User talk:GESICC

Welcome!

Hello, GESICC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Dmcq (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Elegant Exponent
I have nominated Elegant Exponents for deletion. Please cite some notability on the AfD discussion page reference from the top of the article if you believe it meets notability guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources required
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Risk management tools. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have current sources about anthropology?
Feel free to visit the source lists I keep in my user space and to suggest additions for those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Analysis of Alternatives for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Analysis of Alternatives 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/Analysis of Alternatives 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. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (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) 14:01, 24 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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Ancient Canaanite religion that didn't seem very civil, Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * {lease read WP:VANDALISM and unless you think our posts meet the definition of vandalism strike your attack. Or, if you still maintain it's vandalising, as I'm not just an Administrator but also a member of the WP:Arbitration Committee, if I'm vandalising this is really serious misbehaviour by me and should be reported at WP:ANI. Doug Weller  talk 14:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to be the instigator, your are hardly an unbiased judge, both yourself and IN have reversed articles, your actions seem to be motivated. Based on the silly wars I seem to be having between you and IN, I guess I will report it.GESICC (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Or you could try something else like an WP:RFC. Doug Weller  talk 06:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or I could try regretting my rash words, and brazening it out with you. See you on " 'Cosmological '" with what I hope is a reasonable way forward.  Respectfully yours, GESICC (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Cosmological argument. ''If you want to convince people you are right, attacking them by saying they are non-constructive won't convince them. '' Doug Weller  talk 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Doug, it is still available to be read; disingenuous questions, attempting to game wiki rules, to re-define what I said, attempting to state the references were not valid - and however many other tactics I see on blogs for insincere people to "make their point" at the expense of reality. "Good faith" was dispelled by the counter arguments, and of course by not discussing the article first, then deleting the article sans futher discussion. First cast the mote from your own eye... Good faith, as you say, should have been extended to myself, first. GESICC (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)GESICC (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prediction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foundation. 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) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)