From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Archives 2 Discussion 2.1 Response to Erielhonan 2.2 winner 2.3 AfD Nomination being used in a personal dispute 2.4 Cult

[edit] Introduction

Thanks for visiting my talk page. Please post your message at the bottom of the "Discussion" section of this page, with a new ==Section Heading==, if you are starting a new topic.

If I have posted a comment on your talk page or an article talk page, please reply inline on that page. I watch all articles I post to, and I prefer not to page-jump when trying to follow a conversation thread.

If you post a message to me below, I will respond (if warranted/requested) inline on this page as well. If you want to be alerted of my reply, please put this page on your watchlist and keep an eye on it.

Thanks for your consideration!

[edit] Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Response to Erielhonan

Note:the same answer is on Nadirali's talk page.

In which case I will provide a link and remove the bulk response from my talk page, since I specifically asked him to post his reply on his own page. Erielhonan 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] winner

Good to know the person on the right side always comes out the winner.RegardsNadirali 15:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

[edit] AfD Nomination being used in a personal dispute

An antagonist (Descendall) has nominated the article Dan James Pantone about a notable scientist for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. His only reason for doing so is a personal dispute. Essentially, Descendall is using this AfD nomination to anonymously defame this scientist and the indigenous rights organization he co-founded. The scientist is clearly notable using the "Professor Test." Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan James Pantone. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Dan James Pantone during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matses (talk • contribs).

Whew, it's even worse than that. The nominator used a slander/libel word in the nomination that implies the subject of the article is a criminal. I wrote a group apology, but the nominator needs to delete and apologize. Or failing that, the admins need to delete and recant for him. Milo 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I've been included in this discussion aside from possibly canvassing for votes. I have no knowledge or particular interest in this topic, so please don't expect me to participate. Thanks. Erielhonan 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon, I assumed the previously unsigned comment was yours. Milo 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cult

I'm sure you meant well on copyvio patrol, but I've reverted your deletion of the M-W.com definition of cult. This kind of studious, comparative discussion of definitions is thoroughly protected under the fair use provisions of copyright law. However, the revert gave me the serepiditious opportunity to add the COED British definitions that had been missing until now. Milo 11:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you clean it up. As it was, it was also presented in a way that made it appear non-factual. I'll encourage you to provide bibliographical information and/or links for the Random House Unabridged Dictionary definitions as well. Erielhonan 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)