User talk:Georgereev118118

So, what's going on now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We haven't spoken in a long time, which is largely my fault. What's up? Any help needed? Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

George, I know you're still active. Why aren't you responding to me? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well tell me if you need any help! Haha, school's starting in a few weeks and I'm driving north soon, but I should be able to help in this small window before SATs, APs, work and outings consume my internet time. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond, I've been driving to Connecticut from Florida the last two days and this is my first time on a computer since. Refreshing and purging the page hasn't helped? Hmm. I can't be sure if I'm looking at it or not, is it the History section starting with when it was built and ending the Forward in Faith? If this isn't it, tell me and I'll try and see. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I can see all of those. I'm afraid I don't know why you can't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding religion cats

I have just reverted a few of your edits, adding a athiest tag or whatever religion is a important thing, unless the living person has expressed it in public or it is a very strong citation we usually don't tag them like that. As far as I am aware. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, did you see my message? Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on adding it, I would request you add the citation correctly, as it was a mees before and that you add the specific quotation from him stating that he is a commited practising whatever christian as a note to confirm this.You have to take care adding this sort of thing. Is is easy to add chatholic or whatever, but we need confirmation from them that they are. There religion may not be relevant to them at all. Please keep all this discussion here to keep it readable, ta Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep all discussion here. I am not going to do it for you, I disagree with adding it, I would also request it be removed until the notes is added with him declaring his religiousness himself. Off2riorob (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

stop being awkward and tell me at least Georgereev118118 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't mean to be alkward, what is the quote from him saying exactly as a quote regarding his religion from the book? Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

it says that blair was mainly surrounded by atheists apart from lord adonis who was a devout anglo catholicGeorgereev118118 (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is according to someone else, he has not declared it himself has he? Please stop adding uncited material regarding this issue, it is a BLP protection issue. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying that up. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Perhaps you should re evaluate your editing style as a lot of your edits are being reverted, your recent edits to Gerry Adams and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom have been reverted and I was looking at your addition to Andrew_Adonis,_Baron_Adonis and considering it as well. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also you added this...However, he has never spoken himself about his faith in public...and yet you want to add it to his bio, when he himself has never mentioned it in public? Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Georgereev118118! 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 insure 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 937 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Jeremy Gardiner - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of All Saints' Church, Dulverton

A tag has been placed on All Saints' Church, Dulverton 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. CynofGavuf 09:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So, George

I see you've switched to supporting Labour. When did that turn-around finally happen?

• sigh* Look, I really want you to know that I'm terribly sorry for the altercation we had a few years back but I am still active and available as a guide in any way you need here, okay? I was honestly too young and too obsessive to be an efficient adopter when I took you on but I'm certain that I would be able to help in a positive way now. I'm not on quite as frequently as I used to be but I still pop in at least once a day to check my main watchlist items. Please message me if you'd like some form of resurgence in this. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Prescott's religion

My understanding i that the infobox and lead are supposed to summarise the article as a whole, Prescott's religion - or lack of it - is not mentioned anywhere else in teh article. Nor do I think that you can necessarily equate someone saying they are not religious in that sort of context with a hard and fast description of him having no religion, and certianly not being an atheist. Please reconsider your edit - and remember WP:BRD - if you are reverted, you should start a discussion, not revert straight back yourself. it strikes me this is rather simialr to the ongoing discussion about Prescott's nationality, in both cases, one mention of religion or nationality is being used to try and place a definite lable, which gives a one-off statement afr more weight than it can take. David Underdown (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Clegg

I reverted your edit again . please don't reinsert it we have had plenty of discussion about it, WP:BRD move to discussion, thanbks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that your religious tagging and non religios tagging of living people it a pattern and is often reverted , please take your time a bit more and as I suggest, use discussion if you are being reverted repeatedly, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Nick Clegg. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Why is it so important to you that the infobox on Nick Clegg show "Atheist"? Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to James Callaghan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. If you're going to replace sourced material with unsourced, you should at least have the courtesy to discuss the matter on the Talk page before doing so. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jeremy Gardiner

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jeremy Gardiner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/jeremy_gardiner. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)