement.
I am new to the contributor side of Wikipedia and your help has been valuable. Darnel Franklin ( talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I want to redirect users from the "Professor Ali" page over to "Professor_Ali_(Producer)" but I got an error: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: * Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dldudley444 ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
If you think removal of the sole External link from Elmer S Gish School is appropriate, no problemo. I don't agree, per WP:ELNO, and I don't see WP:NOTE referenced in WP:ELNO, but I'm happy to discuss it here or the talk page. However, given that you believe it is an inappropriate link, should not the now-empty "External Links" section also be deleted, per WP:EL? Thanks, JoeSperrazza ( talk) 19:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
♠ TomasBat 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Truth is to verify. Definitions are verified BY truth therefore your "core policy" is mangled if in fact your statement is TRUE. Ok, moving on; thank-you for taking the time to reply in such detail, I do realize you must be very busy. We have a problem.
1.Problem You wrote: "Note that Biblical citations are primary sources; secondary sources would be commentary by a prominent scholar."
Please explain what authority I should consult to find this "prominent scholar" you speak of. There is not one according to the book I use who is qualified that you would recognize as being "prominent". What reference can be sure outside the 40+ men and women whose work comprises the bible anyway who will make due as qualified; I will be happy to enquire of them and yet I will explain that according to the verifiable source of Christianity (the Bible), that there are none qualified outside of that book. Furthermore, my definitions are really simple and common sense knowledge based on 6th grade level English and usage as should be; not everyone can comprehend past 9th Grade reading (according to Texas G.E.D. preparation standards; State of Texas (do I need to find the citation for that source?)) and we don't want to leave out the young students who have not even reached the 9th grade yet... "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." Luke 18:16 KJV
He is stating FACT here and God is His verifiable source to this statement according to 1jn. 5:7 below, what further verifiable source are you going to require of Him?
"1Jo:5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Not like I'm preaching but I AM citing: Are these not reliable SECONDARY sources?
LET ACCURACY PREVAIL!!! 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wkdemers (
talk •
contribs)
Please understand, I'm not here trying to indoctrinate or push any views of anything but I AM here to help by pointing out ERROR and helping people get the WHOLE story instead of someone's watered-down version cause instead of calling a gun a WEAPON they want to call it a "protection device". Man, SOMEONE has to stand up for what our fathers died for which was being able to enjoy access to knowledge and freedom from a states oppression by suppression of information and perversion of facts.
Below is my very own definition of the word "dictionary", NOT my opinion, not my INTERPRETATION or just the way I see it... I used the exact same principle in defining terms that I found here on WP that needed work and I happen to know in depth their CORRECT definitions.
Dictionary: A book of or list of words usually in alphabetical order that gives their meaning(s); usually containing details of a words origin sometimes giving examples of it's usage and a summary of it's evolution.
My definitions never imply any doctrine, teaching or idea etc... Miriam Webster made a book of definitions, in my definition above I don't say His is best or not as good but I give it like it is. JUST for here though I will go as far as to state another fact about ol' Webster that might make someone angry; "He didn't know it all". But this kind of activity I have refrained from IN MY WORK knowing that would taint it. My definitions are correct and I must defend them because what is there is either mis-leading, lacking or just flat out INCORRECT.
Another fact and this one doesn't need any verification; future generations will suffer greatly from our ignorance.
Thank-you for your time Zach I'm tired now. LET ACCURACY PREVAIL!!! 06:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers ( talk • contribs)
This definition contains errors, sir.
A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion "period" <--fact
that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. <---not fact.
Thats why they are denominations, because they do not operate the same. It's not about POV it's about fact. Fact is part two of the definition is incorrect, there is no support for this statement and it is not even clear. Sir. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdemers ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zachlipton. Thanks for pointing out my mistake in citations for Malati Dasi. Answered your AfD nomination for Malati Dasi there. See if this is better now. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You tagged this page as db-person. The page is an attack on the subject. It clearly falls as db-attack instead of db-person. This is important because db-attack is a quicker CSD than normal. Also, it more appropriately warns the user. Please be sure to read the content of articles before you tag them.--v/r - T P 20:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
In recognition of your great work you've been doing in new-page-patrol and recent changes patrol. ;) œ ™ 10:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC) |
I Think that he is a significant person do to his job which is political in nature. I don't Know why you want to delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuyraisgood ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Zachlipton! I noticed that my article on Women Preachers was deleted under copyright violations. But the problem is, it's not a violation - I am the original author. I posted it under the believe that historical/contextual/scriptural backing should be included in any topic that is of concern to the church, especially when so many people across the globe look to Wikipedia to provide them with relevant information on the issues that matter to them.
And yes, it has been spread across the internet. People are intrigued and eager to hear more about a subject that has become quite personal to many of them. When anyone is faced with opposition as to why they should not follow their dreams, I believe they should be able to stand their ground, and not be subject to what other people say should and should not be done. Especially when there is overwhelming evidence in favor of what they are doing.
Which is why you may have noted on the link that was provided in the report (here: Women Preachers )
that in the very beginning it says, "Please pass on for free!" I have allowed for anyone who wishes to, to pass it along to others. I do not believe that anyone should have to pay to know more about history. Don't you agree?
I do believe it's quite sad that a post about historical facts and ancient words/text is considered a POV article and furthermore, a soapbox, when this site is all about bringing to light the issues that face our world today, without bias of what the topic is about. If the part about KJV being the most accurate translation of the Bible is going to be problematic, I would be pleased to reword it for you.
I would like to humbly request that my post is re-instated, as the original author, and a fellow human being who believes that anyone who wishes to have knowledge, should have it freely.
Kind regards.
Ph.D. Theologian.
PhDofTHEOLOGY ( talk) 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zachlipton. Thank you for deleting vandalism by 68.44.137.48, 174.89.30.208, and others, off my talk page and other pages. All the best, -- Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Context reflux. The reason I declined it is because it's not clear that this is a hoax - it could quite posibly be a term used in some company. I do thnk that the page should be deleted (note that I left the PROD tag) - I just think that speedy G3 is the wrong way to go with it. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you have lots of badges which, as I see, does not help much not to be a mindless eraser. Good luck with erasing and collecting titles anddécors. Genezistan ( talk) 18:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could tell my why you dispute the neutrality of the page Jarrod Glover and why you dispute it's notability? Enidblyton11 ( talk) 17:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've fixed a few things, but I'm a new user. Could you check the page and tell me if anything needs to be done? Thanks Enidblyton11 ( talk) 18:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added a few more refernces, including info about him from anti-racist group fightdemback. He also has a blog: http://onenationconservativenation.blogspot.com/
In this blog he states he lives in Newcastle. Enidblyton11 ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if this is redundant...I'm still new to wikipedia, but I sent you a message. Thanks, Mounir
A couple of your disabiguation edits were incorrect (for Nostoc and Geosiphon). There is no relevant article for disambiguation of the former usage. I have added the appropriate sense to the disambiguation, but have not linked it, since a separate article about the subject is not likely. There needs to be some sort of article about the organization of tissues in plants and algae. For the latter, the correct link is the Hypha option listed on the disambiguation page. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zachlipton, I see you recently uploaded File:Spit-Like-This.jpg in the public domain, following a FFU request. However, please note that this file is not in the public domain, because as you can read here, the file was released only for 'non-profit' use, which contravenes to all free licenses, and especially PD. Thanks for taking a look and taking the appropriate action. [CharlieEchoTango] 03:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, you have obviously not been to Vang Vieng recently, if at all. If you have been recently, then you have not been previously , say 10 years ago to compare it then and now subjectively. Hence my comments are valid and actually more accurate than yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 ( talk) 05:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Wow you are efficient. I thought I'd have a few minutes to add and straighten up. THANKS
I hope I didn't complicate your work by trying to add in while you are working. Deeply grateful for the help. I was trying to tie this to an orphan page Annette Brissett. Again nice to meet you EstherLaver ( talk) 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)EstherLaver
You uploaded a photo from Flickr of I-joists, but the photo is not of I-joists, and the description is vastly different from the one on Flickr. They are old solid timber joists which have sustained fire damage, not engineered lumber.
Any idea where the wires got crossed? Were you expecting the upload to be of a different photo? If so, any chance that you might root it out? JonSenior ( talk) 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zach, I am William Greiner the subject of the page started by philip dunham. philip had great difficulty uploading a few examples of my work, so I was trying to assist in this effort. I still do not understand what needs to be done to accomplish this? I think a few examples of my work is appropriate and warranted? I need your help to tell me exactly what I need to do to make this happen. Thank you for your time and help. Regards Wm. Greiner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.162.6 ( talk) 21:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir I thank you for your kind attention to my advice to correct a gross mistake regarding Kai-lan.I am not familiar with your procedures, so I will not take part in a discussion. If you are a collaborator of Wikipedia and want to improve it, then please report my advice. Personally I consider it odd that removing, that is, correcting a redirect doesn' belong to the section redirects.It tase a minute to click on the website of Sakata.com. Anyway, this is not my business. With my best wishes Prof.A.C. 93.43.238.196 ( talk) 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article and your edits. Yes the article is an original piece. I will correct the footnotes and add additional links per your request.
Bravewell Bravewell ( talk) 19:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I've been struggling to create a page for a professional association, and I keep getting rejected. I was wondering if you could provide some more advice. In the note you offered for rejecting the current version (for the IADC), you said I needed a third party source other than the association's Web site. I tried to fashion my entry on a similar association entry that is posted to Wiki and it doesn't have a third party source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Research_Institute.
I'm finding Wiki to be quite confusing so I appreciate your help. Thanks.
Marble30 ( talk) 15:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Zach Lipton,
Thanks for your help. You are obviously a pro at this, and I am just a beginner, trying to learn. I think I need a Tutor to "Adopt" me. Can I please email you the Bio/CV of Kimmo and let you tell me if he is worth more work? I am not related, but am sure he is famous in European art circles.
I'd ALSO like to learn about the requirements to put only a "STUB" online, so I can go onto more gratifying Contributions. The reason I added all the FinnJet info, was to support WHY he is so important. He is in major Collections across Europe in Museums and has been in many US and world exhibitions. RonRice ( talk) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
How Do I do a stub? r RonRice ( talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
When do you expect to answer this? RonRice ( talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Go to the site already and try to search. It's broken. Google needs a big 'ol slap in the yap to convince them to fix it -- contacting support has done nothing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.228.45 ( talk) 06:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Barbara Jackman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. nancy 10:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Please read this : Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and I add that it's better I do it as carefully as possible and look also for bad redirection(s). Regards. 204.174.87.29 ( talk) 09:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) 204.174.87.29: By definition, reverting an edit that violates a rule, policy, guideline, etc., at Wikipedia is a necessary revert and therefore does not run afoul of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (shortcut → WP:ROWN). Therefore, WP:ROWN does not apply. Moreover, were it to apply, WP:ROWN is an essay, not a rule, policy, guideline, etc., at Wikipedia: It is thus unenforceable. Consequently, the only issue left is your violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, an enforceable Wikipedia guideline. No amount of wikilawyering on your part will change that.
Zachlipton: Please also see the discussion at User talk:204.174.87.29#"Fixing" Links to Redirects. I wanted to apprise you of it.