User talk:Tearlach


 * Archive1 July 2005 - January 2006
 * Archive2 February 2006 - May 200y

Taking very long - perhaps permanent - Wikibreak

If you have replies to any ongoing discussions now in Archive1, please restart the thread on this page. Tearlach 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Law Practice Today
Please see my suggestion regarding Law Practice Today on Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today. Cheers. --Edcolins 18:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.
Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Crosby
No idea if you will receive this, per your wikibreak, but I have edited the Alfred Crosby article in hopes of making it more neutral. Since you originally noted the bias, I thought you might be interested. Best wishes, --SuperNova |T|C| 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Zurna (IRC)
Another editor has added the  template to the article Zurna (IRC), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Afd of Mucoid plaque
Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As the editor of the Rome and Greece subsection of the history of lesbianism, I was wondering whether you could tell me where I might find the full source for the story of the egyptian princess Berenice who marries another woman. I'd be very grateful 'cos I'm very interested in this particular story. (Sourlemons (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Articles for deletion nomination of Poekoelan Tjimindie Tulen
I have nominated Poekoelan Tjimindie Tulen, 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/Poekoelan Tjimindie Tulen. 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. *** Crotalus *** 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Tearlach! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Katharine Weber -

Philosophical Institute
Hello,

I have recently proposed to merge Philosophical Institute into Palacký_University_of_Olomouc. Since you participated in the Discussion about the article's deletion, I would like to invite you to share your views on the proposed merger. Thank you very much. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about The American Monomyth
Hello, Tearlach, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Articles for deletion/The American Monomyth whether the article The American Monomyth should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving The American Monomyth, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Oddbodz (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Auchenshoogle


The article Auchenshoogle has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Auchenshoogle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Auchenshoogle 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/Auchenshoogle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lee Wagstaff


The article Lee Wagstaff has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. &#32; The nominator also raised the following concern:
 * This article contains no in-line citation and is written as a resume. The subject of this article does not appear to meet basic criteria for WP:NPOV or WP:N. The existing references all appear to link to an online biography of the subject. ThePhantom65 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. ThePhantom65 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)