Jump to content

User talk:Borock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Borock (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 24 June 2017 (→December 2016). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Borock, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- lucasbfr talk 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow

Did you change the entry on Henry Makow? You were saying that most of the sources are from his own work. This is correct, so you have removed them. The one source you also removed was the cited source from the Southern Poverty Law Center indicating that he wrote and article describing Jews as a cancer... Also there was the entry from the Toronto Daily Newspaper.. about Henry Makow... also echoing his conspiracy view theory of the world. I am wondering why you removed these quotes from established sources....? I mean you wouldn't remove a source such as Amnesty International? So why pull the quote from the Southern Poverty Law Centre? Canadaman1 (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Clinton

Hi, I am guessing you are talking about this, as you can see it is reverted already. Thanks for notifying us! (If I missed an other "joke", please accept my apologies!) If you need further help, please don't hesitate to post on my talk page or to put {{helpme}} followed by your question on this page. -- lucasbfr talk 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Borock (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borock!!!

You appear to be new here, welcome! I like your edits.

At Insight magazine, I went ahead and reverted a recent minor edit of yours, please note that I am not necessarily in disagreement with your edit, but there is a precarious balance among editors in a heated debate over precise words. The propagation of the story is an important aspect. Happy to have you join the discussion (the page needs you, trust me), but allow me to suggest that you visit the talk pages of articles that might be contentious, and look for this tag.

{{controversial}}

If you see it, it's probably good to review the discussion and discuss changes before making them, especially if you are new to the page. Again, I think you made a good edit there, but in the current state...let's discuss. See you at the Insight talk page!!!! WNDL42 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My changes to the page were very minor. Borock (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi Borock! I have redirected Obamacon to Obama Republican. If in the future, you need to redirect a page to an article just use the format #REDIRECT Your article here Cheers, —dima/talk/ 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Devils 22.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Devils 22.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability template

I've reverted your addition of {{Notability}} to John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. The article currently has 29 different sources, so seems to have met the requirements requested by the template. If you have questions about the lasting notability of the article, it is probably best covered in an AFD than the application of a template. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Borock (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Borock. You might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Jin Moon. Redddogg (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination

Hi Borock. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman

Since you commented the article in it's first AfD, it has since come under a second AfD. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on this one as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman (2nd nomination). Thanks! — raeky (talk | edits) 03:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion?

Hi Borock. I'm considering nominating Hak Ja Han for deletion. Would you like to discuss the issue on the article's talk page? Redddogg (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hak Ja Han

I do not disagree with your changes - but just be careful please when making changes to the lede - it appears you accidentally merged pieces of sentences together which created factual and chronological inaccuracies. No worries, I fixed it but leaved out the stuff from the lede you had objected to. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please not have one-sentence-long paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there was a change of subject. Borock (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article related to Unification Church ?

You seem to have a significant interest in articles relating to the topic Unification Church. A longer term project of mine is to eventually improve the quality of the article about the multiple award-winning film Ticket to Heaven. Care to collaborate with me on this project, perhaps specifically research and expansion of the Reception subsection? On a side note, do you know of other examples of notable instances of media/film/fiction etc. that have focused on this topic in popular culture? If articles do not yet exist yet on these subjects I may think about doing some extra research and then writing them myself. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might check out Mao II. As far as I know it's the most famous use of the UC in fiction. Borock (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will check it out. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a documentary from a couple years ago, "My Big Fat Moonie Wedding". That could be worth checking out. Borock (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, you think it is notable enough for an article? If so I will do some research on that. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find quite a few reviews.Borock (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started the article: My Big Fat Moonie Wedding Borock (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was redirected very quickly after you started it :( [1]. That is why it is generally a good idea to do a large amount of research and compile as many sources as you can first, before starting a new article in a controversial subject. I will do some research, but not sure if I will find enough discussion in sources to satisfy WP:NOTE - will keep you posted. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, live and learn I guess. The person who redirected it didn't even notify me.Borock (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that certainly would have been a nice courtesy to have extended to you... Cirt (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Unification Church political views

An article that you have been involved in editing, Unification Church political views, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church political views. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

When you add new citations to Hak Ja Han, can you please format them using the templates at WP:CIT? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Borock (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. :) Cirt (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Leslie

Rather than just say an article is "trash", why not offer specific reasons for your assessment and suggestions for improvement. Indeed, you could actually help improve the article. As they stand, your comments are not very helpful. Suggest you respond at Talk:Michelle Leslie.--Merbabu (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I presume you are aware of the WP:3RR rule. --Merbabu (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't apply in living persons cases. I put a notice on the BLP board. Borock (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate you feel strongly about this article, but implying that other editors are perverts from whom you need armed protection, are personal attacks. Please comment only on contributions rather than contributors, and avoid attributing motives like these to others. Changes to the article would require consensus, which is unlikely to be achieved if discussion descends to personal abuse. Euryalus (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michelle Leslie. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on talk page. Borock (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michelle Leslie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article for deletion. Borock (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you two get this resolved. Good luck. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on doing anything more with this article since I see that some good cops are on the case. :-) Borock (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

If it weren't for WP:BEANS, I'd want to add to WP:NOT your bit about "WP is not a conspiracy starting service" :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- :-) Borock (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But I was contacting people who might know or be interested in the subject of the article. I have no way of knowing how they will vote. Borock (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the message you left on my talk page, I'd tend to agree with your comment. I took a look at the AfD and I shall watch it with interest but I'm not getting involved just yet! I made a few edits to the college's page because I happened to stumble across it and it had references and links all over the place and seemed very POV in places so I tidied it up. I don't know anything about the subject, though the heads up is appreciated- lurking at controversial AfDs is something of a hobby! Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did go a little overboard in letting people know. :-) Borock (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... You are going overboard on these things... You left a message on my page in April 2009 regarding a AfD process that finished, FINISHED in 2006!!! The verdict was KEEP... Please leave well enough alone. Thanks Emyth (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AfD

Hi Borock, i'm not a main contributer to that article. I've only reverted vandalism to the article using Huggle. Thanks anyway! Have a nice day John Sloan @ 11:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy King

Notability tags do not "deface the article"... You did not have a valid reason to remove the tag, and your claim that the tag is not needed otherwise it should be up for AFD is nonsense, as otherwise there'd be no reason to ever use the notability tag. If you want to remove it, edit the article to demonstrate notability by Wikipedia standards, just like it says. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of secondary sources cited in the article, including major newspapers in the UK. Why don't you want to nominate it for deletion if you think she is so un-notable? Borock (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned the dispute at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Borock (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism (which you worked on) into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi Borock. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barack Obama - Der schwarze Kennedy

Hi. I notice you assessed Barack Obama - Der schwarze Kennedy as a B-Class article in May.[2] This article does not meet the bare minimum requirements for B-class, and is barely above a Stub-class. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I suggested renaming Unification Church antisemitism controversy to "Divine Principle antisemitism controversy." Please give you opinion on the talk page if you like.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True Family

Hi there. I wanted to wait until the afd was closed before mentioning this. The Unification Church's structure is similar to the structure of the Catholic Church. As you probably know, the Catholic Church has many "in-house" terms: words which express concepts which are unique to it, or which have a special meaning in their theology and practices.

The Unification Church, even though it is extremely tiny in comparison, seems to have attracted a lot of attention; it's a significant topic, and that's why the article has lasted for at least 7 years at Wikipedia. Much of the special terminology of the Unification Church is poorly understood outside the church, and it is likely that there are many readers of Wikipedia who would like to understand these terms better.

Examples include True Children, True Family, and "indemnity". Perhaps you can help flesh out these articles. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been trying to improve/add some more information to articles on the UC. I think it's important that people have an honest understanding of each other, not just that we believe what the newspapers say.Borock (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonie AfD

The article has undergone a significant rewrite and expansion since you commented in the AfD. Perhaps you could take another look at the article and revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by the amount of work you have done to improve the article. However I still think it fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "Moonie" is a fairly minor neologism which will probably have not a whole lot of lasting importance. Borock (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes its history and usage, including commentary from scholarly sources. It is not purely a "dicdef" article. Thus, it is encyclopedic and wholly appropriate. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same kind of article could be written about any word, if someone were to put the work into it that you have. Borock (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that could be said about any word, but I thank you for your kind comments about the work that I have put into the article. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Google search for "any word" [3]. See, 17,000 hits. More than enough for a WP article. :-) Borock (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, feel free to improve the articles at Category:Terminology. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments

Please, exercise some WP:AGF and try to be more polite - some of your recent comments seem inappropriate. For example with this [4], then followed by this [5] - it seems as if you are attempting to make fun of the tremendous amount of work that I have put into this article. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. My objection to the article is based on WP policy, especially WP:Notable, and has nothing to do with your work. It's the subject of the article that is not notable. Borock (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting about the fact that you object to the article's existence despite the massive amount of work that I have put into it, that is your right and that is fine. I am objecting to the nature and tone of your comments here [6] and here [7]. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I said is true, but I had no intention of offending you or anyone else. You are a hard worker, but work alone will not make an unencyclopedic topic encyclopedic. Borock (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the article for AfD. The AfD discussion will run its course and determine whether or not the article is deleted. Let's keep the notability discussion there, and not keep posting about it on the article's talk page. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dictionary

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies. Do people really not understand WP:Not a dictionary? Or were they being a bit dishonest/don't want to deal with it? Northwestgnome (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think people's brains don't all work the same. Something like that might honestly mean nothing to some people. If I were to read an essay explaining why Michael Jackson was a good dancer it would be meaningless to me -- although I agree he was, just can't relate verbally on the topic. Borock (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Paltridge

First, carefully read the last paragraph in the Content section on the book on the GP page. Then, go to Global warming conspiracy theory and read all the content there. You'll soon see that the See also link is appropo. ► RATEL ◄ 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the mention in the article. Borock (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonie (Unification Church)

While it is true that there are other uses for the word, Moonie is a dab page: the only way to get to Moonie (Unification Church) is to follow a link that explicitly refers to it. See WP:NAMB for details. I'll be removing the hatnote again, unless you have any other objections. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 05:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format cites using WP:CIT

When you add new cites to Moonie (Unification Church), can you please format them correctly using WP:CIT? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was in a hurry. I hope that didn't cause a problem. Borock (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


AfD nomination of News World Communications

An article that you have been involved in editing, News World Communications, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News World Communications. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Supporters of Sun Myung Moon

I have nominated Supporters of Sun Myung Moon, 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters of Sun Myung Moon. 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. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Borock. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move

Hi Borock. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Vincenza

I have stated the reasons why we should keep this article. Would you mind reviewing the snippets of the notability policy I used and see if you disagree. Although it would not effect my regard for your good intentions, which I believe you are acting on, I would ask if you would withdraw the nom, if you agree with my rationale. If not it's all good, I nominate articles frequently no hard feelings. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to WP giving the info on her. I just think this is better done in the article on the conspiracies. Borock (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do thank you for considering it. I think they should both be covered as her invovlement is documented in several newspapers. Either way it can benefit the pedia....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the expert or authority. Borock (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, you're good. I just appreciate you looking over it again. Thanks!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We include a lot of weird stuff.

This isn't a arguement you can make on a AFD but consider these articles for weird...Boba Phat and Graceland Too Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are weird alright. :-) Borock (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick

Thanks for your vote of confidence. As I mentioned in a reply to Orange Mike, I have seen the results of her work firsthand and heard about it from principals at schools where she has worked.

I certainly can edit the length of the article. I am a former journalist and I added some comments about her opinions to give some "flavor" to the article.

At the time I started this (my first contribution), I didn't quite understand how to make articles fit the Wikipedia model.

Captaincorgi (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to remove her views. Information is now based on third party newspaper articles.

Captaincorgi (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Edwards (2nd nomination)Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for your eyes....

Might you care to revisit the AFD discussion about Little Red Riding Hood (Disney)? I believe you'll find that the article and film have been shown to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. Much better now. Borock (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Given you comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of universities with soil science curriculum do you think there is a need to refine policy relating to lists? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, yes. On the other hand lots of people ignore policy, or even deny that it exists, when it interfers with something they want to see on WP. Maybe what needs tweeking is WP policy on policies. :-) Borock (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonie (Unification Church)

Hi Borock. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

When adding new sources to Moonie (Unification Church), could you please format the citations - using WP:CIT? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Borock (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in this discussion

You were involved in the old AfD for this article and I request that you leave a comment and your opinion on the question I have raised on the talk page. Thank you for your time. SilverserenC 22:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Goblin Afd

Hi, Borock. Your humorous post was ironically registered by that page's automatic statistics-keeper as a vote for "Keep," which presumably was not your intent. If not, you may wish to place your authentic view (Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect) as the boldface first word before beginning the satiric part. You can click on the stat-keeper at the top of the page, just below the beige box with the bird in it, to see how your view registered. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If AfD's are decided by automatic counting of "votes" that would be another reason to follow my suggestions. :-) -Borock (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as the box says at the top of the page says, AfDs are in fact not decided by votes. The stat-keeper is only one of the many factors used, and is simply a convenience. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. I simply thought you'd want to be represented accurately. I would say, though, that in terms of encyclopedia policy we're involved in a a serious discussion with long-term implications, so a sarcastic entry is not necessarily constructive or helpful. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts. However I'm not sure if a "serious discussion" with fans of the Green Goblin is even possible. :-) Borock (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Borock. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor review/CMBJ.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign for deletion

The article Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (2nd nomination) 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. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Religious identity

Category:Religious identity, 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. Editor2020 (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Divine Principle.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Divine Principle.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people (3rd nomination)

Hi. Just to let you know that I've responsded to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people (3rd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Nailin' Paylin?

"This article unfairly makes it look like we are out to get Ms Palin." No it doesn't. The article makes no claims either way about Palin; it presents the topic neutrally and uses plenty of reliable, third-party sources that do the same. You really should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT before you make another such AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of things I don't like. Borock (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean they should be deleted just because you don't like them. If we deleted things based on what people didn't like, then I'd have deleted the article on Green Day ages ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll be more careful. I still think that an article about a porno film making fun of a Democrat wouldn't have survived. Borock (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What matters most is if there are reliable, third party sources. And in this case, there are tons of them; the article's pretty close to good article in fact. We have articles on far more offensive topics that are allowed to stay because they meet the notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Borock. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 07:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DRV of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124

I have asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 20. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor and talk page topic ban for Unification Church related articles

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2. You received this notification because you regularly edited Unification Church related subjects. Please comment there. Andries (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 has been amended by the Arbitration Committee

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

New AfD of article you have worked on

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination). BigJim707 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baggage claim

Saying it "seems like" it can be expanded means nothing. Saying "it just needs sources" means nothing until you prove that sources exist. I looked already and found nothing that would constitute a source. Your argument is completely null and void. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are written about topics, not sources. Borock (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

Diane Winston

Diane Winston holds the Knight Chair in Media and Religion at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. A national authority on religion and the media as both a journalist and a scholar, her expertise includes religion, politics and the news media as well as religion and the entertainment media. Professor Winston's current research interests are media coverage of Islam, religion and new media, and the place of religion in American identity.

Red Hot and Righteous: The Urban Religion of the Salvation Army, 1999 Co-editor, Faith in the Market: Religion and the Rise of Urban Commercial Culture, 2002 Editor and Author, Small Screen, Big Picture: Television and Lived Religion, 2009

[1][2]

Borock (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Johannes Aagaard, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Cults and Evangelist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed them. Borock (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects

Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. As a contributor who was not notified of the discussion taking place this may concern you. Semitransgenic talk. 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comment

Hi. Since you commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop rap, would you mind commenting to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip pop as well? Dan56 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revealing ip

It's not a good idea to reveal your ip address as you accidentally did at WP:WQA if you value your privacy. It's been suppressed; if you do that again and want to remain anonymous, it's best to complete the form Special:EmailUser/Oversight rather than replace the ip sig with your account name. Nobody Ent 18:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Fire Department

Hi, you may want to take another look at Richmond Fire Department as I have began rescuing it and now it has independent sources including some unambiguous in depth coverage of one of the many environmental catastrophes that occur in Richmond and that this department in particular is notorious for dealing with. I have found more sources and will be adding them, thanks for giving it a second look and if you have any input or could help expand, copyedit, or trim the article in any way please be my guest. Thank you. -Troy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if you would be interested in the discussion at Talk:Time or not...

... since you nominated Time for deletion. You may have an opinion about the lede definition. 71.169.190.194 (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I nominated it on April 1. :-) Anyway the discussion seems to be going okay without me. However it will never be resolved since every definition of time uses the concept of time in its wording. Borock (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A haunting philosophy draft, with ghosts and everything

You might want to revisit this discussion, which is still open. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop mass deletions

Hello, Borock. Please stop deleting instances of "cite video". The deletion discussion is still open and needs to resolve. You are removing valuable resources, like Têtes_Noires#External_links. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It looked like it was already gone. Borock (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New religious movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamacia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese new religions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of the world (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting WP:DICTIONARY

Hello, please see my closure comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Attempting to change policy via XFD can be interpreted as disruptive behavior and will likely result in a "speedy close" or "speedy keep" outcome. If you really want any Wikipedia policy changed, added, or deleted, I recommend starting at the village pump for policy discussions. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am getting so sick of that policy. I guess I was just lashing out with my AfD. I knew it wouldn't work. I will take your suggestion and try the Village Pump. Borock (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Myung Moon

Hi! Made some comments on the talk page regarding some of the specific edits you've made but I wanted to add that, taken as a whole, your edits appear to push point of view. Word choice, adjectives, tone, all should be neutral and reflect the cites. Additionally, because something is verifiable does not necessarily mean it should be included. WP:UNDUE weight needs to be avoided - like including information using original sources (like UN transcripts) or that is only peripherally relevant (lack of RS focus is a good signal). Moon is subject for which there is a wealth of neutral, reliable sources on which to build an article. EBY (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm going to ignore the Moon article for a while. What's the point when as soon as you make an edit someone else reverses it, mostly without a discussion. Borock (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely, positively did confuse you with someone else and I apologize. Your comment flipped the switch which led to some investigation which led to this. I would ask you note the similar user names editing the same page as I beg your forgiveness and understanding. I'm sorry. EBY (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Timeline of Sun Myung Moon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New religious movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Martin Article

Thank you for your edit, removing the paragraph which was questionable at best. I had completely changed the article since LDS members had claimed he had no valid degree, using other LDS members as sources. Saying CCU was not accredited, despite the fact it was accredited by the state of Californaia. These people seem to ignore this or say that even that is invalid, despite the fact Harvard and Yale do not have national accreditation either. I added a section on the talk page giving some more details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_Ralston_Martin#Vandalism_by_Cultists Kurioslesouschristos (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unification Church and science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re "philosophical" and "ethical" groups

Hi Borock, just to say that I agree with your exclusion of the word 'ethical' from the definition and concur with your reasoning. A similar edit excluding the term 'philosophical' which I removed from the definition at the List of new religious movements, has just been agressively reverted. Maybe you'd like to join the discussion on the talk page there? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi there Borock! I see that you're fairly active working on pages about New religious movements and I wanted to get your input on something I've been working on, if you're interested of course. I am working on behalf of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, which has been described as a new religious movement, to improve the entry about the school.

This page currently has some issues, including problems with how information about the school's beliefs and teaching methods are presented. I have now finished writing a new version that addresses these, and some other issues, that I would like other editors to consider. The problem I am having is that it seems I can't find editors to judge my revision on its own merits and compare it to what is currently on the page. I think many editors are resistant to helping simply because of the topic. I even had one editor tell me he thought the current version was more neutral, only to admit later that he hadn't looked very closely at it.

On the discussion page you will find more information about what I suggest changing and why. You will also find a link to what I have written. Though I have written this on behalf of the school, I am not personally a member, however because of my "conflict of interest" I will not edit the entry myself.

I've worked hard to write a new factual entry for the page based on the available reliable sources and I've gotten guidance about Wikipedia's policies and feel like I've done a good job of abiding by them. If you had time to help me out by reading what I've put together and letting me know what you think it would be a big help. Calstarry (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borock! I just saw your message about "cultlike" on the Ramtha's discussion page. I've replied to you there about this. Calstarry (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I left messages the other day for the other editors who had commented on the Ramtha's discussion page but I'm sorry to say I forgot you! Anyhow, I've update my draft (here: Ramtha's School draft) to include the essay about the school by Melton that John Carter and Astynax mentioned. And I also replied on the discussion page about John Carter's suggestion that the topic be split into three articles.
Let me know what you think of my draft once you've had a chance to look at it! Calstarry (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borock. I'm looking to start fresh on the Ramtha's discussion page and hope that you can help. A few editors have now mentioned that it might be better to work through the article section by section and since the discussion has gotten so long and complex I agree.
I'm asking editors to look through just the Research section with me. I'm hoping since you had been part of the earlier conversations on the page that you will be able to look at this new request. Thank you. Calstarry (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth About Lies (film)

The original version of the article from 2011 was based upon on old and inaccurate source. Further research shows the project began filming December 2013 and is now in post-production. I made corrections/expansions to the article to address the original author's errors and have added a different set of "Find sources" at the AFD. I think the now-better-sourced and somewhat improved article. What you think? Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Hi Borock. I've suggested merging Exit counseling into Deprogramming since it seems to be mainly notable as a sub-type of that.Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Right-wing socialism

An RfC is underway at the talk page for this article, in this thread. I am informing you of this discussion because you participated in the most recent AfD discussion which closed as "no consensus", and this discussion will help decide whether to keep the article in its current form, or to split the content of the article into separate articles and turn the current article into a disambiguation page. Thank you. -- Atama頭 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Favorite_betrayal_criterion, as you have commented in prior deletion discussions related to this article. Homunq (࿓) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Kumaris not neo-Hindu

Hi Borock, The latest materials I've been reading have said this movement isn't Hindu or neo-Hindu, and lacks the required level of similarity to be classified as such. Did you want me to try and find the ref and share with you or are you happy for me to revert this edit? Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please revert if it is even in question. I have been working on catgorising a large number of articles and I have probably made more than one mistake. Thank you. Borock (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do - cheers Borock. Danh108 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Providence(religious movement)

Hello! This message is for recent editors of the Providence(religious movement) article.

I just wanted to inform you all of some of the changes I was hoping to make to the page! I am actually studying theology, and have been spending a lot of time studying Modern East Asian Christian organizations in particular. You might have noticed the deletion tag I applied to the article--actually I am really new to Wikipedia, I created an account specifically to make edits to this article and am still a bit confused on the whole deletion/editing process ;)

Anyway, I came across this article while I was doing research and found a few discrepancies I thought might be good to address! I know the allegations against this group are quite serious, I was shocked by them, by I think it's important that we get the article right for the academic purposes of the encyclopedia :)

Mainly I just noticed that the article is missing information in a few crucial places, i.e. the details of the trial, an extended discussion of the philosophies of the group, etc. Also, at times the tone does feel a bit hostile--again, as scholars, we should do our best to remain neutral, especially when the topic is highly controversial.

Thank you all for your time, and hope that the article can really be well done!

GIOSCali (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just wanted to say that I began a few of the edits I was mentioning in my earlier post regarding the Providence(religious movement article). I just made a small sample of some of the edits I want to make, namely changes that will make the language of the article neutral. Also, there are a lot of dead links for references and many references in foreign languages-- I will be deleting these and would appreciate some help! Also I think it would be good to include actual information on the trial and the Korean judicial system, as well as Joshua Jung's early background if any can be tracked down.

Thanks, and I'm sure the article will turn out great! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Magical Negro are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paying taxes

Thanks for your contribution to the gross annual earnings debate. You said: "Gross" means before taxes are taken out.... which I more or less guessed, but wasn't sure. I think the problem here is not that Andrew D is an "inclusionist" so much as a "keepist": if anyone writes an attempt at an article, and the words in the title appear somewhere, then the article should not be deleted. I think that articles should be about topics, not words. Anyway, cheers! Imaginatorium (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mikael Rothstein for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mikael Rothstein 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/Mikael Rothstein 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. Tgeairn (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

creation–evolution controversy

An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sun Myung Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capuchin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Borock. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 08:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sun Myung Moon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Borock. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Katietalk 20:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Borock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm actually not requesting an unblock. I broke the rules by having multiple log-ins and I deserve to be blocked, by the rules. However I want to be on the record by saying that my reason for doing so was to keep a low profile and avoid conflicts with other people, not to disrupt Wikipedia. Borock (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; you aren't asking for an unblock, so I'm not considering an unblock. Note that WP:SO may apply here, even if you aren't a candidate for unblocking sooner. I state that without prejudice, though; I take no position on whether or not an unblock would be appropriate here. Yamla (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Like I said I want to keep a low profile and avoid conflict.Borock (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Diane Winston, the Knight Chair in Media and Religion, USC
  2. ^ The First Church of Facebook, New York Times, 2011-9-8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borock&oldid=787279386"