User talk:DaveDV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!
|
[edit] Reliable sources
Wikipedia articles must verifiable in reliable published sources. —Centrx→talk • 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD Nomination: Dick Hillis
An editor has nominated the article Dick Hillis for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Hillis. Add four tildes like this ~~~~ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Dick Hillis during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dave & Deanne DeVries.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Dave & Deanne DeVries.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you created this image yourself, please look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators, select one of those tags, and add it to the image. To do that, simply go to Image:Dave & Deanne DeVries.jpg, click "edit this page", and add the appropriate tag. Be sure to remove the current tag indicating a lack of licensing!
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at User talk:Angr or at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Missionality sounds great to me! Jwiley80 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow! "missionality." Did you coin that or have others already used it? I would not be shocked if they have since creation of jargon that sounds like gibberish is a postmodern craze that has unfortunately caught on in the emerging church movement that has coopted "missional." Many editors seem to take a postmodern approach to the tone and style of an encyclopedia, which is a modern genre. I oppose such a merger until "missionality" becomes a commonly used term. Encyclopedias should reflect usage not create it.Will3935 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)