User talk:2ct7

Re: Deletion of the Spiritual Humanism article

Please read WP:N: it's not whether the subject is notable; it's whether the article succeeds in establishing notability. The article may survive if that requirement is met; the article as written quite simply did not, sorry. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested that the article be deleted because it failed to establish notability; that is a criterion for "speedy" deletion. If a deleted article is re-created with substantial improvement to the point that notability is established, it is likely to remain. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but a "courtesy note" is impractical for several reasons, not the least of which involves the handling of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of requests. Also, while I understand the frustration that can come with the loss of one's work, I must ask that you read WP:OWN; each of us is contributing a small part to "the sum total of human knowledge", not taking credit for our work. Harsh, perhaps, but necessary. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Spiritual Humanism

An editor has nominated the article Spiritual Humanism for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Spiritual Humanism during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 14:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Humanism Afd update

I appreciated your vote and some of your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism (second nomination). Meanwhile, as original nominator, I think the situation has sufficiently changed to appeal once more to your interest. Kind Regards. — SomeHuman 21 Jan 2007 04:24 (UTC)

Investigation

The AMA case you filed has been referred for investigation. Please leave a summary on my talk page. Thanks; G e o. 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Please go to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2ct7 v. SomeHuman as ist your mediation hearing. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk Get Lost 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation (2ct7 v. SomeHuman)

Please leave your name in the correct area Here. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2ct7 v. SomeHuman.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Alcuin

Your ext. link Encyclopedia of Religion at world-religion.org has no reference to Alcuin and has been deleted. --Wetman 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citations to world-religion.org

Please do not mass add references without considering the appropriateness of each addition. This website is not a reliable source. If you are trying to reference the Cannery Encyclopaedia of Religion, please cite that work, not a link to a non-notable website - and only in situations where that particular old encyclopeadia of religion article would in fact be an appropriate reference. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 2ct7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Intermere

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

I can't find any indication that this book meets WP:NBOOK. I have checked for reviews at Newspapers.com, Highbeam (long shot but one never knows), Google, GBooks, and GNews, and found only one trivial name-drop even mentioning the book. Author doesn't have an article to redirect to presently.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Intermere for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Intermere 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/Intermere 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]