DelEx

I'm banned for some reason because of my use of this IP. This IP is at a university...I'm not sure what's going on.

Probably a member of the university has vandalised Wikipedia, and got the IP blocked. As you are using the same IP, you are also blocked. It's an unfortunate byproduct of the blocking system. If you are using AOL, your IP address changes regularly, so you will be able to edit again soon. —Daniel(‽)19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using AOL. This has been this way for some time. -Shazbot8520:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try using an {{Template:unblock}} template if you've been blocked mistakenly. Unfortunately schools tend to find some jerk who will abuse Wikipedia and ruin the privilege for innocent bystanders :( —Keakealani09:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email: I think things should be fine. Persons on wikipedia don't get punished for the sins of others, except as collateral damage. Your edit history shows you are a constructive editor who respects policy, and as long as that remains true, all should be well. Feel free to call on me if you need me. (Note that I don't often check that email address, so it's better to write directly on my talk page.) --Anthony Krupp13:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to find information on creating user boxes on my page, or for creating the box that constitutes the table of contents on some other pages I've seen? -Shazbot8523:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UBX is a good place to start if you want information about userboxes. As for the Table of Contents, I believe that it is created automatically when the page reaches a certain number of headers. I don't know if it's possible to create a Table of Contents manually, so sorry I can't help you with that one. —Keakealani00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Shazbot85, andwelcome 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Anthony Krupp02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test -Shazbot85^Talk05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a good chunk, as you requested in the AfD. Would you take a look, and re-think your AfD comment?LotLE×talk05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I greatly appreciate your willingness to look at the notability issue a second time in light of my expanded description. I still think the article could be improved further, but I believe with several requests on the same lines from AfD commentors, I've greatly improved the quality of the biography over the last day. All the best,LotLE×talk07:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acusations abound, that I am some sort of extension of Kmaquir1 because I was involved in some deletion discussions that he was involved in. I didn't even vote the same way as him because I totally disagree in some instances. Anything I can do to stop this crap? -Shazbot85^Talk07:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Shazbot85. We have observed similar behavior from Kmaguir1 in the recent past, so I took your vote with an initial excess of suspicion, simply because you attend the same school as Kmaguir1, have many similar interests, and had never voted in AfDs prior to his nominations. However, having seen your subsequent AfD votes—and especially your open-minded willingness to revisit an expanded article—I certainly do not think any such thing of you.

Iam a bit curious whether your AfD interst was motivated by an invitation from Kmaguir1; to be clear, there isabsolutely nothing wrong with that if so. I, and most editors, frequently pay attention to specific issues at the invitation of other editors we have worked with. The only time it becomes inappropriate is when collusion replaces independent judgement, which is obviously not the case with you, even if you do personally know Mr. Maguire. All the best,LotLE×talk07:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied on my own Talk page, but will add that this came up because of an anonymous IP vote. Usually on wikipedia, when an IP makes its very first contribution in an AfD vote, that isincredibly suspicious, and the cloud of suspicion can take a while to disperse. Your editing history shows different patterns than Kmaguir1, as well as the reasonableness and constructive additions that he has mostly (not entirely) failed to demonstrate.--Anthony Krupp11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll have seen, there is a Request for Comment on Kmaguir1's conduct. Since you have been observing things, I wanted to let you know about this and invite you to comment on section three of that page, if you are so inclined. Feel free to copy the paragraph you just left on his page. Of course you should state whatever you think (as you have elsewhere). The page is here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. Best,--Anthony Krupp23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see that you can respond in one of three spots: at 1.6 if you support the summary, at 2 if you think the summary is unfair, or at 3 if you want to give an outside perspective.--Anthony Krupp23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon this AfD tonight and wanted your opinion. I'm trying to clean up the article and you seem to know what you are doing, any help would be appreciated.Bagginator04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some come from unknown publishers or no publishers. Getting a self published book sold on Amazon and B&N is very easy. Two examples 1) This one byDavid Jeremiah at Amazon.com is a new hardback for $6.00 with no publisher listed. 2) "DJ Publications" does not seem like a reputable publisher with 137 yahoo hits.

Shazbot85, instead of makingsnide remarks[1] expand the article and prove notablity.Arbusto06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DelEx

Why when others have done so handily?Shazbot85^Talk06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not one person has expanded the article. Not one person, other than a google count and amazon.com count, has provided any reason for notablity. And lastly, being civil is highly important.Arbusto06:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the radio broadcasts prove notability to me. And I agree, civility is key and withdraw my comment.Shazbot85^Talk06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, that is a claim made by the pastor on his radio website. How about a independent source to prove it? If he is notable that should be easy to find.Arbusto06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less if the article is kept or not. But if you vote keep, and make a comment such as you did, add to it, clean it up, and demonstrate it is worth keeping. As of now its still sloppy, ill-sourced, and of dubious notablity.Arbusto06:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His ministry's website is good enough information to me. If you feel like bringing up false advertising claims you'll have to contact them. I'm not to keen on him but I think he's notable, moreso than alot of the obscurities this encyclopedia includes.Shazbot85^Talk06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that my attempt to add sourcing was reverted. So please quit saying it is ill-sourced if you are going to revert the article after it has been sourced. I'm still not sure I agree with your comment that using Amazon as a source is necessarily an advertisement for Amazon. Amazon seems to be a good source that would provide excellent sourcing for books. So i'm suspicious of why Arbusto is asking for work to be done but then goes and reverts the work that was done. I'm not too keen to go back and work some more only to find Arbusto has reverted my work once again.Bagginator06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like bad faith editing to support his claims. Perhaps talk it over in the talk page and if he won't conceed to that, add it in anyway and contact and admin if he doesn't play nicely.Shazbot85^Talk07:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went to his talk and explained why I did it when I did it. I wrote reverted the partial Amazon.com links[2] because wikipedia does not offer business to book retailors. Imagine if every single book on wikipedia followed this suit; all books would be linked to one business. However, adding in the ISBN number, publisher, city, year, and page numbers would be good.Arbusto07:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told him to add his links into the AfD page and I expect you won't touch them there. Your "business" claim sounds fairly absurd as he's not offering business, Sounds much like a cop out so you can exclude what he has provided.Shazbot85^Talk07:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking an admin to get involved as a 3rd party to give their opinion. As i'm not sure about the Amazon thing and would like the opinion of someone not connected to the discussion. Hopefully they will answer soon. I'm not so much concerned about the article itself, except that i'd like to know for future reference how to properly source book material. I'd also like to clean up the article but not until this is resolved, I don't like to spend a lot of time working only to have it deleted.Bagginator07:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it here:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and also readWP:AGF.Arbusto07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this if you have a chance:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pizza_Corner -Kmaguir120:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring tothis diff. :)Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch)20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shazbot85. I see you have made your own Calvinist/Reformed userbox. I picked one up somewhere that I have on my userpage. I'll post the code for it and the Presbyterian Userbox here for you.

This user is aCalvinist orReformedChristian.

This user is aPresbyterian.

You might also be interested in the categoriesCategory:Calvinist Wikipedians andCategory:Presbyterian Wikipedians.Blarneytherinosaur03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTO:You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. - this goes for clans as well, and recruting editors directly out of the clan volk to participate in writing the article about the clan just makes the case more worse. However alerting all who participated in the 1st Afd that a 2nd AFD is due is fine and considered good tone, as long you don't "select" which ones to alert. --Jestix20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nietherh ave i been involved in writing anything I'm related to, nor did i make a selection in alerting.

Hey, you stole my signature! :D The last time this happened the colors were reversed, such that my little talk button was green and my name blue, and that was stolen by a few dozen people too, hah. I just can't win, can I? :PCowman109^Talk19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said I wasn't calling your nomination a bad faith nom, I meant just that. I saw some potential for people to accuse you of making a bad faith nom and thought saying what I did would stem any such talk. Trust me -- I have made some AfDs that ended up being obvious keeps as well. I know it happens.Erechtheus00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not file reports atWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets as you have done in relation toBlake911 (talk •contribs) without filing aWikipedia:Requests for checkuser first to confirm that sockpuppetry is indeed taking place.Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is only to be used only for tracking serial sock puppeteers whose identities have already been previously established. --  Netsnipe  ► 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just letting regular contributors to theC. S. Lewis article know that itsgood article nomination is on hold until more references are added to the article, and I see that you expressed a desire on the talk page to get it up to GA status. We havetwo weeks to bring the article up to the required GA standards. If you can spare some time, it'd be great if you could add some references to the article, and hopefully improve its chances of becoming a Good Article. If you know of any other editors who would be interested in helping out, please let them know. Cheers,Martin18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to participate inWikiProject Calvinism The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia.WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

I agree that the current text is not quite satisfactory, but I also consider your initial edit to have gone much too far. Regarding the charges, would it not be best to simply report the facts, along these lines: "Calvin's secretary Nicholas de la Fontaine drew up a list of charges against Servetus"? That leaves open the (in my view unlikely) possibility that Fontaine acted independently, while not concealing the actual relationship between him and Calvin. Here, by the way, is the source mentioning that Fontaine was Calvin's secretary:http://history.hanover.edu/texts/comserv.html.

Regardless of the issue of Fontaine, I see no basis in the Servetus article or in the list of charges for removing the reference to Calvin's first having Servetus arrested, which I think is borne out by the sources already in the article.

Re "disingenuousness," that was a mere conclusion on my part and I agree it would not belong in the article text itself. I meant that only as an explanation to you of why the letter you were relying on does not tell the whole story; you may, of course, find another explanation preferable.Pirate Dan (talk)23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content totalk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you shouldsign your posts by typing fourtildes ( ~~~~ ) 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 username or IP address 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. --SineBot (talk)16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, andwelcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username,Shazbot85, may not meet Wikipedia'susername policy because Usernames that contain the word "bot" are reserved forapproved bot accounts.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for achange of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you.Stonemason89 (talk)02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Stonemason89 (talk)15:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shazbot85. You have new messages atStonemason89's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published byWikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact theNewsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the listhere

The articleReformed Youth Movement has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

FailsWP:Notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.ForsythiaJo (talk)20:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]