I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
- M:Foundation issues
- Wikipedia:Tutorial
- Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
- Wikipedia:Help desk
- Wikipedia:Five pillars
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
The addition of paleoliberalism to mature topics and the relevant template has been reverted pending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleoliberalism. Please go there and document the signifcance so that a proper judgment can be reached re the subject - at present the evidence of significance is apparently insufficient to justify inclusion in these long-standing articles. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- PaleoLib, I'd encourage you to discuss the article at AfD. (See the link in Just Zis Guy's comment above.) Without your input it looks as if your article has a good chance of being deleted. AndyJones 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- What are your sources for Paleoliberalism? It appears to be an essay. Even if the article is kept, we're going to have to cut it down to the verifiable material. At the moment, none of it is. - Willmcw 02:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Willmcw. Your sources would really help. AndyJones 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't revert user:Jmabel's hard work on Paleoliberalism without reason. He has found a number of sources to support his contributions. The "core beliefs" section appears to be an essay written off of the top of your head with no sources. - Willmcw 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The original "paleoliberalism" article was great and really informative. Since some "people" are really dedicated to destroying its informative content, I've preserved its integrity by posting it on my PERSONAL user page. -- PaleoLib 22:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, it was an unsourced essay. You failed to respond to numerous requests for your sources. The article was not destroyed, it was re-built using solid, verifiable sources. Please have more respect for those who do good work. - Willmcw 22:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Will is right. Keep the old one in your user space if you want, but since you refused to cite any verifiable secondary sources you'll have a hard time persuading anybody that it was anything other than original research. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- PaleoLib, don't be too upset that your contribution got blue-pencilled. It happens to us all on one level or another, and it was a shame that you got hit by the steamroller of Wikipedian "due diligence" on your first visit here. I think your user page is a great place for the original article. You are right, it was a good essay. Unfortunately that is, really, why we had problems with it - it is an essay, while Wilkipedia is a place to document existing, established knowledge. Please don't let this put you off contributing. You are a good writer, and you're obviously knowledgable in the field of politics. Therefore we welcome your future contributions. If you want a piece of advice (which you don't have to take, of course) I'd suggest that you make your next contributions on articles where you don't personally have strong opinions. I hope you stay on board. Don't let all of this put you off. AndyJones 13:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Nomination of Paleoliberalism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paleoliberalism 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/Paleoliberalism (2nd nomination) 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. PanchoS ( talk) 08:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
- M:Foundation issues
- Wikipedia:Tutorial
- Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
- Wikipedia:Help desk
- Wikipedia:Five pillars
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
The addition of paleoliberalism to mature topics and the relevant template has been reverted pending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleoliberalism. Please go there and document the signifcance so that a proper judgment can be reached re the subject - at present the evidence of significance is apparently insufficient to justify inclusion in these long-standing articles. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- PaleoLib, I'd encourage you to discuss the article at AfD. (See the link in Just Zis Guy's comment above.) Without your input it looks as if your article has a good chance of being deleted. AndyJones 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- What are your sources for Paleoliberalism? It appears to be an essay. Even if the article is kept, we're going to have to cut it down to the verifiable material. At the moment, none of it is. - Willmcw 02:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Willmcw. Your sources would really help. AndyJones 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't revert user:Jmabel's hard work on Paleoliberalism without reason. He has found a number of sources to support his contributions. The "core beliefs" section appears to be an essay written off of the top of your head with no sources. - Willmcw 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The original "paleoliberalism" article was great and really informative. Since some "people" are really dedicated to destroying its informative content, I've preserved its integrity by posting it on my PERSONAL user page. -- PaleoLib 22:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, it was an unsourced essay. You failed to respond to numerous requests for your sources. The article was not destroyed, it was re-built using solid, verifiable sources. Please have more respect for those who do good work. - Willmcw 22:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Will is right. Keep the old one in your user space if you want, but since you refused to cite any verifiable secondary sources you'll have a hard time persuading anybody that it was anything other than original research. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- PaleoLib, don't be too upset that your contribution got blue-pencilled. It happens to us all on one level or another, and it was a shame that you got hit by the steamroller of Wikipedian "due diligence" on your first visit here. I think your user page is a great place for the original article. You are right, it was a good essay. Unfortunately that is, really, why we had problems with it - it is an essay, while Wilkipedia is a place to document existing, established knowledge. Please don't let this put you off contributing. You are a good writer, and you're obviously knowledgable in the field of politics. Therefore we welcome your future contributions. If you want a piece of advice (which you don't have to take, of course) I'd suggest that you make your next contributions on articles where you don't personally have strong opinions. I hope you stay on board. Don't let all of this put you off. AndyJones 13:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Nomination of Paleoliberalism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paleoliberalism 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/Paleoliberalism (2nd nomination) 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. PanchoS ( talk) 08:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)