User talk:Zeke pbuh

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Dear Zeke pbuh: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes. Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advise, please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into you signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!--Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 07:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

AfD nominations[edit]

I see that you tried to nominate ScientologY for deletion. The nomination was not complete, however. I've tagged this particular article for speedy deletion, but for future reference, you can go to WP:AFD for information on the deletion policy and how to nominate an article for deletion. For quick reference, you can view Template:AfD in 3 steps for an easy walkthrough of the 3 steps required to make a complete nomination. --Icarus 07:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of notes[edit]

Hi, while your contributions to Scientology articles are much appreciated, there are some things that you should know about:

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 CamelCase. When the software had improved and this limitation was no longer in place, these articles became redirects -- but that doesn't always mean they can simply be eliminated. Sometimes a redirect contains history that must be retained in order for Wikipedia to comply with the GFDL. In general, it's rarely necessary to remove redirects, even "useless" ones; they're cheap both in terms of server space and the load on the server of returning the page redirected to. It's only necessary to remove a redirect when it's actively harmful in some way. You might want to look at WP:RfD to get a better sense of the process. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living in Nashville?[edit]

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]

John Edwards[edit]

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[edit]

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]

John Edward 2[edit]

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]

Scientists opposing...[edit]

Hi, I've removed [1] some text you added at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I don't mean to devalue your contribution, but the whole global warming controversy has been...well...controversial. :-) It's easier to deal with if we keep Scientists opposing... focused on the specific topic, and leave the controversy to Global warming controversy. (It's also discussed at Exxon, and actually the discussion there might be better than the one at GWC.) Thanks! --Nethgirb 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestern Community College[edit]

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]

Ron Paul[edit]

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

Thinking Maps[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Thinking Maps, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Thinking Maps. Alvestrand (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hibernate Core[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 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 criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{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[edit]

Hello Zeke pbuh! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

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]

Proposed deletion of The Earth Organization[edit]

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 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. 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]

Proposed deletion of Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies[edit]

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 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. 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)[edit]

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![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through 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[edit]

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]