User talk:Elizah379

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Zach Lipsitz/Resource-based economic model has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Resource-based economic model, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Resource-based economic model, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Wheres T  ristan  17:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Resource-based economic model (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Job, Survival, Anthropic, Humanity and Venus Project


 * Jacque Fresco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Anthropic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Resource-based economic model for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Resource-based economic model 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 Articles for deletion/Resource-based economic model 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 template from the top of the article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles as you did with Resource-based economic model. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RBEM
So are you planning on rewriting it or did you just say that to delay deletion? You can start at any time. I'm a little concerned about how you mass-reverted DGG's improvements (along with removing the AfD tag). Consider not acting like you WP:OWN the article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I was just editing a few sections right now, actually. Although I am going to rewrite it, I still am not certain in what manner all editors involved, including yourself, would prefer this to be done. Specifically, which sections and/or sentences require attention, and in what way? If you can direct me to particular areas that require serious improvement, I would be happy to oblige you. Also, I do not mean to behave as if I own the article. I simply did not wish for its chances of deletion to be potentially increased by numerous flaws in spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, and grammatical consistency being present throughout its text. If the editor in question had not disorganized the article so heavily, then I wouldn't have seen a reason to act. However, I do understand the importance of letting the process run its course, and will avoid such endeavors in the future. Sincerely, Zach Lipsitz (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't answer that, I think the whole article should be deleted, for the reasons I gave in the AfD. I don't think rewriting will solve anything. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on my reading of your proposal, the main problems which you seemed to focus on were the fact that the criticism section was (at least at that time) either biased or irrelevant, that you would prefer the 'Principles' section to be cited by more secondary sources, and that the article was overall a promotionalistic discourse. If this evaluation is invalid, please correct me accordingly. In response to these contentions, it seems that the first problem has been fixed, as can be seen in recent edits. The second problem is solvable through incorporating additional secondary sources to the 'Principles' section, and, at any rate, does not constitute a legitimate basis for deletion of the article. And the third problem is in the process of being addresed right now. Although the criticism section might not be as large as you would like it to be and the 'Principles' section comes predominantly from primary sources, this is clearly not grounds to delete the entire article, since it can be improved over time by subsequent edits. Finally, in regards to the third problem, if you would like to direct me to specific instances of analytical bias, I would be happy to fix them accordingly. Otherwise, there is no objective reason to delete the entire article; if my attempt to re-organize it does not satisfy your desires, then perhaps we can move it to another wikipedia page on which it would be sufficiently relevant. Sincerely, Zach Lipsitz (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)