User talk:Clan-destine
Church of Reality
[edit]The best thing to do would be to write up a detailed and polite request at the Wikipedia:Deletion review. The key issue will be whether it is "notable" enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. If I were you, I would emphasize:
- number of people involved
- whether it has attracted attention by those outside of it in any significant amount (mentioned in mainstream presses would be the biggest thing)
- some plausible argument for why it would have been seen as non-notable once but is notable now (there are options for this—one is that those who voted against it were simply wrong, another is that its notability has changed since it was last up for a vote, another, and the one that I personally would try if I were you, is that its notability was borderline at the time but the tactics used by Perkel and his forum members were antagonistic and unfortunately colored the opinions of the Wikipedians against it).
I would not emphasize it on the lines of subject matter (nobody here ever disputed it on the basis of subject matter and honestly almost nobody cares about the specifics in cases like this, myself included). If you can establish that the site/church/whatever can fit under our notability guidelines, and do so politely and in good faith, then your chances of getting an article on it (one written within our content guidelines, which you seem to understand well enough) are fairly good. If the request comes off as entitled, if it smacks of conspiracy theories (i.e. Wikipedia is oppressing CoR because it is full of religious zealots), or if it includes a hundred votes from brand new users, it will probably fail. I can see you have thought about this aspect of it from your post but I thought I would just emphasize that.
Even a very carefully worded request may fail. Such is how things like this sometimes work around here—(what I consider to be) reason does not always win out. There is no way around this, because these sorts of community hearings are the way things work on here. So it will be somewhat of a gamble even under ideal circumstances, and you should know this before investing too much energy into it.
I did not think the CoR was "notable" when the article was first created. Things may have changed since then. Also, I am always happy to change my mind about things. Despite Perkel's thoughts to the contrary, I am actually a pretty reasonable person. I do not agree with the tenets of the CoR, but not on the grounds that I am religious (I am an agnostic and am more cautious about what is defined as "reality" and how one knows what that is supposed to mean than Perkel is). Regardless, I edit many articles on people and organizations on which I do not agree with the tenets they espoused and I do not think that this seriously inhibits my neutrality on such topics.
These are just my thoughts on it, the best of luck to you. You may feel free to contact me if you have any questions, either on the wiki or by e-mail (fastfission@gmail.com). --Fastfission 20:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the advice. I will take it all to heart when and if I attempt to create the article. You did seem to be reasonable with Perkel and I agree that his tactics and misunderstandings about the Wikipedia contributed much to coloring the community against him. I will be certain to mention this in the deletion review because I think, aside from his unencyclopedic writing style, they were the primary reasons no article was published. Thanks again, Clan-destine 01:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Jade Architecture.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Jade Architecture.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Simeon (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Clan-destine. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Clan-destine. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Clan-destine. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Clan-destine profile.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused personal photo. Out of scope.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
