User talk:Gregbard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:37, 13 July 2016

Current time: Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 21:22 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2

Update

I am doing some research into the issues arising from my edits which cause this block. In particular, I will be studying Wikipedia:Copyrights, and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I will also be making some other inquiries so that I might understand these issues better. Apparently, several unsuccessful attempts to unblock could result in a block of my ability to edit this talk page, so I am proceeding more slowly and carefully (although that particular element of the appeals process is very questionable as to its necessity and basic fairness.)

I also just want to state for the record that the preceding comment titled "Fifth Pilar" was not made by myself. I have never edited Wikipedia under any account, including by using anonymous IP accounts, other than "User:Gregbard" which is my real name. It does makes me feel better in this troubling time for me that someone apparently wanted to make a point on my behalf. I don't think the people supporting this block will find that it compels their conscience, however, because the fact that "Every past version of a page is saved" only contributes to their concerns. Their other point about upholding the "spirit" of the policies is an excellent one, and I think this particular case should serve to bring that point into sharp relief. Perhaps in considering that point, someone's conscience will thus be compelled.

I still feel that although, strictly speaking, an administrator is able to justify blocking me given particular edits made by myself and the content of the policies, that this particular case would have been better handled by communicating with me in a civil manner. I believe the evidence and my long standing and prolific contributions support that view. The situation could have been handled much less heavy-handedly. I will get back to you a formal appeal at some point soon, and with the findings of my research. Greg Bard (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want that last paragraph there? It's enough for me to remove talkpage access, in part because it shows that you do NOT understand your block whatsoever, and are simply railing on against a policy that a) you agreed to, b) that is not optional, and c) you were well aware of the panda ₯’ 19:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, I am currently doing research, so if it seems as though it is the policy that I do not understand, then please forgive and withhold judgment and action until I make my formal request with my findings. The last statement is not a formal part of any formal appeal. The claim that the administrator who blocked me, and those who supported her could have just communicated with me civilly doesn't actually support the conclusion that I either understand, or do not understand the policy in any way. All that it means is that administratively, they had a choice, and chose a very heavy-handed approach. Please do not confuse political considerations for judicial ones. I have stated that "an administrator is able to justify blocking me given particular edits made by myself and the content of the policies" so that actually supports the conclusion that I do understand that a policy has been breached by myself. I am going the extra mile here by going through a more extensive study of the policies. I am finding the environment to be extremely authoritarian, if you can't appreciate that distinction. Greg Bard (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "suggestion" an accusation is that you were not dealt with politely and civilly - which is patently false, and thus a personal attack. Hence, rethink that paragraph - those who make personal attacks against others - including the blocking admin - get the pleasure of having their talkpage access revoked. Your choice here: refactor, or I'll remove it for you ... and if I have to remove it, I'll remove talkpage access as well. the panda ₯’ 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, don't pile on here. I haven't always had the best interactions with Greg, but there's no need to go looking for slights you have to infer. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The "suggestion" an accusation is that you were not dealt with politely and civilly - which is patently false, and thus a personal attack." — That is emphatically not a personal attack. Please restore talk page access. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, read WP:WIAPA Tim. Also, you know as well as I do that Greg's talkpage access has not been rescinded. the panda ₯’ 00:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough for me to remove talkpage access No, you would-be totalitarian disgrace to the admin corps, it is not. — Scott • talk 14:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC) (No stake in this issue, have never encountered Gregbard before, saw this discussion mentioned over at Wikipediocracy.)[reply]

Just chiming in that there is one possibility that Greg could consider in the interim. Over at wikisource:User:John Carter I have a freaking huge listing of reference works currently in the public domain which as of a 1986 guide to reference works were still considered in some way useful and valuable. Pretty much by definition, the articles from those sources can be copied word for word with proper attribution. Admittedly, in several cases, they will also be outdated (big surprise), but for a lot of articles about, for instance, medieval political figures, defunct states, and the like, they can be very useful. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are blocked here you should still be able to go over to wikisource and starting either proofreading pages from works which have already been added or uploading files that aren't there yet and proofreading and separating out content into individual articles. Some of the artices from Encyclopedia Britannica and some of the other reference sources would be very easily transormed into article content here. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard, the above is a great idea. Lest there be some bizarre understanding of my comments above, my goal has been to try and get you to NOT say something that would lower the chances of this block removed. I have tried to invite you to rethink your strategy, and then remove posts that are unproven accusations. Your future unblock - and I'm sure it will occur - would take those comments into account, and personally I'd rather not see them negatively affect your request. I understand that you believe that you were dealt with in an uncivil manner, but my reading of the history of this talkpage doesn't show that - and trust me, I'm often accused of being on the aggressive side of civility enforcement. Nevertheless, your goal is (or should be) to move forward. In any unblock request you need to do 2 things: a) understand what led to the block, and b) show a "way forward". Doing positive work elsewhere is always a plus - indeed, it used to be a requirement of the standard offer.

As far as I know, there's nobody on the project who wants you permanently gone - "indefinite" does not equal "infinite" - it means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour that led to the block will not recur. Obviously, this starts with the 2 elements of an unblock noted above - especially awareness. If there are elements of your interaction with the blocking admin that I'm unaware of that has you concerned about civility, let me know (including diff's) - otherwise, I recommend you drop that strategy, and focus on your way forward. Cheers the panda ₯’ 22:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Greg did not in fact assert that anyone had treated him uncivilly. You chose to pull that inference out of his remarks, and it's entirely possible that he did mean to suggest it, but he did not say it. He certainly did not say that anyone in particular had done so. That makes "personal attack" a pretty big stretch, in my opinion (you can't personally attack an unspecified person). --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you know, honestly, even this is not really the most important point here, though I think it's enough by itself. Here's the real key thing: Suppose for the sake of argument that Greg had accused a specific person, say Moonriddengirl, of being "uncivil". He didn't, but just suppose.

That cannot possibly be what is meant by the line about "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" in WP:WIAPA. That's for cases where someone has alleged facts not in evidence. Here there is no dispute about the facts, just their interpretation. If you can't even make a controversial characterization of the facts, that's effectively the same as saying you can't complain about actions that have been taken. That can't possibly be the intent. --Trovatore (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to allow Greg to continue with wikiproject philosophy and category upkeep if he agreed not to add (or draft) any content whatsoever pending the ongoing assessment?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And template editing.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of civility in WP is freely and wildly and inconsistently interpreted by blocking admins, as per whatever agenda they have at the moment. Admins can be stunningly rude, and post incredibly malicious attacks, but that's OK, and gets a pass, as long as they are worded in honey-language; whereas some random joke involving a swear-word results in long-winded, insane arguments and bans. The entire concept of civility in WP should be abandoned; over they years, its clearly shown itself to be unworkable. Why is it still a thing? How is it that we have still not reformed the admin cadre's in WP? The system is broken, it needs fixing, its over-due. 84.15.181.100 (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Greg still blocked or did he settle his differences? — Philogos (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Philogo, I am still blocked. I have chosen not to use my second appeal since my first one did not immediately reinstate me. I still don't feel like putting effort into a big discussion about getting unblocked, and I don't really have the time for it. Perhaps at some point soon I will get back into it. I see that many things have deteriorated since I left. Greg Bard (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophy maintenance categories

Category:Philosophy maintenance categories, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Gregbard will we need these??? —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pundit pivot

The article Pundit pivot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not WP:NOTABLE

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:InPhO-logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:InPhO-logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:David Gregg, Jr.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:David Gregg, Jr.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Mary Beth McDonald.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Beth McDonald.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I corresponded with the clerk of the City of Vero Beach via email, explaining to her that I needed images for Wikipedia. She sent me a source which I clipped into the various ones you see at List of mayors of Vero Beach, Florida. I forwarded that email to the permissions address, and I also sent a request to the clerk for a more formal statement. That really should suffice. I am currently blocked from doing anything else about this issue. Please do follow up on this issue and take steps to prevent any unjustified and unfounded deletion. Greg Bard (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg when ya coming back? You do know that unfortunately, YOU cannot send that release of the images, the owner does...the project needs you back; when's it going to happen? the panda ₯’ 21:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The images were requested specifically requested for Wikipedia, and they were sent. They are public documents provided by a municipal officer. I have, in response to this issue, forwarded both emails to the permissions email address. I have also requested that the City Clerk in question forward a more formalized statement to "permissions."

In answer to your other question I have my own: Why should I come back?! I don't expect appreciation, but I also don't deserve to be criminalized. If I am needed so much they should lift the block on their own with my aforementioned statements on the matter having satisfied them. At some point I will make a new request to consider an unblock and make a statement concerning the copyright policy expressing that I have read and understand it. However, I am unable to accept that a block was ever necessary in any way. A simple discussion of the matter would have accomplished more progress on the very issue which it is claimed was the justification for the block, AND it would not have interfered with the many other ways in which I contribute. Just because a policy permits for an action, does not mean that the action should be done. So my question on that issue is 'what exactly has been accomplished by this action?" Greg Bard (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, if this was "criminalization" it would be very different, wouldn't it? Wikipedia's requirements for image permissions are strict, for a reason. You don't like those requirements, but you agreed to them. Indeed, nobody asked you to like them. I don't like driving only 100km/h on my local highway, but I agreed to it when I got my license to drive. The best way to change the rules is NOT to keep going against them but to try to get them changed. It may not be successful, but the old thing about the best part about banging your head against the wall is how good it feels when you stop really comes to mind. You may not expect appreciation, but I and others do appreciate what you can bring. The block was a very unfortunate, but clearly required action - it cannot be lifted without a WP:GAB-compliant request. People DID try to talk to you, but as you state again and again, you disagree with the Wikipedia rules. Well, that's a painful wall, isn't it? the panda ₯’ 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree. Your philosophy of administration is extreme authoritarianism, and it has no place in an open community which claims to respect civility. There is nothing "clear" about the necessity of this block, as all of the problems which it sought to address could also have been addressed without the block. Nor am I "banging [my] head" about anything. You don't seem to be paying very close attention to my claims and are hearing what you want to hear. I agree that a copyright policy should exist, and sanctions should be provided for instances where there aren't a dozen other less intrusive ways to address the problem. My case just isn't close to that. It isn't the policy I have any problem with, it's the administration of the policy. Just because a policy permits for an action, does not mean that the action should be done. So my question --- again --- on that issue is 'what exactly has been accomplished by this action?" I was even in the process of addressing some of the issues myself when I was blocked! What kind of sense does that make?!?! I'm sorry panda, but we do not agree on philosophy of administration, at all. Extreme authoritarianism has no place in ANY administration, much less an open community like Wikipedia. It just basic respect for the people who are volunteering. Greg Bard (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "authoritarianism" means "respecting the authority of the rules agreed to by the community", then sure. Every single community has rules and norms that are either defined by the community, or are inflicted on the community: no commune exists in a vacuum. The real issue would be if the rules of the community were applied differently to some people than to others (4 legs good, 2 legs bad comes to mind here). Indeed, if you were blocked while we let others get away, then you'd have a valid argument for complaint.

When it comes to images, Wikipedia respects the rule of Copyright Law - it has no choice - it's inflicted on us. We cannot say "we disagree" and flaunt it - we have to respond to the higher authority on this. The community may not like it, but it has nevertheless agreed to a process for ensuring that the Law is maintained, and for ensuring submissions meet whatever various aspect of that law.

You cannot be a member of a community, but fail to follow the processes agreed-to by the community. You cannot perform actions that run contrary to rules that are inflicted on the community, or you create risk for the community as a whole. That's not Wikipedia's fault. We, as members, don't get to choose which "rules" we follow, and which ones we don't. The concept of "open" or "free" does not work that way anywhere, even in theoretical bounds the panda ₯’ 22:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have exhausted the usefulness of this discussion. We don't agree on philosophy. You are introducing irrelevant issues into it all over the map. Given my vast experience and education, I really have to claim that it is more my proper role to be educating you on matters of due process and working within the policies of a volunteer non-profit community, not the other way around. You have already shown poor judgment on these matters given your readiness to block my access to this talk page. Thank you for your efforts, but I would strongly suggest you work contributing in other areas of Wikipedia than administration. Be well. Greg Bard (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dispositional beliefs

Category:Dispositional beliefs, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Editor2020, Talk 04:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Middle orthodoxy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Middle orthodoxy 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle orthodoxy 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. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metatheory of religion

Category:Metatheory of religion, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Editor2020, Talk 03:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christian Swartz-sig.xcf listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christian Swartz-sig.xcf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 23:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophy reference resources

Category:Philosophy reference resources, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. DexDor (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Edwin Adams (politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edwin Adams (politician) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Adams (politician) 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dudley Ely for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dudley Ely 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley Ely 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Walter C. Quintard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter C. Quintard 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter C. Quintard 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.

Proposed deletion of Florida Philosophical Association

The article Florida Philosophical Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. ...William 02:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Phil-sources

Template:Phil-sources has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Noesis (online journal) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noesis (online journal) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noesis (online journal) 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. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:County fire departments in the United States

Category:County fire departments in the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Zackmann08 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:County fire departments in Virginia

Category:County fire departments in Virginia, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Zackmann08 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Steven Kuhn

The article Steven Kuhn has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

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}} 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 request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concepts by field

Category:Concepts by field, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. fgnievinski (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious philosophical concepts

Category:Religious philosophical concepts, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. fgnievinski (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concepts in ethics

Category:Concepts in ethics, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. fgnievinski (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Fitch table tomb.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Fitch table tomb.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 "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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Gregbard/Template:WikiProject Skepticism/test

User:Gregbard/Template:WikiProject Skepticism/test, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gregbard/Template:WikiProject Skepticism/test and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Gregbard/Template:WikiProject Skepticism/test during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

Dear Greg, I realize that you've been absent from Wikipedia for a while, but I would like to begin moving your User space drafts to Draft space. Let me know here if you have any objection, either generally, or specific to any particular draft. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Greg Bard (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. bd2412 T 00:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there are any namespace drafts you would particularly like moved or deleted. bd2412 T 02:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I prefer if everything was left alone. But if someone wants to develop anything, I wouldn't stand in the way of that. Greg Bard (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in seeing the articles in question. Where are they now user: BD2412? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Matthew Sention

Draft:Matthew Sention, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Matthew Sention and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Matthew Sention during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talk archive/philosophy

Template:Talk archive/philosophy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophy by field has been nominated for discussion

Category:Philosophy by field, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. fgnievinski (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Albert Burnett concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Albert Burnett, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.