User talk:Zad68/Archive 2011

Speedy deletion declined: Zora Andrich

Hello Zad68. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zora Andrich, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. GedUK  21:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Thanks for your work on Messianic Judaism. Still not perfect, but the organizational changes and cleanup you did makes it much more readable. --DeknMike (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I am glad you found the edits valuable! Zad68 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISCLAIM

Please talk before you delete/edit when a discussion is going on. Anyway, what has this policy got to do with whether articles should describe minority views? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Messianic Jewish organizations

I have removed the prod tag you placed on List of Messianic Jewish organizations, as it was discussed at AfD in 2007 and is therefore permanently ineligible for deletion via prod. I only did this to comply with policy, and have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of deletion. If you wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure you want to use the justification "directly lifted from each organization's own promotional copy in its web sites"? Most of the anti-missionary articles on Wikipedia have similar or even less-well-sourced references, and I've been told many times those sources were viable and valid (even the ones with a single editor expousing opinions). For example, Proselytization and counter-proselytization of Jews has six such sources in paragraph form that are less neutral than this list.--DeknMike (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies apply to all articles, regardless of their subject. You must take into account what statement you are trying to use the source to support to see if it is appropriate to use it. Please review WP:RS and WP:PSTS. Zad68 (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi

I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zad68

I wasn't notified of this canvas, but don't have an enormous issue with it.

1. 01:00, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Zad68 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
2. 00:55, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:PiMaster3 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
3. 00:54, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Kauffner ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
4. 00:53, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:StAnselm ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
5. 00:53, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:IZAK ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
6. 00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
7. 00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Debresser ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section)
8. 00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jayjg ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section)
9. 00:51, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Musashiaharon ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
10. 00:50, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Mzk1 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)

However like other editors I decide what goes on my Talk page, so with all respect I have moved it back to Lisa's. 03:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)