User talk:Killing sparrows
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| I AM EASILY CONFUSED! So if I start a conversation on your talk page please answer there, I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here I will answer here, so watch it! Thanks. OK, in reality if it is important to me I will probably bend a little, but if it's something annoying I may not! |
[edit] Thanks for your contribs
 |
The Minor Barnstar | |
| Hi and thanks for your revert of vandalism and numerous minor edits for the perfection of Wikipedia (especially getting rid of slews to make Wikipedia more formal and professional). by the way you do not need to sign your edit summaries. Jingshen 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Atheangelism
Thank you for your comments on the article "atheangelism".
You raise 2 reasons for suggesting its deletion:
1. Neutral Point of View 2. Neoligism
1. Neutral point of view is not violated with this article. The terms "atheangelism", "atheistic evangelism", and "evangelical atheism" are interchangeble, in use by Christian apologists and atheists alike.
Please look at the references at the bottom of the page.
Generally speaking, "atheangelism" and "atheistic evangelism" are terms used by Christian apologists to describe the phenomenon described in the article.
"Evangelical atheism" has been used in the same way "atheangelism" and "atheistic evangelism" have been used by Christian apologists, but has also been used by atheists as well. If you look at the article, I now describe the different ways atheists and Christian apologists use this last term.
2. With regards to the use of atheangelism as a neoligism, you are correct that "atheangelism" per se is a relatively new term. However, it has been adopted for clarity with regards to the two other terms with similar meaning --"atheistic evangelism" and "evangelical atheism".
These latter terms have been widely used for the past decade and a half.
Please let me know if the changes that have been made in the article address your concerns satisfactorily, and if you would consider removing your request for deletion.
mpleahy 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Mercer Middle School
For a speedy copy vio delete, the article had to have been created in the last 48 hours. That article was there for several months. Vegaswikian 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it did say 48 hours at one time. Looks that that was replaced by some more complex conditions. You can find the speedy criteria here. Enjoy reading. Vegaswikian 00:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Noscapine
Hi there Selket, While researching a page request for Anarcotine (I created a redirect page to noscapine) I noticed you have worked on Noscapine lately. There seems to be some promising research on noscapine as a chemo agent for various cancers that I thought belonged in the article. I have some knowledge in this area but see from your user page that you probably have much more than I do and I wondered if you would be willing to review some literature and add perhaps a paragraph on noscapine in cancer treatment. I see that it is mentioned in the opening paragraph, but the link doesn't work. The stuff I scanned from a g-search [[1]] made it look very promising, but again this is way out of my expertise with pharmas and oncology. Thanks --killing sparrows 06:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for your confidence in me. Truth be told, my research has nothing to do with cancer and very little to do with pharmacology. I work on the wikipedia drug articles as a hobby. I've only taken a couple of pharmacology classes (a while ago), so I kind of know what to look for but am not in any way an expert on the subject. I will take a look at the article, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to devote a substantial chunk of time to it. I would encourage you to keep plugging away at it. Also instead of google, try pubmed. You usually can't get the full articles unless you are on a university computer, but the abstracts will show the findings of the paper. I find a higher signal to noise ration there than on google. --Selket Talk
[edit] Re: American Poetry Review/Honickman First Book Prize
Hi Killing sparrows,
Thanks for your polite message. I was too angry to put a message on your talk page. I've had a lousy experience recently with editors at the Spam project page who are almost acting like a vigilante group within Wikipedia and who can't be bothered with WP:CIV or WP:ASG, so you hit a raw nerve. I'll remove the message from the main page and put it on the talk page. I'm right now in the middle of my campaign to reform the ways of the [phrase removed and replaced by: ladies and gentlemen] at WikiProject Spam so I'm too busy to do much else right now, but I'd be happy to look over what you suggest. I tend to calm down quickly when I'm approached courteously, and I appreciate your approach. More later, Noroton 03:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC) self censored Noroton 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article on the Corfu slide
Hei, Pleased to see your article on Corfu slide which relates to the Missoula Floods. I don't recall hearing of it (and currently live in Washington, DC so will be a while before I can get out to see it). Since you live in Othello additonal information and photos would be great.
You are certainly welcome to add this new page to the boxes you have put at the bottom of several related articles link boxes - this is the nature of Wikipedia that you should.
There are a series of areas to the north of you that are supposed to be quite geologically interesting. I don't have the right books with me, but they lie in the region where the Missoula Floods overflowed the Othello basin to the west into the Columbia (I think called Frenchman Coulle and similiar). I think they'd be an appropriate addition if you get the chance.
Skal - Williamborg (Bill) 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] adoption?
Hi, killing sparrows. I see you're looking to be adopted. I've been around Wikipedia since last May, and I can probably answer most questions you might have. I'd be happy to adopt you until you feel you know your way around. Let me know if you'd like my help or if you'd rather wait for a different adopter. — coelacan — 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- No particular place. Our talk pages are fine; or, if you'd like a dedicated area, you can just start a subpage of my talk space, like user talk:coelacan/killing sparrows. — coelacan — 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ASUE
 |
Hello, Killing sparrows and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia.
If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] List of people who went to heaven alive
Thanks for your thoughtful note. My mind isn't completely made up on the issue -- I gave a comment rather than a vote -- and I'm open to other people's views. My thought is that, particularly if there are well-sourced articles on the issue as a whole that cross the religious areas this list crosses, to have an article on the concept as a topic rather than focusing on the list. But the concept itself needs reliable sources showing other people have researched the concept in a cross-religion way; I believe doing this on our own (buiilding a concept out of disparate pieces) without sourcing the concept beforehand could be a violation of WP:SYN. If the sources are there, go for it. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Funny you should ask
Just as I was in the middle of a response you messaged me about it! See Talk:List of people who went to heaven alive. I don't see any of this as an edit war. I was tired and hadn't read the Mormon article on translation carefully enough. I'm glad you pointed out the difference. I think your comments on the deletion discussion are not decisive in whether or not the article should stay or go because the article is evolving, editors are responding to criticism with revisions and so the subject really is can this article's subject be well-represented by a Wikipedia article. I see no reason why not, but your comments have already been helpful. Thanks! Noroton 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Another point: You wrote in your message, "I think we have a grouping of people with more differences than commonalities as I have outlined in my several notes." There are an extremely limited number of people for whom the claim is made that they were allowed into heaven or its equivalent paradasical afterlife state. To me, that would seem to give them a lot in common, enough for an article, IMO. Noroton 17:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Malick Sidibe
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Malick Sidibe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
another one proed it not me i was just letting you knowOo7565 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How to nominate multiple articles in a single discussion
I see you nominated Eric Zane's radio show about Free Beer and a bunch of other articles. In situations where all the articles are clearly linked to each other, it helps to nominate them under a single heading. After you nominate the first article, "foo", using {{subst:afd1}}, you nominate the second article, "bar", using {{subst:afd1|foo}}, and so on. Detailed instructions are far down on the WP:AFD page. Best regards. YechielMan 07:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
