User talk:RobertMadugba

Welcome

Hello, RobertMadugba, 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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Protrepsis

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Protrepsis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

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. Passportguy (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently protrepsis merited an entry. Thanks for raising your concern, however. Case closed. RobertMadugba (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Advertisement

Hi RobertMadugba! The article, quite simply, reads like an advertisement, and I'm not talking about specific sentences, but the entire content and structure. For example, the entire "Three Assumptions underlying Methodology" section, directly copied from the site, needs to go, not only as promotional but also as a clear copyright violation. The section "Response to the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research" is also highly promotional, quoting JSSR officials and other primary sources praising the school. The first paragraph of the article also needs to go, as it is a direct quote from the school's website, which is inherently promotional. In fact, I can see very little in the article that can be salvaged, and if the issue is not addressed, will put it up for deletion. If you take an interest in the subject, please review our neutral point of view policy and rewrite the article accordingly. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Good work on the article. It still needs improvements though. I have listed a couple of concerns on the talk page. On a side note, please don't forget to sign your comments when you write something on a talk page. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JSSR entry has by now been vindicated. Thanks for the earlier raised concerns. RobertMadugba (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jerusalem Council II

The article Jerusalem Council II has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable and non-notable event or organization. No sources provided, fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this entry is as of yet not mature enough to be published. Removal is accepted. RobertMadugba (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Dear Robert, the article Cup of Salvation has been proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cup_of_Salvation) could you please help me out? --Omer Toledano (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Omer Toledano, I concur with the editors that removed the article. I see no reason for such a book to have a wiki page. RobertMadugba (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia

It's out of copyright and is extensively used around Wikipedia for that very reason. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More information here: Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dweller, thanks for the link. I assumed that one needed to reference the source within the body text with a footnote, not simply a source on the bottom. I see it is wikipedia's policy--alas. I stand corrected. RobertMadugba (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment about giving a student an F, there are many ways that Wikipedia differs from academic work. One of which is that Wikipedia does not have opinions. Another is that we expect articles to be in WP:Summary style, rather than lavish detail which an academic piece can permit. Hope this is helpful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dweller, my sole reference to the F was the case of plagiarism. This has now been resolved as noted. Again, thank you for pointing it out. RobertMadugba (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vilm 1 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Vilm 1, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vilm 1 (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mcguy15 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vilm 1 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vilm 1, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RobertMadugba! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Vilm 1

Hello, RobertMadugba. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vilm 1, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]