Trilemma

Talk freely.

- -

barack obama presidencial primary

You know, I made a recent edit on that page that should highlight my objections to a source. Could you check the section that deals with his name on that page ( or check my edit history) and see if you think that Salon is a reliable source? ThanksDie4Dixie (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

POV/bias etc.----- false/wrong?

Trilemma; If you wish contact me about "bias" (yours?/mine?) by e-mail. Maybe we can work this out this way. I'm making this offer while reading an edit of yours in which I'm not involved at all (w/o including any details here). It's up to you to take and respond to my offer (or not). --Floridianed (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Reminder: If you file a complain about User:Loonymonkey you should not forget to give him a courtesy notice about it. --Floridianed (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notify him that I'd be filing the report, on the talk page of the article that caused the issue. I understand though that since it's not on his talk page it's not necessarily apparent, so I don't object to the notice. Trilemma (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, I missed that --Floridianed (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama

Now that's an uncontoversial NPOV edit (if you care about my opinion and a little praise). [1] --Floridianed (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm always happy to take praise and good reviews ;) Trilemma (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I said on the discussion page there, I have no problem with including that information it just needs to be properly sourced. You could have saved us both a lot of time and grief by going straight to google for a better ref, rather than jumping right to the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and, most ridiculously, the filing of a wikiquette complaint that had no merit. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Trilemma

Are you still around or gone for good? Just wondering a bit. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama familiarity

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Obama page. I have hundreds of edits on it, and thousands on it's associated talk page. Your inclusion of Wright in that paragraph is totally unnecessary, as is the statement about him previously "non-religious". Everyone is non-religious at birth, and only acquire their religiosity from later indoctrination. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The facts are not in dispute. The issue here is that you are trying to shoehorn these details into an article about Obama's cultural and political image, and who specifically brought him into the Christian fold has nothing to do with that. This particular paragraph is about the perception by many that Obama is a Muslim. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a sub heading, with the main heading being the title of the page. It is about his religion with respect to his cultural and political image, not about his religion - that is covered in the main biography. Furthermore, campaign-specific aspects belong in the campaign articles, not the daughter articles of the summary style BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

hey

Don't listen to Scjesseys bullsh*t, he's a totally biased editor. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Matta II

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article George Matta II, 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.

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. --Sarcasticninja (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Freely talking

On 13 August, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Gregoire Ndahimana, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abrasive

attack, attack, attack, attack, attack. Is it possible for you to not be so abrasive and hostile? Everything to you is PR propaganda. You have continually re added a blogspamed off hand reference to a internet, unscientific poll to the Alan Grayson article without any check of its substance. You also seem to think that you can read peoples minds. [2] Grayson has had two high editorials in the WSJ and Vanity Fair, both of which are in the article, and yet on the talk page you seem to not have read the article, or even my comments.Scientus (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, I'd encourage you to initiate conversations in a more civil manner. I find little to actually respond to in that message. The point of the article is to provide an encyclopedic summary of Alan Grayson. There were some rather blatant shortcomings in the article as it stood before I made some edits. It appears that we've narrowed the scope of our disagreements, and hopefully the remaining ones will be resolved. Trilemma (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

attackScientus (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR note.

Please take care on the Alan Grayson article, you are close to a 3RR violation, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Any alteration to a good faith edit from another user is a revert, please take a little time to read the revert article WP:3RR , ta. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A page you have been involved in editing is under discussion here. ta. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations

You should not just include bare links in citations. You should use {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} see WP:CITEScientus (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

re: I've opened up a section. . .

on the Grayson talk page to discuss the changes I would like to see in the section you reverted. You're welcome to contribute to the discussion. Trilemma (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)==

Anyone is welcome to contribute to anything on Wikipedia, as I understand it. W E Hill (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Trilemma. You have new messages at Talk:Alan Grayson.
Message added 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A8UDI talk 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

not "irrelevent"

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.

Attempting to silence an official response to an allegation by the accused party, dismissing it as "irrelevent"--this is disgraceful. [3] Do not push your point of view on Wikipedia. Thank You Scientus (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing references

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Alan Grayson. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [4] Don't remove references.Scientus (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is OK to remove referenced content if someone were to feel it is off subject or excessive coverage, just with an article with opposing editors as we have at the Grayson article, removal of cited content is best always first discussed on the talk page to see what objections are there, this simple step reduces the tit for tat removal and replacements that create instability in the article, I can be classed as neutral to the subject so there is always the chance of suggestions finding support on the talk page, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have started a discussion regarding one of your recent removals on the talk page Talk:Alan_Grayson#Health_care_section would you go there and perhaps give a details explaination as to why you think it is better removed, or a link to where it was previously decided that it was excessive detail. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is the way forward

What we could do is ask for third opinion as regards a specific edit, I rather try to find an agreeable edit to all parties, it is endless, I do know exactly what you are saying, I will give it a little consideration, best regards and thank you for not escalating the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling your edits laughable and accusations of pov pushing are not ok at all, I have not looked today, it is interminable, if you like as a first base, I will say to him that it is not OK, and ask him to assume good faith and remind him to use the talk page more, after that if it continues then there will be more of a case of repeated behaviour after a polite request to desist in the behaviour. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Trilemma! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 11 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. 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 these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 950 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Jacque Vaughn - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Bob Grant (radio) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Cynthia Geary - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Kirk Haston - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Cornelius G. Hunter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Denny Dillon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Stephen Zappala - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Roger Lumbala - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Meghan O'Sullivan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. Mohammed Naseehu Ali - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

More...
11. Marte Cohn

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to George Bernard Shaw

May I echo the comments of the concerned editors above? If you come across a reference that displeases you (in this case, a book from one of the university presses, a highly reliable source) please don't just delete it: take the issue for discussion on the talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Stricken (2005 film)

I have nominated Stricken (2005 film), 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/Stricken (2005 film). 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. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Childhood Leukemia Foundation

The article Childhood Leukemia Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable organization.

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. TNXMan 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign for deletion

The article Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lou Barletta

Hi Trilemma.

I noticed you removed some material from Lou Barletta's page as biased. I agree, though the IP user that added it is very dogged in their defense of the material. I have opened the issue up for discussion on Charlie Dent's talk page (as the material was originally inserted into Dent's article). I was hoping you wouldn't mind simply dropping your two cents about the material into the discussion; I'm trying to gather consensus about the language to present to admins. Thanks very much! EATC (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Sheila Jackson Lee, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheila Jackson Lee

You've reverted three times without addressing the issues at Sheila Jackson Lee. Please re-read WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK; you will be edit-warring if you continue without appropriate discussion and consensus. Acroterion (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dial-the-Truth Ministries

Hi. Regarding your creation of the Dial-the-Truth Ministries article, please do not create articles or add material to Wikipedia without citing reliable, secondary sources that establish the subject's notability. Subjects of articles must be notable, as indicated by coverage in publications that are not only considered reliable in the field in question, but that are independent of the article subject. You included no inline citations when you created the article, and the only three citations in the article now are all of the subject's own website. I've nominated the article for deletion, but you can save the article from deletion if you can find secondary sources to place in the article. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of PatrickJMT for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PatrickJMT 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/PatrickJMT 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Professional basketball for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Professional basketball 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/Professional basketball (2nd nomination) 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. NickSt (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ray Barnett for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ray Barnett 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/Ray Barnett 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. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:51, 18 November 2013 (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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (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, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Earl Dittman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earl Dittman 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/Earl Dittman 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. Gbawden (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Archie Morris

The article Archie Morris has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources for over 8 years!

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. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of National Drug & Safety League

The article National Drug & Safety League has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NORG

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. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Earl Dittman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Earl Dittman 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/Earl Dittman (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 until the discussion has finished.

Ploni (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dial-the-Truth Ministries

The article Dial-the-Truth Ministries has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Secondary sources do not support content in article. Everything else is WP:PRIMARY proselytizing

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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Dial-the-Truth Ministries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dial-the-Truth Ministries 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/Dial-the-Truth Ministries 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 until the discussion has finished.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kim Ung-yong

The article Kim Ung-yong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article contains almost no verifiable information. Different language-versions show different information. 210 IQ is misleading.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neela Rasgotra

The article Neela Rasgotra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fancruft; not suitable for merging to anything

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. JoelleJay (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)