User talk:Epicurus78

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emery Emery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teller (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) 09:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Emery Emery
You recently attempted to nominate an article for DYK with this template Template:Did you know nominations/Emery Emery. The template was not properly completed and is thus not displaying well. It is not clear what article is being nominated nor who created the article. I was attempting a fix but couldn't determine how to proceed. Please address the template immediately. If you created the nomination in error then feel free to delete it or I would be happy to delete it for you. EagerToddler39 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
EagerToddler39 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Emery Emery
Orlady (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Gilovich
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting your article

 * Ref-1 and 2--Same link.Sources to the book itself.Equivalent of no source! Barely proves that the book exists!
 * Ref 3, 5 and 8--The websitre is maintained by Center for Inquiry and apparently the author of the book is the CEO of the aforesaid organisation. Anything more to say?
 * Ref 6--Youtube is almost always unreliable.
 * Ref 7--See WP:BLOG.


 * Thus, I would sincerely hope that you choose to not revert my redirect lest .....Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 18:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Here are my replies.
 * Ref 1 and 2- They are quotes from the book that illustrate its themes. I fail to see the problem. Plus, I linked to the ISBN number of the book, which is proof enough that the book is real.
 * Ref 3, 5 and 8- The website is the page for Free Inquiry on the Council for Secular Humanism, which is affiliated with the Center for Inquiry, correct, but it is not the same organization. Ronald A. Lindsay is no longer the CEO, and he didn't have primary editorial control of Free Inquiry when he was.
 * Ref 6- The guidelines say that we should take care when citing YouTube to check for reliability and possible copyright violations, not that "it's almost always unreliable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Videos_as_references#YouTube_videos_as_references

Deletion discussion about The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can’t Tell Us What to Do
Hello, Epicurus78,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can’t Tell Us What to Do should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can’t Tell Us What to Do.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

KSFT (t&#124;c) 02:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children
Hello, Epicurus78,

Thank you for creating The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Thanks for building this article. At this stage the primary review question is whether or not the topic meets wp:notability to be a separate article. I believe that the answer is yes and am marking / passing this as reviewed. I do think it has a pretty severe NPOV and sourcing problem. An article should contain what secondary sources have said about the topic.  The bulk of this article uses the book itself as a source and is basically making the case for the book author's viewpoint via the Wiki editor extracting and presenting the book author's arguments.  Also there are also sources which made blistering dissections of the book and what did and didn't go into it's production and none of them are referenced in the article. These notes aside, thanks for creating this article and all of the work that you've  put into doing so.  Sincerely,"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

North8000 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)