User talk:Gallup

Welcome!

Hello, Gallup, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 00:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References for "Scientology History of Man"

Hey there! I love the "Scientology History of Man" article, but you'll need to cite some sources for a lot of those statements.... I'll stick a few in myself, but do try to provide citations for this stuff. Otherwise, looks good! wikipediatrix 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Ric Romero

Hi there. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Ric Romero (engineer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Ric Romero (engineer). If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —ERcheck @ 05:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Hi, I noticed that you created the new article Scientology Timeline. Please don't forget, when you create a new Scientology-related article, to put it in Category:Scientology by using a category tag. The following tag:

[[Category:Scientology|Timeline, Scientology]]

will put the article in the category, sorted under "T". It's actually more important to put the category tag on an article than to put the ScientologySeries template on it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BNLWRP

I see that you created the article BNLWRP. However, the article does not give the spelled-out version of this acronym. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) it is generally preferable to spell out the abbreviation as the article title (you can accomplish this by using the "move" button to move the page to the full spelled-out title; a redirect will automatically be placed on the abbreviation's page). I figured out that the NLW in the name stands for "Non-Lethal Weapons" but the B, R, and P have me puzzled. --Metropolitan90 06:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Shell

Hi there-- though Ms. Shell was quoted in an article that appeared in a Scientology publication, there is no indication that she and her site are affiliated with that group. You can cite the article, but claiming an association needs to be attributed. Thanks! Jokestress 18:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just removed your assertion that she has "ties" to Scientology again. The two citation you added were redundant copies of an existing article in the refs. Those do not prove she is a member of that group. You need to be very accurate in matters like this, especially when writing about litigious people. She will go after you, not Wikipedia, if you continue to post unsourced statements that may be considered libel. Jokestress 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for the heads up, i was hoping other people would hop in and add any missing info. I read on digg.com's review of her current lawsuit against archive.org today that she as admitted ties to Scientology before in her yahoo group, just don't have time to do all the research yet. I will refrain from posting on this again till I dig up all of the ties, unless someone else has the free time to beat me to it. --Gallup 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ongoing research on this. We do not post rumors about people here. If you have a published, reliable source per WP:ATT, we can mention it. Just because a bunch of anonymous people on Digg claim something doesn't mean it's true. Her forwarding an email does not mean she has "ties" to Scientology. I removed your talk page comment per WP:BLP, but if you have a published source, we can absolutely discuss how to include it. Thanks. Jokestress 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood the use of the discussion page, I was putting out what I found so far in hopes of others doing more research and discussing. No matter, though, as I checked pretty thoroughly and seems to be an unfounded rumor based on circumstansial evidence. Posted my 2 cents on this issue under your comment in discussion page, which I am sure IS a proper use of the discussion page! Thanks for your help. --Gallup 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are well aware, there were no personal attacks in the article and I did not violate any wikipedia policies. Your speedy deletion of a sourced and notable article was in violation of wikipedia policy. I have recreated the article, as it fits all wikipedia guidelines. --Gallup 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Underdown

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article James Underdown, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Gallup! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Edward Hammond (scientist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project

The article Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of passing WP:NORG/GNG. BEFORE does not show any in-depth coverage, few mentions in passing at most. Note: it is a publisher, so it does get a good amount of google hits. But there is no in-depth coverage, or even in passing, all I see are citations to it plus WP:SPS publications. No referenced content to merge. No good redirect target (it is not mentioned in any other article), so it fails WP:R#PLA.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Edward Hammond (researcher) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edward Hammond (researcher) 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/Edward Hammond (researcher) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Don't call me shorely (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]