User talk:Proxima Centauri/Archive 2

Here are some helpful hints
Here're some place you might look for help:

Hello, Proxima Centauri 2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC Please tag your references properly so that they are not tagged for deletion(speedy). (Bhavat (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC));

I've been here some time but thanks for the welcome. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Helpme template
Hi there.

I think you copied and pasted some of the above, and because you placed on the page, it raised a help alert :-) No worries, I edited it [ here], and put and < /nowiki > around it, which means that it shows the text instead of 'processing' the template.

For more help, you can either;


 * Leave a message on my own talk page;
 * Use a - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put , and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~ at the end;
 * Talk to us live.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  16:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving help
I tried to archive my talk page but didn't do it very well. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. So, per the above, when you want help please create a new section at the end of this page, put the thing in there, followed by your question.


 * Regarding the archiving, I'll take a look now and what you have done, and reply further below, in a few minutes. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I see that you moved your talk page over to the archive page, which is OK...then, it looks like you copied some things back, and ran into problems because you copied the text rather than the 'code'.


 * I suspect you selected stuff from the displayed archive page, and copied and pasted it into your talk page. The problem with that is, if the code says (for example), and you copy the displayed text, it will put the literal text onto your page. It's better to edit the file, and copy the code itself.


 * Regarding archiving, there are lots of ways to do it. For things like warning boxes about deleted articles etc, once you have dealt with them you can just remove them. For things you want to keep handy 'forever', like the welcome thing, it's usually best to move it to a user subpace such as User:Proxima Centauri 2/welcome and then put a link to it, perhaps at the top of your talk page. To archive old conversations, you could edit your talk page and cut out the parts you want, then go to the archive file and paste them in.


 * It is also possible to automate archiving. For example, my own talk page - if a thread is over 100 hours old, it is automatically moved into the archives by a bot. If you want that setting up on your own talk page, let me know (leave a note on my talk) and I could do it for you.


 * I hope this helps, cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Bridge article
Sorry, I must have just went to bed when you left that message. That article is today's featured article (on the main page), so it will probably get a lot of vandalism during that time. A lot of admins I've encountered don't like to put any form of protection on the featured article of the day, for various reasons. So its just something that has to be contently monitored. :-) Killiondude (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing name
Hi. Per your message on User talk:FisherQueen, only Bureaucrats can change names, not Admins. Looking at the name you want, it should be possible to take it over by posting here, but I would make it clear you also need a rename to User:Proxima Centauri at the same time. Hope that helps. Rodhull andemu  17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing eras
Please stop changing the eras in articles from AD-BC to CE-BCE per WP:ERA. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems there's no consensus and I'm not sure if you're within your rights to ask me to stop, see Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That debate is from 4 years ago with no consensus. However, I'm referencing a WP:guideline that states: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." As such, this is a clear cut case; stop changing the era abbreviations. Wizard191 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ERA is consensus, to stop disruptive and pointless moves of this sort in either direction. Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I notice you changed BC/AD to BCE/CE at Nigeria on 6 Jan 2009. I've reverted your changes and would also ask you to stop making such changes. They serve no useful purpose other than to irritate other editors. LevenBoy (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And further to this again. Your era changes have just caused me to spend an inordinate amout of time clearing up the mess you are making. No doubt there are plenty more examples of your work that have so far gone unnoticed. If you persist with your POV pushing I will look at what editing sanctions it may be possible to apply against you. LevenBoy (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

6 Jan 2009 was well before I got the first warning. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Leamington Spa
Hi ! An article you have been concerned with has now been significantly  overhauled to  bring  it in  line with  Wiki  policy, guidelines, and prose style. However, without first-hand subject  knowledge, the copyeditor may have left  some items or citations for further clarification. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Leamington Spa, address the different points if you  can, and leave any  comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay bathhouse history
Hi, the date of the 6th Century was based on "a tradition of public baths" from De Bonneville's 'The Book of the Bath'. To re-date a "tradition" as 6th C BC is probably a different context and would require a different source. If you fancy re-writing to say more about Roman baths in this section please discuss on the talk page. Obviously Roman baths were not gay bathhouses so this may come down to pointing out to Roman baths or something similar.—Ash (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Soap
I'm pretty sure that my revert left the article in the same state it was before you added your info. I should note that my username might be a bit misleading; I have no great amount of knowledge about soap. I can't say whether the information you added is true or false, although it does seem to contradict what is presently in the article. But the reason I removed it is not because it contradicted what was there, but because the source of the information isn't reliable (anyone can make a webpage like that). I will do what I can to verify the information, but I suspect that I won't be able to find anything because it's not likely that someone would write in an encyclopedia or medical journal or anything like specifically to say that there was not a soap factory in ancient Pompeii. It's very difficult to prove a negative. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Women Who Love Too Much


The article Women Who Love Too Much has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Appears to fail the guideline for notability in books. Please add reliable 3rd party sources to prove otherwise.

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. Tim1357 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists
Your recent edits to Discrimination against atheists have been deleted by another editor. The bible quote I thought was original research and as such deserved to go, but the comment made by Professor Zellner seems completely appropriate. I've started a discussion on the talk page here if you wish to participate.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 16:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Saint Paul
Not a problem, Malta related articles are my primary concern and I take a keen interest in all attempts to improve the article. Sometimes the efforts really are worthwhile. Good luck with your other work. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Fag enabler
I have nominated Fag enabler, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Fag enabler. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. NellieBly (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you weren't notified before the article's deletion, but I did notify you (see above) when I sent it to the AFD process. I didn't delete the article myself or tag it for speedy deletion, so I can't answer your question; it would be better to ask the admin who deleted it. --NellieBly (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Xenu
Let us try to stick to independent reliable secondary sources for additions of new material to this article please. Cirt (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I started a subsection for discussion, at Talk:Xenu. Cirt (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page blanking
I will assume this was a mistake? Cirt (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how it happened but my computer has been playing up. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Copylinks
Please be mindful of WP:COPYLINKS. Instead of bare links to copies of articles, do this. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a second source for the same material, please check that the article is OK. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Please read WP:COPYLINKS. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor sources at Sea Org
Please do not insert information to poor sources, as you did at the article Sea Org, here. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please suggest a better source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN, that is up to you. ;P But please, do not use poor sourcing like this again. Not sure if you are aware of WP:ARBSCI, but due to that and the prior COFS arbitration cases, all Scientology-related articles are on probation. If you continue to use poor sources, WP:COPYLINKS, and other such inappropriate behavior, it is likely you will be blocked by an admin. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused
Why does your Liberapedia account say you're agnostic and this one say you're atheist? Treyjag (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Weak atheist and agnostic mean roughly the same thing, further the meaning of words on the Internet changes rapidly as English speakers from different parts of the world develop a common language, I'll have a look at my Liberapedia userpage. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I saw this weak atheist/ agnostic thing on your Liberapedia page, was that put there after told you I was confused?Treyjag (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Suicide prevention help request on my Talk page
I want to let you know that I have seen this, and will respond in 5-8 hours. I do have background in suicide prevention, suicide risk assessment, and suicide risk response, so I ought to be able to help, within the limits of my time and energy.

Will return here with some ideas, shortly

TomCloyd (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Horst Wessel
May I suggest you undo your addition to the Horst Wessel article? It's mere personal interpretation and opinion which according to the first of Five pillars should not go into the Wikipedia. And by the way: that an SA activist had enemies is self evident and needs no proof. On the other hand: compared to La Marseillaise the Horst Wessel Lied is rather tame. Have a nice day, enjoy Mardi Gras. --Vsop.de (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow
I removed the section you added, as it was unsourced and appeared to be speculative personal commentary. Please work from sources to improve the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Shawn Lonsdale
Apologies, but that word addition to the lede is unsourced. -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shawn Lonsdale


 * I restored the word and added a source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That source fails WP:RS. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Buds of Sorbus like those of Fraxinus??
Seeing the above list of comments that your additions are based on your own speculation, and combining that with my inability to see a resemblance, I've removed you comment that the buds of Sorbus resemble those of Fraxinus. Opposite arrangement versus alternate, dark with uneven scales versus brown and either hairy or sticky -- beats me. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Im the man that changed the pope
Hey, thanks for alerting me to the deletion of my change to the pope page. I'm a very new user and so dont understand much of what user's can do but how did you see that and find out it was me? Do you know who changed the page and for what reasons? I was thinking I could make a separate page about this but would this be protected? Cheers

I found out it was you by clicking on the icon saying, “History” next to the Edit button. Here’s the history.

When a group of Wikipedians with a particular interest control a page doing anything about it can be very difficult and risks a block, see Liberapedia on Wikipedia. I don’t know how strong the Roman Catholics are currently as they have suffered serious damaging publicity. The site owner may therefore be concerned that the reputation of Wikipedia doesn’t suffer through having too much pro Roman Catholic material, I just don’t know. I tried to restore your material, I cut it down so it would be less offensive, the area in green is what I wrote, I added a reference as material with a good reference is more likely to stay in Wikipedia. Unfortunately my good faith reference was not as good as I thought, another Wikipedian pointed out Richard Dawkins claims the article I cited misrepresents him. See here. Without a good source I decided putting that edit into the Pope Benedict XVI was a lost cause but succeeded in getting it into the article about Richard Dawkins, here, it's toned down so as not to misrepresent Richard Dawkins and it survived, in a modified form, here, see the green.

I suggest you put material about a model railway or a fictional railway where you have personal interest onto your personal userPage as it’s allowed there. Anywhere else such material is considered self promotion and removed or deleted. Write general useful material about subjects which interest you and where you have special knowledge, avoid controversial areas till you are more experienced. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning (ARBSCI)
Proxima Centauri, as requested here by Cirt, I am warning you as required by ARBSCI: If you do not follow this warning, you will be banned from editing content related to Scientology. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not add unverifiable, potentially controversial content to articles related to Scientology. Content is unverifiable if it is not supported by a reference to a reliable source. Digg and "youfoundthecard.com" are not reliable sources.
 * Do not link to websites that carry a work (such as a newspaper article) in violation of the creator's (the newspaper's) copyright, as per our policy WP:COPYLINKS. (You may cite the newspaper article without linking to an illicit copy.)

Category deletion discussion
It appears that no one has notified you, that a category you had created has been nominated to be considered for deletion. Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_9. -- Cirt (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kaja Bordevich Ballo
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Proxima Centauri, for what it's worth, I was the one that improved this page enough to appear at Did you know on the Main Page, and I was also the one that included you, as a credit, in the nomination for this to be considered, when I placed it as a candidate at T:TDYK. Hopefully you have read a bit more about Wikipedia site policies, particularly with regard to Reliable sources and Verifiability. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Polish Rider
Hello. User:Piotrus and I have nominated The Polish Rider for DYK. The DYK criteria require that an article be at least 1500 characters. At 1569 B, The Polish Rider may be judged too short by the DYK reviewer. If you can add a little bit to the article, that might help it make it as a DYK article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for tell me this, I will try to find time to improve The Polish Rider, but I’m still feeling a bit unhappy about Wikipedia.


 * I feel it’s wrong to force me to read hours worth of difficult to understand material about Wikipedia rules or, if I don’t do this to force me to stop editing Scientology articles.
 * I feel it’s wrong to make a decision against me without giving me time to prepare a proper defence and to discourage me from writing a long defence which I would need to do to defend myself properly.

Back to The Polish Rider, this source is good if anyone else feels like working on that article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! S Pat   talk 03:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I nominated the article for DYK a few days back, and it has already been approved (scroll down). I expect it to appear in the DYK section on the main page in a few days. However, if you want to take the article to featured article status, it will take a lot more work.

I know that featured articles need much more work, I've worked to improve articles to featured standard,successfully and unsuccessfully. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Polish Rider
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Autumn
Someone found and fixed it! Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Cloral Bentaine or Chloral Betaine
It looks as if you got the title wrong for this article! Please take a bit more care, and look at what you've typed to make sure it's what you intended. Thanks. PamD (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistakes, I'm under a great deal of pressure and my doctor prescribed Chloral Betaine, sorry I hadn't taken it yet when I typed but I was upset. Proxima Centauri (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Happiness
This edit resulted in three copies of the same section. I'm not sure what you were trying to do but that probably wasn't what you intended. I've deleted the latter two copies. Please use edit summaries so that other editors can follow what you're doing. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sutton Parade


A tag has been placed on Sutton Parade requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. --Djc wi (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Chester Road railway station
Hi, did you really mean to delete Chester Road railway station with of Cross-City Line? It's difficult to tell without any edit summaries. BTW, I've just realised that it must be 30 years since I last regularly used that station. I'll watch this page for a while, should you wish to reply. Tim PF (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No I didn't mean to delete it, Chester Road railway station is in regular use, I don't know how I casme to leave it out but I did a lot of complicated work. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries, I assumed that was the case. I don't know how you edit, but using the "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons can save multiple edits, as well as helping to spot such unintended consequences. Tim PF (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Two of your recent edits to Primate did not appear to be constructive, and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for testing.  Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 17:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I’ve had it up to here with Wikipedians assuming something is unconstructive without even checking, see intelligence of Capuchins. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphanage road
Hi - I've removed the word controversial from this article a second time, per WP:PEACOCK. Yes, the report you added makes it seem controversial, but this is a biased report. There are other refs that could be added, e g., which give the opposite view. Per WP:NPOV, we should just stick with the facts, not opinions.&mdash;An  optimist  on the run! 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Christopher Hitchins
Category:Christopher Hitchins, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 06:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Ray Comfort. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of European Information Society


The article European Information Society has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember the article appeared some time ago at Liberapedia and it was to complicated and specialised for Liberapedia but I thought it might be useful at Wikipedia. If you disagree that it's useful you delete it, I don't much care. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Omnibenevolence
Hello Proxima Centauri, I am quite surprised by your to this article. I feel you have been editing here long enough (April 2008), and have enough edits (3500+), to be able to do better. Paraphrasing the standard warning template,, a little; "Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Omnibenevolence, you must include proper sources." The edit could also suggest a non-neutral point of view.

If you are wondering what a relative 'noob' is doing commenting on your editing, I am a long term static IP editor (September 2009 and over 12,000 edits) who recently registered an account.

I would also suggest using more edit summaries (see your summary stats), which is what drew my attention in the first place! Regards, 220  of  Borg 03:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement about Fred Phelps is not unsupported or inaccurate, nor is it controversial. It is just not sourced, but that can be easily fixed. The media are full of Fred Phelps' claims about God's hatred towards certain groups. Fred Phelps does not only seem to deny God's omnibenevolence. He actively puts forward God's wrathful nature. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 03:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nigel Leat


The article Nigel Leat has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not the news.

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. ZZArch talk to me 07:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Nigel Leat for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nigel Leat 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/Nigel Leat 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 good 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. ZZArch <font style="color:#FFFF66; text-shadow:1px 2px 5px darkblue;">talk to me 08:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Baker Lake
Hi, I don't speak German so I was wondering if you could check out this. It can't be correct and looking at the disambiguation I think the German Wikipedia use a similar standard as the English. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)