User talk:BelloWello/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reverted edits

Hi BelloWello,

I noticed you reverted my edits to Southern Adventist University and cited Conflict of Interest. I was wondering if we could discuss which changes you felt displayed that so I can make appropriate adjustments. I added a bunch of information, but I don't think any of it wasn't factual.

Regarding other omissions:

• student missionary death and "gun point" items happened off campus. Unless these incidents happened on campus, I don't find it relevant to the entry. That would lead to us reporting alumni deaths, car accidents, suicides, etc. I didn't remove the death of the student on campus due to the fire because I feel its more relevant to the university since it occurred on campus.
• The "masturbation controversy" section seems sensationalist in its titling at the very least. I'm not sure why one controversy back in the 80s merited singling out.
• The ideology section just seems to be focused on one person's opinion. There have been articles claiming Southern has become too liberal. Why does this one merit inclusion in your opinion?
• I'll be honest; your recent edits give the impression of vandalism. Most of your edits seem to be to add negative commentary. Using Spectrum, a commentary blog, as a source seems to provide a lot of the negative wording. There is nothing included from the Review, ANN, or any other sources that are more news/announcement.

I would like to resolve this rather than get into an edit duel. I spent a bunch of time going through an old book on Southern and visiting their website to add some of that information. I don't want to see it go to waste. --Quixar (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to you on the article's talk page. BelloWello (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: IP edit you reverted

In reply to User_talk:Xionbox#IP_edit_you_reverted Dear BelloWello,

I'll be honest and say that I only very quickly decided to revert your edit. The reason I did that was because I saw you added the standard image template beside the the title "Accreditation" and removed two sources. Removing the information you planned on removing turns our to be a valid edit and I encourage you to remove once more. I really recommend you to explains all edits in the edit summary. That shines light for recent changes patrollers who check, usually only very quickly, for reasons as to why certain edits were maid.

Don't hesitate to contact me again if you have any questions, remarks or for any other reason!

Xionbox^₪ 07:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

University of the Pacific

This page should not have been moved from University of the Pacific. Being a dab page does not mean the article title has to include '(disambiguation)'. That only is needed if there is a primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Heather J. Knight

Thank you for asking my opinion. I made a few comments about PUC on my talk page, and some recommendations about Dr. Knight's article on the draft article's talk page. I hope my comments prove useful. Cullen328 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi BW, Dr. Knight sent a picture to be included in the article. I'm not sure if I used the correct license. She is aware of the free use provision of Wikipedia Commons. What do you, or others, know about how to make use of a picture released by the owner so it can be used? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to forward a copy of her giving you the image and approving the license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I just looked at the image, it is excellent: exactly what we needed! Thank you, I am very happy with how that article has turned out. Hopefully, we'll be able to follow suit with more similar articles! BelloWello (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just sent a copy of the permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on the image shows the associated licensing text which indicates that the email in question was not sufficient to alleviate copyright concerns. If Heather Knight has undisputed copyright of this image, then she herself can upload it through Wikimedia Commons under an appropriate Creative Commons license. If PUC or the photographer hold the copyright, then the appropriate legal person must be the one to license its use on Wikipedia. Please consults experts for advice, as I don't claim to be a copyright expert. I've just had the pleasurable experience of going through this process many times. Good luck! Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to your post on ANI

(copied and pasted here so you see it)

Crazy accusations? LOL! Well, BelloWello, perhaps you should try searching the Archives of complaints here for Kwamikagami and see if you don't come across about THIRTY similar problems. THEN come back and decide if its "crazy", or if a "good faith" assumption is warranted. Q.E.D.!

(added here)

Look, B.W., I'm not interested in taking this problem any further, but I don't see how you can accuse me of "bad faith" or "being crazy" or "having a problem" if you are familiar with this guys history. No offense to you, just take a look at the Archives at all the problems he's caused.

Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bentogoa has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Sorry about the mix-up

Very sorry about the mix-up on the first report. Clearly a bad mistake on my part. Monty₈₄₅ 23:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It's hard to keep track of so many things at a time. BelloWello (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Canadian Federal Election

Thanks for your note. I was not in fact trying to vandalize but rather improve the article by adding addition sections and sub-sections to the issues in the article. It appears that user: Rogers3 has developed a personal attachment to the article and will not tolerate any changes to his preferred format. I have attempted to engage in a discussion on the talk page but his preferred course of action is to simply revert (or rather edit back to) his original version. I am happy to engage in a civil discussion and seek a compromise that works for eveyone but this cannot be Rogers33's personal article (also worth noting, many of his edits and discussions have been very transparently POV. I too have somewhat of a slant, but ensure my edits are comparable/fairly weighted against opposing points of view). 208.38.59.163 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

User Box2112 filed this SPI Investigation without the required notification on our talkpages in which you and I were named as suspected socks of Xenophrenic. Mojoworker (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw that. Quite amusing, nice to meet you today, Mojoworker! We happened to edit ONE article! We MUST be puppets! BelloWello (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey BelloWello - Smart Move There

So you're a sockpuppet, eh? And just decide to drop in and call me "crazy"? LMAO! So much for your NANOGRAM of credibility! And worse still ... you're not even a convincing puppet!!! WHOAAAA - you're a scary person! Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting unsourced information

Some of the information you reverted back into Murder of Meredith Kercher in this revert is unsourced, possibly defamatory information about a living person. Even worse, at least one of the purported facts is not only unsourced, but contradicted by another source (IE - it's fabricated). Please review WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP before making any further reverts. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Prior username

What was your prior username? Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not be disclosing that (it already has been disclosed to two admins), due to an outing incident that occurred with that name. I do not remember ever editing the same article as you. BelloWello (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please list the admins. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that is any of your business. Thanks! BelloWello (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how my asking two admins to confirm that you are not the user who I think you are is outside of the realm of acceptable behavior. If you are that user, your editing of the article you are currently editing would be a problematic violation of WP:SOCK. Please ask either of those admins to confirm here, or on my talk page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never edited the article I edited before. Please give a policy justification for your demand. BelloWello (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be hard for them to confirm I'm not a particular user, when you haven't even noted which user you think I am. BelloWello (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, "Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny," and "Editors who have abandoned an account in order to edit under a new identity are required to comply with the clean start policy." I trust that you contacted two admins - I'd like to verify this. I don't see why my request is problematic. In fact, I'll do you even better - contact either of those two admins with this question "Have I with my prior account edited any article related to Meredith Kercher or interacted with Hipocrite in any non-trivial way?" I promise not to further question or harass your chosen admins after they provide a response to that simple question. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello disclosed his prior username to me, which he assures me was his only other general use account (there was another account used only for a narrow topic). I can confirm that that account never edited Murder of Meredith Kercher and had no interactions with User:Hipocrite.   Will Beback  talk  18:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Could you please not interject your comments into another editor's text as you did here? Thanks. --John (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It was properly marked and within the policies on talk pages. It is unfair to accuse him of something untrue and not expect someone to respond. However, if you remove it a second time, I will not object. BelloWello (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Question asked at WQA

Someone asked a question about your post here. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about that. BelloWello (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for invite

Sometimes I tend to avoid SDA-related articles (although I've written a few), as I distrust my own neutrality on the subject. I took a look at the Larry Geraty article you pointed to. Probably won't have time to give it a thorough look for the next week, as I have family in town. (Mostly on vandalism patrol today, as it doesn't matter if I get interrupted.) Are you planning a sequence of articles of La Sierra University presidents? If so, a template at the bottom of the page would be swell. All the best, 78.26 (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BelloWello. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again, as above 78.26 (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BelloWello. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 04:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, BelloWello. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 14:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Path for Prosperity edits

Regarding the Debbie Watermann Schultz quote, the DNC and RNC are far more of a fundraiser/organizer than actual party leader (comparable to D/RSCC, D/RCCC, etc.). They have very little national profile; DWS isn't really the leader of the Democratic Party (no matter what her official title might be) any more than Michael Steele was the leader of the Republican Party.

I left the quote (though I still don't think it's significant), but I removed the connection to death panels - the Daily Caller isn't the best of sources, especially for drawing connections which are more subjective (I would put it on a level with, say, the Rachel Maddow show. Mostly right, but Tucker Carlson is quite opinionated on the analysis.) I would leave that out unless it gets heavily replayed ('death panel' was something repeated by many Republicans, whereas as far as I can see, DWS was the only one who said this), and/or other news sources (ex: WaPo, NYT,etc.) draw similar connections. Seleucus (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• You have been mentioned in an incident here. Lionel (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Your tagging of Southern Adventist University may be excessive per WP:TAGBOMB. Please remove the large box templates you added to the article. The inline tags are sufficient. Even though I assume you added the tags in good faith, consider this a warning. Lionel (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

    • 

      You have been warned before about gaming the system. I know you are trying to be as bold as possible; however, please do not game the system. Even if FVK has a COI, if his edits are appropriate, there is absolutely no problem with that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Without taking a position on whether FountainViewKid actually has a conflict of interest, I do note that the guideline is pretty clear that "COI editing is strongly discouraged". The point is to avoid having to scrutinize and argue about the COI editor's edits.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
        • As the alleged COI editor I just want to say that I honestly am trying to not be involved in a COI. In fact regardless of whether I have a COI or not I would be happy to stay away from editing Fountainview Academy if I knew that the editors working on the article would improve it. I only got involved because I saw one editor making changes that seemed to be in a negative rather than neutral direction. I also saw how it needed a lot of fixing and knew that my background knowledge could help this process. Fountainviewkid 04:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I haven't studied the situation enough to really say whether you have a COI within the meaning of the Wikipedia guideline. Generally speaking however, simply having attended a school does not usually constitute a COI. That being said, it seems clear that you are emotionally invested in the subject, so that editing the article is likely to lead to problems. My suggestion is that you stick to 1 revert per day and spend most of your time on the article talk page.--Kubigula (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I would be happy to follow your suggestions, but the extremely bold editing by another certain editor troubles me, and I feel that the article is essentially being "vandalized" if I only make one change a day. As long as other editors are aware however and watching the page, while fixing the problematic changes of the other editor, I am happy to stick to one revert per day. I will definitely consider your suggestions and try to follow them. Fountainviewkid 3:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Oh yes! Of course there's an editor running around vandalizing? Would that be the same editor that started two articles that have been featured on the main page and a GA nomination since this whole fiasco started? Why, of course zie's vandalizing! That's how you get stuff featured on the homepage.BelloWello (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Okay I think I'm out. I'm not here to argue with a certain editor, even if on his talk page. I only wish to have advice and suggestions from the rest of the community whom I don't happen to be in contention with. Fountainviewkid 3:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Accreditation

Straight from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg6.html#NationallyRecognized:

Note: The U.S. Department of Education does not have the authority to accredit private or public elementary or secondary schools, and the Department does not recognize accrediting bodies for the accreditation of private or public elementary and secondary schools. However, the U.S. Department of Education does recognize accrediting bodies for the accreditation of institutions of higher (postsecondary) education. If an accrediting body which is recognized by the Department for higher education also accredits elementary and secondary schools, the Department's recognition applies only to the agency's accreditation of postsecondary institutions.

So please do not disturb non-postsecondary institutions with this "unaccredited" issue. HkCaGu (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Accreditation status of Adventist high schools is of interest. Both in the United States and in Canada (re: Fountain View Academy in British Columbia see the talk page for Fountain View Academey) education is a state/provincial matter. If accreditation for a particular high school level institution is a concern it probably should be included in the text of the article. The Adventist Church has a rather rigorous internal accrediting system. The topic of accreditation is a worthy one, but the category type that has been added to various sites doesn't quite fit. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Highland View Academy is accredited outside Adventist purview by the Middle States Association. See: http://www.hva-edu.com/index_htm_files/2010-2011%20Bulletin.pdf DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountain View has a relationship with the provincial government. Notice this from the Fountain View site: "In order to graduate in British Columbia, students transferring to Fountainview Academy in grades 11 or 12 from another program or from a home school setting must have their previous coursework evaluated to establish graduation credits." http://fountainview.ca/newsite/academics/transfer.html DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Fountainview is accredited. I am an alumnus of the school. It is an independent school Group 4 accredited by the British Columbia Department of Education. Per the website, "Fountainview Academy is a Group 4 school and offers a college-prep academic program certified by the British Columbia Ministry of Education. Graduates receive the provincial diploma, the "Dogwood Certificate"." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainviewkid (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit! I'm looking at the Highland View Academy handbook, that school has some fucked up rules, especially under student life! The dress code is ridiculous, and they don't let you text on campus? Yeah, I would pretty much die there. haha. BelloWello (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR Block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see the other edit warring again at Southern Adventist University. I had thought I was fairly clear about what a revert is, and that you're not even entitled to four reverts, but I suppose I was not. You may not repeatedly undo the actions of others, even if you think it is better language. Once you see something is in contention start a discussion and finish it before reverting or changing someone else's material. Kuru (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is gaming the system and wikilawyering to go to the very brink of 3RR violations. Yes, FVK had a COI, but, it does not warrant edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BelloWello (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption to wikipedia. As such, I promise to not edit the Southern Adventist University article for what would be the duration of the block. Going back and counting, I can only see three reverts. However, I recognize that going right up to the edge only puts you in situations such as this, hence, I will be more mindful to avoid even getting to three reverts from this point further. BelloWello (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This account is not currently blocked. Closedmouth (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You still do not show that you completely understand the definition of a revert. In any case, this block is temporary, so, why not wait it out?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Heather Knight (educator)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of La Sierra University presidents

Hello! Your submission of List of La Sierra University presidents at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just responded to you at the relevent conversation. The length is now fine, but there is still one last issue before the hook can be approved. Best,4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid

Before bringing this user up to the COI noticeboard, please make a good faith effort to actually explain to the user exactly why his COI is a problem - more specifically, why his edits are not appropriate.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also, please read this section of your talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Geraty

I've taken a look at the pre-article and it looks pretty good. However, there are a couple of problems. The lead is substantially short and should be a summary of what's below. One sentence sections don't work. Either expand them or merge them. Don't clump 4 footnotes together. Instead of writing "blah blah blah[4][5][6][7]" you could write "blah blah,[4][5] blah blah.[6][7]" I know you aren't done, but these are just a few suggestions. — PCB 22:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I also added my thoughts on that article-to-be's talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the thoughts. I think I have alleviated the concern about consecutive citations, as for the lead, I have never been any good at writing leads so any help in that department that could be offered would be welcome. BelloWello (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:8een4Tfor

Turns out to have been a WP:SOCK of a guy I've had run-ins with before. Now indef-blocked. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching! BelloWello (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Larry Geraty

A question and concern about your DYK nom can be found at T:DYK. Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

More at T:DYK, cheers Khazar (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

An ALT3? Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

!Votes at AFD

Just a reminder from WP:AFD: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! BelloWello (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oversized updates for DYK

Is there any particular reason you expanded the size of the DYK sets in Prep areas 1, 3, and 4 beyond the currently accepted size of seven hooks? As per the most recent discussion on DYK update size and frequency, there is no consensus to use eight hooks per set. Additionally the backlog of outstanding nominations has been steadily shrinking for the past three weeks, and a check of the TFA scheduled to run on the same day as the sets in these prep areas shows a slightly larger than normal TFA. This suggests these oversized DYK sets will upset the balance of the Main page layout without need. --Allen3 ^talk 21:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The guideline at Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas says six, seven or eight hooks. I expended 1, 3, and 4 to the larger size because the hooks they contained were generally a lot shorter than those in prep 2 and the queue. I wasn't aware of the newer consensus that seven was the maximum size. Either way, it doesn't seem highly crucial whether 140 characters is added to a batch or not... BelloWello (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello, it's 6 to 8 hooks depending on hook length AND space available on MainPage. If the left side gets too long and sticks out, DYK would be inconveniencing admins who run the right side of MainPage. It's generally frowned upon when old stale news it brought back onto ITN just to maintain balance on the two sides on MainPage. Please listen to Allen3. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, BelloWello. Please be encouraged to make use of the preview features in the prep and queue areas. I find them quite useful to decide if a hook set has the right length. Hope this helps. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Pacific Union College Church Logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Pacific Union College Church Logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Notifying you of a discussion at ANI

Someone has raised concerns about your activities as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_BelloWello_canvassing.3F and I have added a concern about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior over Start-up Nation. betsythedevine (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK promotion

Have you reviewed this nom? Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy hell, I fucked up. Sorry, getting back into the grind. I have restored it and will remove it from the Prep area. BelloWello (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw. Cheers. Might well be a good nom, but one article is too short. Its politics, thus I would appreciate someone familiar with it have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pacific Union College Church Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pacific Union College Church Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently in progress at WP:SDA/PUCChurch and will be completed shortly. I understand if you have to delete it immediately, but it would be nice if it could be held for a few days until that article is ready? It seems like a pain to delete it only to re-upload it a few days later. BelloWello (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it'll stick around for a week. If Friday comes and the article still isn't ready, come talk to me again, and we'll kick the can down the road a week. Courcelles 23:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of La Sierra University presidents

Hello! Your submission of List of La Sierra University presidents at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I took a tough stand on that. It is easily fixable by proper editing. Good luck. Materialscientist (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that I'm trying to have a properly built article and avoid potential problems when it hits the main page (external editors are normally much less friendly and requests to pull off an inadequate article are never pleasant). Sure, there are policies which could prevent this promotion, but it is certainly not my intent to deploy them. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert M. Samuelson

Are you aware of WP:PROF? Perhaps you will want to change your !vote, so we can do a speedy keep. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

College Church

I think you should consider withdrawing your AFD for College Church. You seem to have missed the assertions of notability in the article, such as the fact that College has been listed among the 50 most influential churches in the U.S., this is among the most prominent evangelical churches in the country.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

More on preparing DYK updates

I have noticed that when preparing DYK set, you have a strong tendency to preferentially select nominations with images. This is causing a problem. As I am typing this message, there are 42 nominations with approved hooks for articles created or expanded on May 5 or earlier.[1] None of these approved hooks however have an associated image. Despite this lack of nominations with associated images, 5 of the 6 nominations you recently moved to Prep 1 contained images.[2] This just exasperates the lack of usable image hooks and makes creating balanced future sets harder and harder. As per Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas#N8, "try to leave the good picture hooks behind for another update if you possibly can." --Allen3 ^talk 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)