User talk:Thebestlaidplans

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Paul G. Hewitt, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jaredbelch 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Paul G. Hewitt. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Neranei (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brian Swaldo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Brian Swaldo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Brian Swaldo

A tag has been placed on Brian Swaldo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Swaldini.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Swaldini.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) 04:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Brian Swaldo

A tag has been placed on Brian Swaldo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Brian Swaldo

An editor has nominated Brian Swaldo, 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/Brian Swaldo 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) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Swaldini.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Swaldini.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Core desat 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian swaldo

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brian swaldo, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.molinu.org/brian_swaldo. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Brian swaldo

A tag has been placed on Brian swaldo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Mutation appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant portion of the policy is WP:UNDUE. All the best, Tim Vickers (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Thebestlaidplans, and welcome 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Say Headcheese!--hexa Chord ² 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on Mormonism worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Say Headcheese!--hexa Chord ² 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Mormonism. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Say Headcheese!--hexa Chord ² 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HexaChord is correct. You need to be aware of our policy restricting editors to a maximum of three reversions per day, which can lead to blocking as well. As I indicated in my first edit summary, please discuss the material you want to add on the talk page of the article, and ensure that you supply references for the material that you want to add. Risker (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Mormonism

Again: Source your additions! Say Headcheese!--hexa Chord ² 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God in Christianity

Hi -- I reverted your edit. It was theologically sound but may need better wording, placement, or citations (really all three I think). In any case, I appreciate your bringing the article to my attention and I'd like to work with you to correct it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, although I agree with the theology you are trying to reflect, I cannot disagree with the statement you are eliminating because Jesus used it of himself in Revelation 3:14. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the article was trying to make of it. I was only dealing with one thing at a time -- in this case your action based on the assertion that the New Testament makes no such statement. That was the reason for the revert -- because your premise was flawed, not your theology. In any case, the article needs a good bit of work. I hope to be able to contribute some this week, but may not be able to. Funny thing, I used to have a lot of time with a two hour each way commute and a full time job... and now that I'm laid off I have no time at all! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a recap -- hope you're doing well. I think that what people make of beginning is up to them. It can be foundation, origin, ruler, first of a series, etc. Most translations -- including my own -- simply say "beginning" and leave the theology to the theologians. Translators are merely supposed to translate (never a perfect science). Wikipedia editors are merely supposed to report. Yes, the context of the article implied a non-orthodox interpretation, but that only meant that the context needed to be changed, instead of the text. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 2008

With regards to this edit, you may wish to have a read of our policy with regards to Sockpuppets WP:SOCK. Ta Shot info (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the page and protected it, as User:Godlovestruth has an indef block for sock puppetry. This may be another one. dougweller (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]