User talk:Davidabram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image copyright problem with Image:Bill Majors in 2004.jpg 2 AfD nomination of Bill Majors 3 Bill Majors 4 sorry for the poor welcome 5 AfD nomination of International Worship in English 6 May 2008

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bill Majors in 2004.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bill Majors in 2004.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 have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Bill Majors

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Majors, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Majors. Thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Majors

I've reviewed the current version of the article and read all the linked sources. I still feel he is not a notable missionary/founder/pastor. I've often thought of writing an article on my church's pastor, and then realized that while he's important to me and the 3,000 other parishoners and has been covered extensivly in our local and regional newspapers, he isn't actually notable. I should mention that I can't remove an AfD from any article for any reason. Thats because the AfD is a community consensus discussion. I could withdraw it, but it would still be up to the closing administrator to interpret my withdrawl in light of the community's discussion. One thing that did strike me is that the Honorary Citizen of Seoul could possibly be notable. I've asked one of our active Korean-based editors to look into it a little more. Even if they aren't done by the time the AfD closes, and the article is deleted, the article can be undeleted here WP:DRV and I would of course initiate the process if that honor is considered a notable one (I can't figure out if its like the "keys to NYC" or if its like a "congressional golf medal"). Thanks though for the contributions you've made. MBisanz ^Talk 14:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sorry for the poor welcome

Mr. Davidabram, I would like to apologize for the poor welcome mat that you've received upon joining the "editor status" of enjoying Wikipedia beyond simply reading the articles. I've read your comments on the Bill Majors AfD and hope that you don't allow a bad first impression to ruin your previous "respect" for the organization's goals of providing free knowledge on the web. Please understand that Mbisanz, myself, and 10s of 1000s of other regular editors are daily barraged with ridiculous articles, poorly written articles, and most frequently, articles about non notable people, places and things. You've probably noticed that usually between 100-200 articles are "nominated for deletion" through the AfD process. Not counting those particular articles, there are literally thousands of "articles" that are speedily deleted without discussion for various reasons. What I mean to say is that if you stick around awhile, start editing other topics of interest to you, you'll begin to understand the magnitude of what a very small number of regular editors are trying to accomplish here. It is not a personal slight to you, or to Bill Majors for that matter, that the article was put up for deletion. We regulars tend to get trigger-happy, I'll admit, when an article is created by a seemingly new user as their "first contribution" or "only contribution". Such is the inherent problem with "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit". It means anyone can edit it. In the past, new articles by new editors has served as a very reasonable red-flag that the article's subject is probably not notable (and many times, simply "made up" as an experiment). I believe that Bill Majors is an exception that has been caught in the crossfire of 1000s of other articles created that day and rightfully deleted. I hope the article stays and I've been chatting with Mbisanz (and others) to make sure that, if it is deleted, it's deleted for the right reasons which I just don't see yet. Anyway, this (ever growing) message is meant to just say sorry. We try our best around here and sometimes we mess up. Hopefully, you'll stick around and do some other editing to other areas of interest. You'll quickly learn that this is a forever changing, forever frustrating project, but a very rewarding one to participate in nonetheless. Cheers, Keeper | 76 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Abram, I must concur with Keeper. S/He said it perfectly, so I don't need to. The article was deleted because it did not assert the subject's notability in the article. If it is a notable subject, the article may be recreated, but you need to show why it should be included in Wikipedia, and reference it with reliable sources. I hope that I am a help to you, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you need help or have any questions. Cheers! Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will undelete it to allow for a procedural AFD, I simply indicated to Keeper that if s/he wanted an AFD I'd be willing to initiate one. Thanks for your concern, and the AFD should be located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Worship in English. I hope you stick around as an editor; writing good new content is getting much more difficult. Best regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've since changed some of my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Majors, I hope that is an amicable position I've taken. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of International Worship in English

An editor has nominated International Worship in English, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Worship in English and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I agree with you about Majors deserving an article as a Templeton prize winner but both your style and your triple voting at the AfD article is going to be totally counter productive. Please go and remove a couple of votes and tidy up the cynical ranting. Thanks --BozMo talk 19:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

the triple voting was cleaned up by user:appletrees. Majors didn't win the Templeton prize but is notable for other reasons. Bill Majors article was cleaned up for clarity. Keeper | 76 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to United Airlines Flight 93.
Any further vandalism will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. VegitaU (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

		Apologies
		I jumped the gun on your edits. I'm sorry. I've been battling tooth-and-nail on the 9/11 article so much, I'm seeing any discrepancies as vandalism. Please forgive me. You didn't do anything wrong and I've gotten rid of the incorrect information on the page. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you contact me with a civil inquiry before you accuse me of 'disruptive edits'?

If perhaps you paused to examine the nature of my edits, you'll notice that I was trying to rectify the discrepancies in various 9/11 related pages. United Airlines Flight 93 has a total of 45 in its 'Others' section and a total of 44 in its 'Summary'. United Airlines Flight 175's 'Summary' lists 56 passengers, but its 'Nationalities' section lists 47. September 11, 2001 attacks lists 64 fatalites (including hijackers) for Flight 175. So if you've set yourself up as a policman for these pages, why don't you rectify these discrepancies yourself? If I wanted to vandalize anything, I'd go to a PC cafe with an anonymous IP. Davidabram (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)