User talk:StAnselm/2014a

This is an archive of past discussions with StAnselm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2014a

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - ... (up to 100)

Otto Weber (theologian)

Sorry for the confusion, I mean that you can now find a reliably sourced entry for him at the List of Nazis. Take care and have a happy new year.Hoops gza (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there has been a formal discussion. User:Keresaspa might know more about this matter. He and I have just more or less agreed to approach the Nazi category this way.Hoops gza (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. I think there should be a discussion first. St Anselm (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a discussion if you wish. I suggest talking with Keresaspa to resolve any problems with future catting of Nazis. As for myself, one of my new years resolutions will be to retire from negative topics such as this one. Thank you for the patience and cooperation in these matters, happy new years!Hoops gza (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year StAnselm!

Happy New Year!

Hello StAnselm:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Jerm729 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

	Happy New Year, 2014
	From Amandajm (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] The Epiphany Window, St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney, by John Hardman & Co. of Birmingham

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Ending up on the ANI is not much fun. Probably stepping back is not a bad idea. However after a bit of a rest I hope you will return to active editing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not

Close an RFC I have started again, ever. I will not have editors dick about with my comments. Do it again and I will report your disruption to ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CC Club, Cabal, whatever

If I may contribute to that discussion over in the RFC/Phase 1, this is what I've compiled. The list of CC members: Arzel, StAnselm (Yes you), MONGO, Collect, and TFD that MilesMoney was willing to label on his talk page. I don't know if there are more members to this list because he doesn't specify. ViriiK (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, just reverted a cut and paste move at Oral Gospel traditions, lacking energy to do anything further. Hope you're well. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Bernardi Sources

Hi there, saw your edit removing a claim from Cory Bernardi's politicial career section. You stated that the source did not contain the claim. I've PDF'd the source and highlighted where I think the claim was made: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Uc8bzJWKvQaGdQcVpuRURGQTQ/edit?usp=sharing Original article: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senator-cory-bernardis-call-for-new-abortion-debate-sidestepped-by-pm-20140106-30dmz.html Would you agree that the claim can be reinstated? Martin.danger (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this "After Bernardi claimed.... that non-traditional families may cause negative social outcomes..."

Quote from Article: The South Australian senator also calls for the traditional family model to be restored to prime position over other family arrangements such as step families, same-sex and single families. Given the increasing number of non-traditional families, there is a temptation to equate all family structures as being equal or relative, he writes. Why then the levels of criminality among boys and promiscuity among girls who are brought up in single-parent families, more often than not headed by a single mother?

Martin.danger (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure why the positive frame is required when his comments are mostly of a negative nature. He could have made his statements positive by only saying that traditional families were the best. However, his focus is on the harm he believes non-traditional families cause. Nevertheless, I've edited it to include his belief that traditional family model is preferred and that non traditional may cause negative social outcomes.

By the way, am I doing this right? That is, the formatting on talk pages? Is the preferred format to indent per reply?

Martin.danger (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 13:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your edits. Editor2020 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?

Did you see my response to you? I am curious, since I provided instances of B's following me from November and you said that nothing had happened since he was blocked in August for violation after his final warning. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, StAnselm. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 00:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Governing bodies template

from WP:REDNOT

Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes.

That is why I removed those redlinks from the Governing Bodies navigational box.

regards: --Falcadore (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. You also deleted several additions/correction to the template with that reversion.[reply]

IBLP Controversy

There needs to be a section on the controversy of IBLP and the dangers that it has brought both to the families that have suffered injustices based on the false doctrine of Bill Gothard and to the children who have lived without any freedom of rights. I can only hypothesize that you enjoy being bias towards IBLP as you do not wish to expound or revise what I have just edited. For my prayer is that you may understand the truth that IBLP eradicates. If you need a substantial reason, then let my experiences and my fellow brothers and sisters who have suffered the injustices brought to them by false ideology presented in the ATI curriculum be satisfactory to your bias opinion.

Wikipedia is your turf, but may I remind you that wikipedia is an open platform to present and showcase ideas. You sir are prohibiting the real ideas from being exposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.18.181 (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koorong

So what happens now? Kooring have done still more COI editing since your edit. It seems entirely fair and of interest to comment on the current theological breadth of their coverage since traditionally, as I understand it, the brand was associated with quite a specific theological stable, as is common in Christian publishing. As to Taming the Tiger, Authentic Media is simply an imprint of Koorong, so I don't see why the information does not belong there. Minimum due diligence might also be expected of a Christian publisher.EutychusFr (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. If you read the background to the Taming the Tiger story, you will discover that the publisher's lack of due diligence and failure to take seriously concerns expressed virtually since publication contributed largely to events, and that the role of Christian publishers in general was a significant part of the story (see for instance the Christianity magazine cover story quoted on the Tony Anthony page: http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/Browse%20By%20Category/features/Shaming%20the%20Tiger.aspx ). The Koorong page is by no means restricted to their bookstore activities and I am pretty sure these are a tiny part of their turnover. To include information about Taming the Tiger on the Koorong page and/or the existing page covering Authentic Media is fair and far more likely to result in a balanced picture in which these organisations' other activities are cited than creating a page solely about Authentic Media in which the Taming the Tiger fiasco will overshadow everything else due to the sheer volume of copies sold and allegedly distributed compared to their other sales.EutychusFr (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney Symphony logo.jpg

Hi StAnselm. Just a heads up to say that the SSO has changed their logo this year and per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Sydney Symphony Orchestra page needs updating, I've uploaded the new logo and placed it in the article. As the old one which you had uploaded is under Fair Use and is no longer linked in the article, you'll probably get a deletion notice. You don't need to do anything. After 5 days the old version will be automatically deleted. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thanks

That's a post I really appreciate being thanked for. Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Edit to Jack T. Chick

Thank you for making this edit summary clear given it was your 4th revert it saved you from a block. Perhaps reporting the edit war (to WP:RFPP or WP:ANEW would have been a better way to resolve the issue since it was continuing on from the previous protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timezone

Likewise :) PiCo (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"not on BLP's"

I did not see such an exception on that page. Can you direct me please? Pass a Method talk 12:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please explain why you needed to delete that content rather than just ask for a citation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLPREMOVE. St Anselm (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very first words in that section refer to "contentious material," which this certainly was not. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You may have just been mistaken but here you accuse you accuse me of using a source that doesn't support the claim, when it surely does so, and that is immediately evident; and here you accuse me of using an unreliable source - which it isn't - and relying on "a picture caption only", when the entire article talks about their long friendship. I won't argue whether the content needs to be in the article or is too trivial. More interested editors can digest that. But I do not appreciate edit summaries which are essentially falsehoods. Perhaps you were making a bunch of edits in a row or otherwise mistook the sources? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my edit summaries were careful and true. The first source didn't support the claim - there was nothing about "best" friends in the text, and "BFFs" in the heading hardly counts. Similarly, in the Huffington Post article, it is clear that DiCaprio and Maguire are friends, and the article calls them "longtime pals", but there is nothing in the text to suggest that one is the other's "best" friend. Please check the sources more carefully next time. St Anselm (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nicole and Naomi are best friends" [1]
"Dicaprio Maguire; best friends star in the great gatsby" [2] Pass a Method talk 03:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these was not cited; the second is only a caption, and as such is not a reliable source. St Anselm (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Best friends for nearly 25 years" [3] Pass a Method talk 04:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Pass a Method - why did you choose not to add any of these references when you first edited the articles? And don't say I didn't give you a chance - you managed to do about twenty edits before I reverted you. You could have spent that time properly sourcing just one of those articles. St Anselm (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having known you for a long time, i know that you are rarely straightforward in your edit summaries. In only the past 12 hours you have invented two new previously non-existent wikipedia policies. Pass a Method talk 04:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass a Method, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a real policy, and you need to familiarise yourself with it."Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis original). St Anselm (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open your browser
prepare search engine
type "contentious definition"
check out the first 6 search returns
tell me what your findings are.
Tell me whether you feel apologetic or not. Pass a Method talk 04:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin's View of Scripture -- No Original Research

Hi St Anselm. You must not do original research or synthesis on Wikipedia. Your article on John Calvin's view of Scripture is based almost entirely on primary source original research. There have been hundreds of books written on Calvin that address his view of Scripture. You must rely on them when writing your article. You have insisted that others rely on secondary sources from third party, independent sources. You must abide by this same standard.

Thanks in advance! Katsa54 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mg3942.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RPP

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#John_Calvin.27s_view_of_Scripture_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Cdelete.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.7Cviews.29— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. The user accounts you reported are in fact IP addresses, not user names, thus are not misleading. Admr Boltz 20:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew mediation

I've left a message at User:Sunray's talk page - she seems to be in charge, though not yet appointed as mediator. PiCo (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:PiCo, how do you know Sunray? - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ret.Prof she signed the last information on the mediation page. PiCo (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I was added lins and more internet citations on Knox Presbyterian Church (Harrison Township, Michigan). The departure of Knox from the Evangelical Presbyterian Church was a milestone for the PCA in the state of Michigan. Its a sign that some conservative EPC members begun to depature from EPC. Thanks

Thanks

Just wanted to personally thank you for the defense at my ANI, despite the fact that you don't necessarily agree with the namesakes for the moves. I'm not sure if we've worked on articles together before, but I look forward to seeing you around in the future. Crumpled Fire (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pamela Geller. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

For the edit war and templating you, I was pissed and got very very stupid. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Flaming Ferrari. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Marlene Malahoo Forte, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Young Reader's Choice Award.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Young Reader's Choice Award.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — trlkly 04:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

DTTR. Happy to discuss but don't simply revert and declare an edit war. You've been around long enough to know that's not a productive way forward. Note, btw, that I have not TTR here. Discuss at the relevant talk page with the issues you feel are relevant; if you are right, you will easily gain a consensus for your POV. Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have now made three reverts in less than an hour. Please stop your edit-warring. St Anselm (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably get a lot further if you just talked to people instead of slapping them templates. (You will recall that I recently scolded Darkness Shines for slapping you with a template.) Lauraface32's edits did not seem to be intentionally disruptive or unconstructive, and she was already using the talk page in good faith, so this warning seemed off target. And then templating her again when she had just complained about being templated? I don't think that's going to help deescalate things at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to assume good faith, but her edits seemed to be revenge-based. Anyway, she has engaged in personal attacks against me multiple times now. How would you suggest trying to stop it? St Anselm (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the best way of dealing with the personal attacks is to ignore them. Half the time they aren't even meant as attacks, and when they are they're usually so shallow that they just reflect poorly on the person making them. That's been my experience, at least. If things get out of hand, ping me with some diffs and I'll look into it. As for the dispute (which I haven't read enough of to understand fully) I think the audience you're trying to convince would be Hrothulf, but you probably know better than I do in that arena. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did ignore it the first time, but the attacks kept coming. St Anselm (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet

Why should Ananias be in italics? Is he not the one who coverted Paul to being a Christian through God's message? Is a person who receives instructions from God not a prophet? I thought that a prophet is someone who receives a message or instructions from God, so why italics? Jerm729 (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, that means the definition of Prophet on Wikipedia is wrong. Is not Silas a disciple as well, yet he is mentioned as a prophet. I understand that little is known about Ananias, but receiving a message from God should have determined his status to a prophet. And I apologize if i'm a bit aggressive about this. Jerm729 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, I guess since majority believe he is a disciple it would be fit to italics, and there isn't much of a source to prove otherwise. Cheers then -- Jerm729 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marita Cheng for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marita Cheng is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marita Cheng until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Zwerin

We don't remove referenced material from an article. If you don't want it in the lede, bring it up on the talk page. Doc talk 23:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the cited passage now. This is not how we do things around here. Doc talk 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-documented incident, BTW.[4], [5], [6], etc. I'm not sure why you think removing a referenced fact is in any way helpful. Doc talk 00:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realise, don't you, that one of your references is published by lulu, and the other two are duplicates? Jim Morrison: LIfe, Death, Legend as the barest mention on Zwerin being arrested - again without saying what he was arrested for. St Anselm (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce G. Baldwin - thanks

Thanks for improving the article. The first sentence of the biography at parent is incomplete, any chance you could correct?. I guess it intends to indicate a later family move (to where).

FYI, I'm a staff member at Trinity College, Bristol. I decided to add the entry when updating the entry on the college. My colleague, John Bimson, wrote The Times obituary, which was my principal external source. I met Joyce once in the early 1990s, when she revisited the college. As one of the best published women evangelical biblical scholars of her generation, I'm glad Joyce is now in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaltheologian (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Cryx88 have been blocked. He/Her cant edit the Wiki articles. Please help to unbloch her/him. He did an excellent work, created several articles, he/her was vwery useful author. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.124.82 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Beale

Thank you for your addition of the middle name to this article. Just to satisfy my curiosity, is it listed in one of the articles I already cited? I wasn't able to spot it. Also, thank you for your input at the DYK nomination. Jujutacular (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gothard

I laughed at your edit summary. Thanks for catching the juxtaposition. American Eagle (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking article.

Did you knew that mocking the King was part of some ceremonies in ancient Mesopotamia, in spring. Hafspajen (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Talk:Ken Ham, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Ken Ham. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. MrBill3 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions Notification

Please carefully read the following notice:

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.

Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.

Please note that any edits you make to Talk:Ken Ham advocating that facts are just opinions in defiance of policy or at any other articles or talkpages related to creationism are subject to this sanction.

jps (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to edit: "we don't need references in the lead anyway."

Might I ask why you would think we do not need references in the lead? I must stress that on Wikipedia, it is a necessity that our information is sourced unless it is considered common knowledge. Many of the people that read Wikipedia regarding the Crimean affair will have no idea how what is said in the 2nd paragraph is true. Also, I must please ask that before you revert edits, you go to the appropriate section in the Talk page where I have listed this issue. I have undone your edit for the time being due to these facts and in no way am personally attacking you. If you would like to see the tag removed, please explain in full detail here: Thanks! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 23:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I should have specified the guideline I was referring to - WP:CITELEAD. St Anselm (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rigveda

Hopefully I've made up for my carelessness here - convinced a new editor they need to follow WP:ERA! Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 NAB Challenge

I've taken your suggestion and nominated 2014 NAB Challenge for deletion to drive a definitive discussion on the matter. If you wish to get involved in the discussion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_NAB_Challenge. Aspirex (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but deletion discussions normally start afresh - I have reverted the copy and paste. You can summarise your reasons at the top of the page. St Anselm (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]