User talk:Bolton007

If anyone is interested Bolton007 (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This can be a rough place, here at Wikipedia! Glad you are back. Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your article looks very good, but why are you using two boxes on my page? Please don't. I removed one I thought. Why not make a box on your page and use that?

I have too many boxes and it is mixing me up. I have to clean up my pages because I can't find anything any more. That is the reason I am asking you this. I have to fix up all my pages as they are much too confusing!

My talk page looks awful, I agree. My life must be changed!

Sincerely, Mattisse 15:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will help you out in any way I can. I looked at the article briefly (didn't have time for detail at the present) but it looks good.

I love your user page. It is beautiful and open as your are. Your sincere friend, --Mattisse 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What wikify means specifically is mainly to put in links. You should put a link for the first use of every significant word or phrase that has an article., like death, Just the first, just the significant. Go do it, and I'll check. Second, it means writing the lead sentence & using subheadings the way they are used in WP, with the subject of the article in the first few words in bold & the subheadings as short as possible. I've started on that. The refs need some additional work: each book needs an ISBN--get from Worldcat or Amazon. The Journal names should go as links if there is a WP article, otherwise in bold, try to put a link to electronic versions even if you cant actually get to read the whole article. I'll check.

More important, though, is that the article is still written more like an essay than an encyclopedia article--the writing should be more compact, without general introductory or transition statements, and unnecessary sentences and words. I'll do a little to show you--it's easier to see by example. The usual phrase is "omit needless words". Try to think of it not as an essay based on sources, but as a report on what the sources say. This is different from school.

There are also some grammar problems-- check that you're using the right preposition--this is one of the trickier aspects of English. DGG 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you. That is not it at all. I have just been very busy and caught up in what I am doing. The Yahoo group invitation was confusing as I have never been in any group, Yahoo or otherwise, so I am not sure how that works. But I am always very happy to hear from you. Always! Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do like your website. Now that I think of it, you asked me for my credentials. Is that what you are referring to? I think I would want to know where they were going to be, as I don't want any connect with Wikipedia and the real me. I will remember to check my email more often -- I forget about it and forget to do things people ask. I am sorry. I will check my email again. Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not working on your introduction. In fact, I do not even know where it is. I got so embroiled in wikipedia events. Do you still need it worked on? I can get the copy from my email (did you not email me a copy?) and seriously work on it now. I am so sorry. Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it is in Mattisse/2? I wonder how to find it. I will look around. If you are still here now, to something to Mattisse/2 so I will see where it is by my watchlist! --Mattisse 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't know that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisse (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC) --Mattisse 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will try to write an article on Wikipedia that includes your book.

Yes, I can check the sentence structures of your book for any gross mistakes. (I have to admit though, the reason that I did not work on Mattisse/2 is that I did not understand it.) But regarding your book, I can try to check sentence structure without changing your meaning. Where is your book? Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks! --Mattisse 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I just did. In terms of the layout, I do not know how the book publisher wants it. I can go through the text and correct it. Do you want me to email it back to you? How much time do I have? --Mattisse 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look in User:Mattisse/other2. I also sent you an email. --Mattisse 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I have to do it on Wikipedia in User:Mattisse/other2 as I do not have a text editor on my computer except Notepad.exe. Also, I don't understand everything you are saying. I'll do my best. --Mattisse 23:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it all but I am not sure. I lost my place in the text. Let me know. Mattisse 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will help you any way in the future. (This has been a stressful week for me.) Thanks for being tolerant! Mattisse 17:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Mattisse 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your question. (I'm having trouble with my internet connection so if I suddenly can't answer, that is why!) I don't understand you question on my talk page. It is your article. Maybe you could clarify. Mattisse 13:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about what to write.

• Do you want a few sentences about my general feelings regarding what you are saying? (I don't think I could do much more because I don't quite understand all of it.)
• Do you want me to proof the section that are going in the book in what you have written above? --Mattisse 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book written by a deeply compassionate man who is seeking to understand the human concept of death and its effects on the life we are living now. His words provoke deep meditation about painful issues that we would rather avoid - our own death and the deaths of those around us. Because the author is so startlingly honest in communicating his own journey, the book is also soothing because there is truth to what he is saying as well as a sense of hope.

Mattisse 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aim of my edits was mainly to tinker with grammar etc. Also the article is/was a bit long in my humble opinion. So feel free to alter any bits where you think I have misunderstood your argument, while still trying to keep it concise.

Wikipedia is mainly concerned with whether ideas have been discussed by people independent of the originator. Could you possibly link me to comments about your theories online in journals, written by other professions, so I can read them, or let me know where I can find them? Or could you link me to or tell me the name of other people's journals in which your ideas have been published, so I can find them? This is the best source of your articles I can find so far [1] which is great, but we really need to see the versions which are in peer-reviewed journals to be really useful for wikipedia, rather than self-published.

This article could be great but it mainly centres on Christianity and Islam at the moment. It would be great if it could discuss other cultures/main religions, or maybe just include Judaism too so it covered all the religions of the Book, the monotheistic religions. special, random, Merkinsmum 12:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, has this review been published yet? Please could you tell me which issue it was in, I can't seem to find it mentioned here [2] which lists what's in each issue.special, random, Merkinsmum 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are great but the ones on ezine are not peer-reviewed. The Iowa ones are the best for your reputation as you know, and the best to mention on wiki. You and your colleagues really would benefit in getting more of the articles about your theories in professional journals- I'm sure if you submitted them, they might be accepted, as the quality of the work/writing seems good. special, random, Merkinsmum 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been off-wiki. I am hoping that my courage to edit articles will return soon. Now wiki seems like a fearful place. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Death and Adjustment Hypotheses, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death and Adjustment Hypotheses (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I've put together, very quickly, a suggestion of what an article that's closer to surviving AfD at User:Tevildo/QND might be like. DO NOT COPY THIS TO THE MAINSPACE AS IT STANDS; it's very likely to be G4'd, as I've just copied the text from the deleted article with only minimal editing. However, you can copy it to your own userspace, or work on it where it is. One problem with it is that we only have one external source, the Death Studies review. I've added the other link you mentioned, but you'll need to make clear where it's derived from - if it's used in a college course, details of that will be needed. Better still would be some more reviews or similar mentions in third-party sources. I've used your direct quote for the "Overview" section; I could re-write that to make it a bit more accessible if you think that would help. The important thing for now, though, is to get some more third-party references. Tevildo (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional reference - the synopsis there is something that could usefully be rewritten for the final article. However, before we start on the text, we're still going to need some more substantial sourcing. On the McGraw-Hill reference, do you know who actually wrote it, and whereabouts it's available from on their site? The issue at this stage is not so much the quality of the article, as the quality of the sources. We're nearly there, but I wouldn't be confident that we'd get through another AfD with the material we have so far. I'm sorry that this isn't proving easy, but we do need to keep to the standards. Tevildo (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your recent comment, but - to be honest - I don't think we really have enough to survive another AfD, or, indeed, a G4. I'm sure your book is a very useful and interesting addition to the work on the traditionally difficult, at least in the Western tradition, subject of death and our attitude to it, but it, unfortunately, hasn't really gained enough attention to merit its own article as things stand. If it does come to greater prominence, or if - as I sincerely hope will happen - your talents enable you to pass WP:PROF in your own right, then we can have an article. But that time hasn't come, yet. My apologies again. Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please tread carefully with respect to Bircham International University, they are engaged in a years-long campaign to sanitise the article on them and are certainly not above using very carefully worded statements to imply a legitimacy which the reliable independent sources state that they lack. I'd hate for someone to be dragged into their attempts to whitewash their article and improve their Google results. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have made a good start on Medical College for Women and Hospital. However, the only source seems to be the institution itself, which is not a sufficient basis for notability of the topic or verifiability of the content. We cannot get very far in improving the article until there is an independent source to verify some of the information.

What is the relationship between this institution and Sikder Women’s Medical College in Dhaka? Are these different names for the same institution? According to its website, it was founded in 1992, which is the same date given in the article that you contributed. --Orlady (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bircham International University. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Orlady (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who is running the various anonymous IPs who have been repeatedly deleting content at Bircham International University, the repeated deletion of content there is disruptive to Wikipedia and should not be allowed to continue. Your theory that paper-published content no longer exists when it is taken offline is amusing, but it is not the way Wikipedia operates. If you and/or the various IPs continue to try to enforce your unorthodox point of view by deleting valid content, you can expect your editing access to be blocked. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Theories of death anxiety is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theories of death anxiety until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Murals MCWH.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:MCWH Murals.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Samir Hossain article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. You may refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information on the improvement of references. ♪♫•*wOwIndia^talk 07:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mohammad Samir Hossain.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bolton007. You have new messages at WOWIndian's talk page.
Message added 14:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mohammad Samir Hossain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Photo of Dr Samir.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medical College for Women and Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Death anxiety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MS Hossain.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mohammad Samir Hossain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SSC and HSC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your message, but I don't think the revised article will survive a WP:G4 (although I've not nominated it myself). The main issue is that your theory has not achieved notability, so fails WP:GNG as a candidate for an article. Sorry not to be more encouraging. Tevildo (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death and adjustment hypotheses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charleston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Medical College for Women and Hospital.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 "Click here to 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bircham International University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Master. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bolton007. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bolton007. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]