User talk:Leinad-Z

Welcome to the English wikipedia. I assume from your edits that you have been active on other language wikipedias, but welcome here nonetheless. If you need help finding anything, feel free to ask. --best, kevin _└ ^KZOLLMAN/ _TALK^┐ 20:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently WikiProject Galicia has been created. Perhaps you are interested in joining us to help improving Galicia articles at English Wikipedia. --Stoni^(talk) 14:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you previously tried to quote a large section of the article you cited. Although citations are good, please do not copy and paste excerpts from secondary sources word-for-word, as they may be copyright violations. (The quotes from the primary source - i.e. the book itself - are probably not as bad, as more of it falls under fair use, although long excerpts should be avoided as well.) Thank you. --AySz88^-^ 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, but Christ was a Jew - following the lessons learned by the study of a person's life does not mean following what they were raised. Janizary 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed this.. "Because of its emphasis on verification of Truth and exploration of Truth, Hinduism does not have to force the theories of Darwin or Mendel out of school rooms in order to survive, nor suffer from the compulsions of freezing human thought in a medieval time frame in order to justify itself." You gave the reason that this is Hinduism's comparision with Christianity. Can i ask How? Theories of Drawin and Mendal are not just connected to Christianity. Any religion can be connected with these theories for positive or negative reasons.-Holy Ganga 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leinad-Z,

please check my reasons for deleting again "spy" and "occultist".

mathaxiom 16:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your supportive comments for a while, obrigado,

StrangerInParadise 22:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Creator deity Gustave Reese Cartesian dualism Neal A. Maxwell History of political science Historiography of science Andreas Osiander Mark Rypien Spain in the Middle Ages Billings METropolitan Transit Polish Renaissance Plutonism Medieval Hebrew Primary tumor Marsilius of Inghen Hypothesis Leonel Power Lead up to the Warsaw Uprising Arab philosophy

Cleanup German Renaissance Vers une architecture Transcendental argument for the existence of God Merge Medieval (term) Anthony T. Grafton Amoretti Add Sources Northern Renaissance Ptolemaic system BlueDragon Wikify Jousting Dates of classical music eras Robert Hermann Expand Renaissance literature Holstentor The Jesus Mysteries

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Alienus 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, no, but that is the standard interpretation of those types of objects in european cathedrals. They date from way before common acceptance of round earth, and fit with cosmology of the time. For great justice. 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent edits on Flat Earth; I've reformatted the footnotes to conform to existing standard style. Could you pin down exact pages in Dreyer for your citations regarding Diodorus of Tarsus and Severian? Also, would you check that my reformatting reflects the source you actually used; I suspect you used the Dover edition rather than the original 1906 version.

I've also flagged the passage about Lactantius's heresy and lack of influence I couldn't find a mention in the Catholic encyclopedia and it needs a reference. Personally, it seems unnecessarily argumentative and I'd drop the passage entirely.

Best wishes, --SteveMcCluskey 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you comments on my talk page. --SteveMcCluskey 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear with this historian's nit picking; I like your work but as a historian I'm a bit concerned about the recurring use of plausible reconstructions in the Flat Earth article. I've just found that the ship on the horizon discussion (which you didn't add) is problematic -- at least as concerns its relation to Aristotle.

I'm similarly concerned with the map you've just added, showing a superimposed T-O map and a Macrobian zonal diagram. It's plausible; it may represent how medieval figures saw the situation; but do we have evidence for such a map in the Middle Ages. As you can see, I'm concerned with having reliable sources for everything in our articles, especially for one which has been as controversial in the past as Flat Earth was.

On a totally different matter, please note that one of the images of Sacrobosco's Sphere (Image:Sacrobosco sphaera2.jpg) that you recently contributed was mislabled on the University of Toronto web page; it's actually of George Peurbach's Theorice novæ planetarum (as the image says in the top left column). I've copied the image to the new name (Image:Theorice Novae Planetarum.jpg) in Wikimedia Commons, but don't know how to delete the existing file. --SteveMcCluskey 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. About the diagram on the left, I adapted it from the contribution of User:John Hamer on Mappa Mundi. By the Mappa Mundi article, it just seemed a standard way to portray Macrobian-Zonal-Maps ... and it was the best picture I had to work on. Other pictures I had at my disposal, like this one from here, were harder to understand due to the lack of color.

I had no intention to say this map was necessarily "the way" people saw the world. But this other picture, that I had also considered to use, was very similar to the schematic diagram. The text that comes with the picture (here) says: Ambrosius Macrobius, (...) became a very popular medieval source. About 150 late medieval manuscripts of his Commentary on the Dream of Scipio have survived, most of them accompanied by this interesting world map. (...)

When editing Wikipedia, my emphasis is in trying to make the articles easy to understand, that's why I chose to use that diagram. But, if you are still worried about the picture, I guess I could work more on the image and make it simpler (with no distinctions between Asia, Africa and Europe, for example). Finally, I appreciate your attempt to make the article more reliable and understand the importance of being scrupulous in this particular context. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before you could answer, I did this other climatic zone diagram on the right. I do like the way it looks, it's very didactic and, I hope, uncontroversial. Now that I took the job of modifying the text, it would be easy to change it again. So, if you have suggestions for its improvement, please let me know.

Best wishes, --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 20:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leinad,

I see what you want, a clear image showing the spherical earth, the antipodes, and the climatic zones. I think I may have found one that will work. Its a 12th c. manuscript from the south of France at the Danish Royal library. The specific image is here. which clearly reflects a medieval reading of Macrobius that would nicely support the article. --SteveMcCluskey 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leinad,

I've just added some comments at Wikimedia Image talk:Grosseteste-optics trying to identify the source of that image. Please reply there when you have time. There's no rush since I see we're both trying to take a wikibreak :-) --SteveMcCluskey 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first began to work on Wikipedia, there was little to distinguish this article from that on "Catholicism" or "Catholic", I don't remember which of these two articles, perhaps both; so I proceeded to make this one clearly distinct, practically rewriting it entirely, so as to focus it exclusively on what we would call simply "the Catholic Church", what, however, very many prefer to call "the Roman Catholic Church". Changing the title would, I still fear, bring back the previous confusion. In any case, the burden of proof lies on those who want a change, and the arguments they have proposed have failed to convince me.

The name "Roman Catholic Church" doesn't worry me: if the Church accepts it, why shouldn't I?

I am sorry I was not clear enough about my understanding of the guideline on primary topic. I was referring to:

Ensure that the "(disambiguation)" page links back to an unambiguous page name. The unambiguous page name should redirect to the primary topic page. This assists future editors (and automated processes).

For example, the primary topic Rome has a link at the top to Rome (disambiguation), where there is a link back via Rome, Italy (rather than directly to Rome).

I understand this as requiring, in the case of the proposed exclusion from an article entitled "Catholic Church" of any account of an understanding of the term "Catholic Church" different from that classified as the primary topic:

For example, the primary topic "Catholic Church" must have a link at the top to "Catholic Church (disambiguation)", where there is a link back via "Catholic Church + some distinguishing word or phrase" rather than directly to "Catholic Church".

- and it appears to be very difficult to agree on any form of "Catholic Church + some distinguishing word or phrase", so that the discussion that - whether the title remains as it is or if the title is changed - will inevitably recur, would become yet more complicated and lengthy, if it also had to settle the question of the distinguishing word or phrase.

If it weren't too late - someone has archived the voting even before the deadline of 8 September - I would now change my judgement on Option 3 to: "Support. I find the arguments for a change unconvincing."

Lima 07:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, and thank you for reverting my mistake. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am curious if you meant to refer to Henri Poincaré for the quote on your user page or if this is a different person I am not familiar with. nadav

Hi, Nadav. I basically had the same doubt you expressed above. I found that phrase being attributed to "Henri Paincore" in a list of quotations in Portuguese. I just did a Google search that revealed the quotation: "Doubt everything or believe everything; these are two equally convenient strategies. With either we dispense with the need for reflection. - Henri Poincaré" It's basically the English version of the same phrase. I’ll update my user page with the English phrase, now with the proper reference. Thanks for making me finally settle this. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 05:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond to your question. I think it's best to be anonymous so others do not associate me with a particular view. I have noticed that if someone does not like my edit, regardless of how little I add in my own sentiments or how much truth is in them, they will erase them or put up a box questioning their accuracy. The accuracy is not inaccurate I do not think, it is rather the person affiliated with questioning who is frustrated over particular views. It also allows me to shy away from revealing my associating with the topics I deal with. I find it the most preferable way of editing.

I acknowledge one assumes an ip individual is blind to Wikipedia rules, if introducing much new material it simply means I must “climb the mountain” …and wait until the person stops objecting and acknowledges they comply.74.129.230.61 11:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS -

There is a good quote by Russell I like, "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong"

Leinad,

The source for those quotes is the second footnote in the Science and religion article:

• Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0

Let me know if you require any more details.--ragesoss 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Leinad-Z, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  yandman 15:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yandman. You do realize that I've been editing wikipedia much longer than you, right? It is weird to be "welcomed" in wikipedia after months editing it. The specific edit you reverted is sourced at a reputable website. It is also not against NPOV policy to quote a relevant opinion in the discussion about the meaning of the word creationism. Please familiarize yourself better with WP policies. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the web site you listed as your reference doesn't appear to be working. Also, I don't approve of including quotes for someone's POV. If this was a biographical article, for example, some quotes would be ok. However, this is about an overall concept that includes many religions and denominations and in this context, your quote isn't appropriate. Addhoc 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, the website was working just fine earlier today. Notice that the quotation is from a relevant figure in the debate, I honestly think it fits the article. I reinserted the quotation at a lower section; I hope is a good compromise. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that we have to respect the neutral tone and layout that is expected of an encyclopaedia. Inserting the quotation in this way is just not encyclopaedic: I could see this happening in an article or a history book, but we can't put PoV quotes into prominence. What you can do is summon up what he said (e.g. "George Coyn, former bla bla bla, stated bla bla bla"), and work it into the main text, as the vatican's view of things. As Addhoc said, if we were writing Coyn's biography, we could do this. And as for my welcome, it wasn't meant to offend. I'm sure you have much to offer to Wikipedia. yandman 17:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yandman, user Addhoc appears to have, at least for now, accepted the compromise I proposed. (See also his talk page in that regard.)

On the other hand, your argumentation appears to rest solely on your subjective feeling of what is more encyclopedic. Well, I feel that the article is more complete and encyclopedic with the quotation. If you absolutely need to have the quotation removed, please discuss it at the article’s talk page before taking a harsh action based on feelings.

Notice that you are deleting my edits in a rather rude way (even using "popups", a tool that, AFAIK, is intended for reverting vandalism). Moreover, the way you reverted my edits may have something to do with the fact that Addhoc initially confused me with some kind of deleting-source-vandal. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I agree with Yandman's comments, the web site is now working and you appear to have quoted from a lengthy article. It would be more appropriate to summarize these views and introduce them into the main text. Addhoc 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, latter I’ll try to do as you suggest. The section about "The Christian critique of creationism" seems especially appropriate for that development. The one thing I regret, though, is that doing so may end up giving even more prominence to Creationism as only meaning Biblical literalism, ID, etc (since, at the critique section, it will become another "answer", instead of an alternate meaning). To remind the readers that there is more than one way to define a "creationist" was, IMO, one of the positive effects of the quotation. The article is currently lacking in regard to alternate meanings for the term. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent message in my Talk concerning my edits. I think we could probably agree to have a section headed 'Critique' containing the three (currently!) remaining paragraphs, followed by a section headed 'Response to Critique' containing the two paragraphs I removed? This would make for a much clearer understanding of the argument (in the best sense of that word!) by the general reader.

Jmc 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick note, it may not be the best idea to continue to accuse people of sock puppetry as you've done here. several of the accusations are definately false. Perhaps you should leave that partof wiki detective work for those a little more seasoned in detecting it. I hope you continue to edit though. Your passion for editing is definately useful :) Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Request for Comment at Talk:Opus Dei.

After going through the process which led up to mediation (here), a mediation that resolved that the majority POV is the view of experts such as John Allen, Jr. and Benedict XVI, the main opponent of the article replaced the old article with his own personal version, and then asked for an Request for Comment.

Kindly give your comment. Please. :) Thanks and God bless. Arturo Cruz 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The points you make, replete with the claims of injustice and oppression (despite the fact that there are several Roman Catholic editors who support the current name or don't care about the issue one way or the other) have all been made before, as Archive 7 above will reveal in all its prolix glory. I invite you to read it if, for nothing else, the strange sense of deja vu it will likely inspire in you, as it does in me. Cheers."

This it the type of patronizing rhetoric I've received from what I consider at this point, outwardly Anti-Catholic editors in this site. I know there is a good faith policy, sure, but the repeated disrespect and blatantly forward condescending attitude is just too obvious to conclude anything less.

I am aware you have supported the change of the article for the proper name "Catholic Church" in the past. I am determined to have our voice heard again and have this issue reviewed and hopefully repealed. However, there is no way I can do this myself, I need you help and anyone else that may assist us. (by the way where the due process ?)

My most significant points for change are found in the one of my latest post as follows:

"1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What is not understood is that regardless of additional descriptive properties "Catholic" Church IS the common title of the Petrine Church in the equivalent manner as "Anglican" Church is the common title of the Church of England...regardless of any descriptive meanings of the words "Catholic or Anglican". If anything it proves how inappropriate it is to impose an extrinsic adjective upon an institution that is not titled in such a manner. If that is allowed then where does it end. Why not add to the Greek the Athenian Orthodox Church, or say London Anglican Church since the symbolic head of the Anglican communion resides there.

2)Since "Catholic Church" is NOT a description, but the title of the lone Church titled as such, by far, historically, in the present and by the world at large it deserves to be title as such. It is not ambiguous, Anglicans do not say they are going to the Catholic Church, do they? Thus, no point in pulling out the ambiguity alibi Also, the article describes one Church, it is not a comparative study of several churches, no confusion to be entertained.

3)The personal ignorance of a Catholic which refers to himself as Roman Catholic is not an excuse to go by such a term. Many of these same Catholics are the same ignorant Catholics that think Catholics of other rites are not real Catholics. Thus, ignorance is no reason, if any a reason for proper education.

4)The listing of a Parish as Roman Catholic is reference to the Rite not the Church at large(albeit slang, where "Roman" is interchanged for "Latin") just as Byzantine Catholic churches are frequently listed as Greek Catholic Church. Since this article is discussing the Church at large and not the Rite, the usage within the church by the "listing" excuse does not apply to this article.

5)The Church in the few instances where it does add the descriptive adjective "Roman" it is used in reference to its Petrine primacy and only when describing or comparing the Church with other schimatic churches. This fact, is perfectly exemplified in Pope Pius XII's encylical Humani Generis where he mearly mentions "Roman Catholic Church" as he speaks of churches not in full communion. Because, in that entire encyclical Puis referrs to the Church as simply "The Church" vs RCC 46 times to 1.

6)Since, this article is NOT from within the Church there is no way to confirm that it is not mentioned pejoratively, thus the additional push to disregard this disrespectful term. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is only if it comes from within the Church. (Wikipedia should not pretend that anti-Catholicism does not exist)

7)There is no neutral point of view where both sides are equally respected. Since, the Protestant/Anglican POV is represented in everycase (i.e., Catholic, Catholicism- both presented by their descriptive meaning); and the lone institution which presents itself to the world as simply the "Catholic Church", as a title, it should be respresented as such. Not to mention that it is the historical first "Catholic" Church, and thus should be reserved that entitlement, by that fact alone.

Lastly,Wikipedia is not a Protestant or Anglican outlet. I mean really how many Protestants, Anglicans, or Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic", yet that article is presented from the non-Catholic POV(as well as Catholicism). Yet, the Catholic is supposed to shut up and take it - fine, I'll take that for the terms "Catholic and Catholicism". However, we are not allowed the common title of our Church in the name of outlandish excuses, instead the Catholic is supposed to swallow a term imposed by others outside the church, Anti-Catholicism, as is the preferred connotation of those against the Petrine Church.[9] [10] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics?

The injustice is truly preposterous! "

Additionally, and possibly the strongest point is historical. (What do you think about this?..) How did the initial author of the term "Catholic Church" describe that church as and does it still exist? Yes,, and there is documented proof that leaves no doubt that it is the present day Petrine Church and its 23 churches in full communion. (I am presently researching the material, it is facinating!) If anyone or any group has the right to be named by such a term it should be the actual institution which the original author and his companions were referring to.

Thank you very much for your supportMicael 12:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very pro-Lewis, but I can't agree with your last edits to the Narnia article. The section is about criticisms, and naturally divides into "accusations of racism", "accusations of sexism" and so on, even if the accusations are rubbish. The article is not there to explore Lewis' views of gender and ethnicity in general. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. With my modification I was trying to adopt in the Narnia article the same criteria of NPOV titles that is being used in articles such as Criticism of atheism, for example. It is argued that one should not write a subsection title like "Atheism leads to poor morality", because this kind of title is already taking sides on the issue (I tend to agree with this argumentation). BTW, in this sense your version is better than the subtitles that were in the article before my edits. There are still problems though, for example: the "sexism" title predisposes the reader to consider every criticism written in that section as necessarily connected to a sexism charge. But the comment by J.K. Rowling is not necessarily connected with this kind of accusation in any way. The title is leading the reader to interpret the allegations in a certain and possibly misleading way. Anyway, I'm not in the mood to insist on further modifications right now. Good editing. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí, chapa. 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leinad! Thanks for the heads-up. Suggest you just go ahead with your plans. I am not so good in doing redirects and I might just botch up the job. :) Perhaps just put something in the discussion page on the history of this thing. All the best! Marax 06:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leinad (=daniel spelt backwards), what do you mean by relapsing? do you think editing articles on wikiedia is a type of sickness?? ;-) probably true! I like your webpage esp. chocolate milk, your interest in religion and science, your love of nice respectful people and above all Brazil! I love Sao Paulo even though I have never been I want to visit it more than any place on earth for the graffiti...sorry i digress...I agree both articles must be improved. I will try to do some and maybe you can help. thank you Peter morrell 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Religiosity and intelligence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religiosity and intelligence (2nd nomination). Thank you. WotherspoonSmith 13:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Stanley (academic), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Worthy but non-notable academic. No indication (either in article or his academic homepage that he meets any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC.

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leinad-Z! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 7 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gregory R. Peterson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]