User talk:Onthesideoftheangels

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! —Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs

Copy vio?[edit]

Hi. Many of the pages you're creating state Paul Priest [1991 Dioc.North. LOL Nomenclature] at the end. What is this? A source for the content? If so, we need to be sure that these pages aren't copyright violations. --mtz206 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly...[edit]

... many of the terms you are suggesting appear to be neologisms. We can't accept articles on neologisms until they've had a certain degree of success. Sorry. I accept that you meant well, but these articles are being deleted. If you can provide a proper source, you can re-create them. DS 15:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed Momentum in Causation for deletion. This term might not be significant enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so. Remember, however, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles about the meanings and usages of terms are not appropriate either.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually gone ahead and proposed pretty much the whole lot of articles for deletion. (You can browse your contributions by clicking on "my contributions" at the top of the page.) No offense is meant. It sounds like (perhaps) you have a logic professor with a compelling way of explaining logical fallacies and wanted to share them. That's understandable, and it would be great on a personal website devoted to logic. But Wikipedia has requirements that information be verifiable, and it doesn't currently look like you've got sufficient reliable sources to do that.

But feel free to prove me wrong! :) If I've misjudged and there's good info out there that's just hard to find with a Google search, incorporate it into the articles and remove the prod notice. But if these terms really aren't yet supported by secondary sources, then you should let them go. Your effort is certainly appreciated--I hate to propose deletion for a bunch of well-intended articles. You should browse thru Category:Logic if you get a chance--a lot of the articles we have could use clarification if you're good at that. Thanks, and hope you stick around even if the articles end up deleted. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

In case you are not watching my page, I replied to your comment on my talk page. --mtz206 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and capital punishment[edit]

Thanks for your edits at Religion and capital punishment, but please try not to add large quotes to articles. We should try to avoid making articles repositories of primary sources. Instead, perhaps provide a brief summary and then provide a citation or external link to the source. --mtz206 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Fallacies within the momentum of causation[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Proposed Fallacies within the momentum of causation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]