User talk:Billdakelski

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. 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. 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. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Okie Dialect


The article Okie Dialect has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * All original research, backed up by two thoroughly unscientific and unreliable "sources". In fact, Oklahoma speech is at the interface of Southern American English and Midland American English.

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  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  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. +Angr 08:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Okie Dialect
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Okie Dialect. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Okie Dialect. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

CFC
Your personal opinion is not sufficient to remove information cited to reliable sources. Please also be aware that articles relating to abortion, broadly construed, are governed by an arbitration case, whose remedies include, but are not limited to, 1RR on all articles (= you cannot make more than one revert in 24 hours) and discretionary sanctions (= any uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions at his or her discretion on an editor who, having been warned, continues to behave improperly in a topic area in which discretionary sanctions have been authorized). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case there was no reliable source cited. Why do you want to put misleading information in an article. CFC is in no manor of speaking a Catholic organization. It has in fact been disowned by Catholic Authorities at all levels, this is not just my opinion, it is in fact stated in the article itself, it is an obvious contradiction, which affects the creditability of the articlebill (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of User reengineering‎


The article User reengineering‎ has been proposed for deletion, due to a lack of reliable sources.

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 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 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. --Brouhaha (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susanna Rigacci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bongiovanni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I intended it as the term can refer to more than one of the definitions on the disambiguationbilldakelski (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Block letters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gothic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I intended it as the term can refer to more than one of the definitions on the disambiguationbilldakelski (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD
To conform to the recommended practice described at WP:BRD, let's talk about this at Talk:Catholics for Choice, rather than revert back and forth. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that every sentence of an article must include a reference to the subject?

I don't understand, it is a simple edit related to the subhead. What exactly is the issue?billdakelski (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a hard-and-fast requirement, but it is a good idea to have every reference discuss the topic. There's room for a little background info, of course, but if the background ties in with the topic then it supplies much more information. In any case, your addition was one-sided, giving the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. There are many theologians who have spoken about automatic excommunication to say that a woman who gets an abortion may not be automatically excommunicated. As well, the CFC has position papers about the topic, so their POV should be stated and attributed. The subject of latae sententiae is more complex than the simplistic rule you tell the reader. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not a viewpoint, it is the definition of excommunication as written in the actual law, the Code of Canon Law is just that... the code, it is not an opinion. I did not intend to make a controversial point as to the interpretation of the law. If you like, then add that there are opinions of the law. Just as in U.S. law, a law is ajudicated, it is the same in Church law. The Church does not have an opinion of the law just as the congress and president do not have opinons of the laws that they write.billdakelski (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Catholics for Choice. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)