Hornet35

Message from MartinBot

Your recent edit to Spinal cord (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I was trying to revert vandalism but ending up reverting to vandalism. --Hornet35 12:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A question on "Not a Christian" AfD

What kind of research did you perform before listing this? Did you try Google News or Google Books? Are you aware that the author is a Nobel Prize winner and widely considered to be one of the most influential philosophers of the century if not the millenium? I do of course assume good faith but I am led to wonder if your AfD might have been influenced by your personal aversion to the argument. Eleland 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When I found the article it had no references and appeared to be spam. Even though he is notable, that doesn't mean everything he ever wrote is. --Hornet35 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I remind you that when you nominate a page for deletion you are expected to do some research and look for references about the topic. Articles don't get deleted just because they don't cite references, they get deleted because there are no references to be cited. Hut 8.5 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The other day I found Regent Cinemas, an article about a pair of cinemas with 16 screens total. I felt that it appeared to be spam. There were no references and no claims of notability. I searched Google News and Google proper before nominating and found that significant coverage was very marginal, hence, I went ahead with the nom. You found something that "appeared to be spam" and you just made the nom. You didn't even click on the wikilink to the author (a Nobel prize winner "appears to be notable"). These types of actions are going to engender hostility, and they're going to get you into trouble. Please acknowledge that you acted at the very least with undue haste. Eleland 19:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic whirl, you will be blocked for vandalism. ornis (t) 06:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice to cross-out comments on AFDs which don't provide any reason for their choice or provide an invalid reason. This is not vandalism. --Hornet35 07:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, you've been editing on Wikipedia for about 3 days and you've noticed this "practice" !. I been around for a year and have over a 1,000 edits and haven't noticed that practice ... in fact if anyone touches any user talk edit then I find it happens very rarely and gets reverted back very quickly. Ttiotsw 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point it's important to point out that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that you seem to be disrupting to make a point by nominating clearly notable articles for deletion (like this one, this one and this one). You say that you are a victim of a plot to "banish Christians from Wikipedia" (see here) and you are pushing a point of view against any article where the subject is pro-atheism. If you were not aware, a neutral point of view is one of the five pillars, and this type of editing is against policy. CitiCat ^♫ 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Suffering Self looks like it fails notability.

I noticed, The_Suffering_Self and the author is redlinked. I know how highly you set the standards for notability and references or reviews for books so it would be nice if you applied those same standards to this article which you created. Ttiotsw 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You must have a lot of spare time. --Hornet35 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was advising you rather than prod'ing or AfD'ing the article. You really should read WP:AGF - please comment on what the editor has written not about the editor. On the other hand I use WP:POPUPS, have broadband, dualscreen and use Firefox which has in-line spell editing: I can edit fairly quickly and automatically go back over the first articles written by a new user to get an idea of the focus. Looks like the article has been prod'd anyway, oh well shift happens. Ttiotsw 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Suffering Self

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article The Suffering Self, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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 endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. ornis (t) 09:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Universal Pantheist Society AfD

Before nominating articles for AfD (as you did for Universal_Pantheist_Society), please exercise due care to ensure that the article fails the policy or guideline in question. Needlessly disrupting wikipedia (either unintentionally or to make a WP:POINT) is frowned upon. Thanks --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HatsOffGentlemen.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:HatsOffGentlemen.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Note that the image is also orphaned (not used anywhere on Wikipedia). As such, it qualifies for deletion even with proper copyright status. Cheeser1 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)