User talk:Tadpole256

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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 16:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Radical Islam
Category:Radical Islam, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Cgingold (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Boobquake and Atheism
I feel strongly that Boobquake should be included in the Atheism Category. It was started by an Atheist and fellow members of her Atheist student union in an effort to show the irrationality of religious claims. How much more Atheist does a subject have to be to be recognized as Atheistic on Wikipedia?

Discussion at Talk:Boobquake#Atheism
You are invited to join the discussion at. Brian the Editor (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Speedy deletion nomination of WMDE


A tag has been placed on WMDE requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Garchy (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Shakeology
Hi there, though your effort to present a neutral point of view is much appreciated, the issue with these edits is that you are presenting an analysis of controversy, where you have not adequately sourced the controversy, or attributed contrary thought to its source. "...However, John Doe, head of the American Medical Association has criticized the supplements for making XYZ claims, which are not consistent with existing nutritional science" or something of that nature. I've removed the content, but encourage you to resubmit when you can flesh it out a little better. Thanks, and please note that it's nothing personal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You reverted my addition of Shakeology being listed as one of their products. It IS a Beach Body product, one that is a major source of revenue for the company, which means it merits being listed. The website for Shakeology is cited because it contains the evidentiary statement that Shakeology is owned in whole by Beachbody. Whether or not you THINK people will automatically acknowledge their ownership is irrelevant, sources need be cited. Please review Wikipedia policy before reverting other people's work. Tadpole256 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, you've erroneously posted your reply at Talk:Beachbody. It's not going to make much sense there, so I've moved it here. I'm well aware with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I reverted your edit because it contained improperly sourced information. The Shakeology matter was not in dispute, but I don't have typically have much time to sift through edits to pick out the good parts from the problematic parts. However, I did volunteer time for that in my second semi-revert, so the net result is that the useful content you submitted is in the article, but the not-yet-useful content is not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)