User talk:Freelion/Archive 1

Thanks for your help! Einheber (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Einheber

Proposed deletion of Steven Slater

The article Steven Slater has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Individuals that receive coverage for only one minor event are rarely sufficiently notable to warrant an article, per WP:SINGLEEVENT

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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.   -- Lear's Fool 07:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Steven Slater

I have nominated Steven Slater, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Favonian (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of JetBlue Flight 1052

I have nominated JetBlue Flight 1052, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Flight 1052. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Passing

Is it true that Shri Mataji has passed away? I don't see any official notice, but IPs are adding today as the date of death to the biography. If true, you have my sincere condolences.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate, that's very kind. Yes, Shri Mataji passed away on the 23rd Feb 2011. Freelion (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My condolences too. Glad the PR was helpful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake

I pushed the vandalism button here instead of going to my watchlist. I wasn't going to revert. However, you should read WP:RS, because it isn't even close to being reliable sources. Someone else will revert, and you will be in a ridiculous edit war. Anyways, I'm not going to edit war with you on your POV edits. However, I do apologize, you are most certainly not a vandal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You sound like a funny guy Orangemarlin. I look forward to the ensuing discussion. Freelion (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In reference to [1]. Please cite WP:SECONDARY reliable sources for the claims that you insert into articles. Assessing by yourself the papers in the literature is original research, please see the policy of No Original Research in wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Enric, firstly you have provided a link to an article that I've had nothing to do with (Sudden infant death syndrome?). I assume you are responding to a reference added to the Cold Fusion article. The text in relation to the reference is general, non controversial and is not an assessment by myself - merely a rephrase. Yes, secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia but that is not to say that primary ones cannot be used. Freelion (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Freelion, until some fairly deep changes are made, it's impossible to develop this article to make it meet WP guidelines regarding reliable sourcing for science articles, which consider peer-reviewed secondary sources to be the gold standard. Such sources certainly exist, in fact, there have been about 17 published since 2005. But they are generally excluded on arguments that the authors are "fringe," or the like, which is a radical misinterpretation of RS standards (independent publisher, not independent author). I'm topic banned here on this topic, though apparently I'm allowed to make user talk page comments, hence I'm inviting you to come on over to Wikiversity and see the resource on this topic there. There are pages with recent sources, including all known secondary sources published in mainstream journals since 2005, and the topic can actually be discussed on Wikiversity, which is not an encyclopedia, it's a collection of educational resources. It's possible to create a draft article there, that could eventually be proposed, perhaps by RfC, to replace the WP article, let the best article win! The normal WP process of incremental editing results in article-by-committee, which can be very spotty and incoherent.

• v:Cold fusion
• v:User talk:Abd

If this is not of interest to you, please feel free to delete it! --Abd (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)