User talk:Bacl-presby

This user may have left Wikipedia. Bacl-presby has not edited Wikipedia since September 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Blocked out[edit]

This is the key reason I am not doing many revisions of articles on Wikipedia anymore. This episode occured in May 2006, and left a bad taste in my mouth.Bacl-presby (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal[reply]

Restoring deleted comment

Hello Bacl-presby. Could you kindly explain what all of this is about?

20:34, May 24, 2006 (removing afd tag from an article)
20:36, May 24, 2006 (delisting a live AFD discussion)
20:40, May 24, 2006 (page blanking)
20:45, May 24, 2006 (bizarre pagemove)
15:49, May 25, 2006 (removing my questions from this talk page)

Thanks. — May. 25, '06 [06:08] <freak|talk>

Well folks, I guess I did it this time!! I'm Blocked from wiki...for how long?---24 hours!

Oops!

Bacl-presby 16:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I now know what to do when someone is vandalizing (in my opinion) an article!!

Bacl-presby 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the no name Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal with only 405 hits on google is once again re-listed as an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as of May 24; vote now, vote often, but don't let a moderator censor your vote, even if he/she/it is halfway around the world!!

Bacl-presby 18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a deleted comment....whose deleted comment(s), not mine!! These were both removed from the discussion yesterday, so I purged the whole Afd and p-o'd someone.....

"nn Church in Montreal?? Bacl-presby 16:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"

"nn (no name??) Church in Montreal?? You must be kidding!! And now editing out the original poster's entries--shame! shame! Bacl-presby 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"

Bacl-presby 21:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could include the "offending comments" from the AfD request as well

"Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal

An article about an nn church in Montreal. Contains no information about why it is at all notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 405 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant)*

05:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC) "

BTW, Is Páll aka PZFUN? Bacl-presby 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is quite ridiculous that this article was nominated for deletion, and that it was clearly done by someone who actually knew nothing about the subject. However, the proper procedure is to write a cogent explanation of why it should be kept, not to blank the VfD debate and remove the AfD header. When presented with the facts, the Wikipedia community will almost always come to the correct decision. - SimonP 03:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And nn does not mean "no name", it means "non-notable". It is a part of our special Wikipedia vocabulary, which you must know - by heart - before ever reading any Wikipedia page whose address starts with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: again. 155.69.5.235 08:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 155.69..... I guess that I didn't realize that nn stood for Non-notable...Bacl-presby 23:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the saddle again[edit]

Once again, I'm back, a little repentant, but concerned that the moderator who banned me, never replied to my e-mail. Thanks to the folks who have assisted. I must ask openly, if there is a problem with any of my postings, to use this forum (or otherwise) to object if a posting seems out of kilter. BTW, if I find obvious vandalism done to any posting, I know which moderator to contact ASAP!! Bacl-presby 23:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you were blocked[edit]

Hi, I got your email message. I wanted to clarify, on behalf of others, why you were blocked. Note that I have not spoken with them, so what I write here is my interpretation only.

First, you removed an AfD template from an article. This is considered vandalism; you shouldn't do that. If you disagree with an AfD, say so in the AfD page, and give reasons why the article should not be deleted.

Second, you blanked the AfD discussion. Again, this is vandalism. AfDs are designed to allow editors to debate the merits of an article's inclusion in Wikipedia. Blanking it can be viewed as an attempt to censor that discussion.

Third, you moved the AfD page. This is blatant vandalism, and should never be done. As with my second point, this may be viwed as an attempt to censor or derail a worthwhile debate about the article.

Fourth, removing the admin's comments from your talk page indicate that you're unwilling to discuss issues with other users. Wikipedia is about debating issues and achieving consensus. You've been here long enough that you should be familiar with that mantra by now.

You are right about one thing - it would have been better if the user that had nominated the article for deletion had informed you about it. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. However, if you keep articles in your watchlist, you should notice such actions.

You've made useful contributions to Wikipedia, but the behaviour you exhibited in this regard was simply inexcusable. The admin that blocked you had every right to do so, and used the privileges granted to him as an admin judiciously. I wholly support the short block that was placed on you (it should have expired by now).

In the future, it's best to engage in a meaningful discussion, through which other Wikipedians can understand your reasoning, and maybe even agree with you, than it is to act in a petulant manner. Vandalising Wikipedia will likely result in other editors taking you less seriously, and perhaps dismissing your arguments. That doesn't help your cause, does it?

Again, you've made good contributions to Wikipedia, and we'd like to see that continue. Mind matrix 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: You should add your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal. Please follow the AfD guidelines: Guide to deletion (especially the discussion section). Mind matrix 15:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU for the clarification,

I'm sorry,

and I've posted my comments to the AfD.Bacl-presby 23:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal[edit]

You'll likely be pleased to hear that the afd on this church stub has been closed as keep. — May. 29, '06 [05:27] <freak|talk> Good! Bacl-presby 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bacl-presby. You have new messages at Talk:Daniel Band.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Member assessment at the Canadian Roads Wikiproject[edit]

Hello,
In order to better assess the activity at the Canadian Roads WikiProject, all members that had an Active status have been changed to Pending. If you are still interested in assisting the project, fielding inquiries by fellow editors, and participating in group discussions, please visit WP:WikiProject Canada Roads/Participants and change the {{Partial|Pending}} beside your username to {{Yes|Active}}.

On February 28, the remaining users that are listed as pending will be switched to inactive.

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Calvin Presbyterian Church (Toronto)[edit]

The article Calvin Presbyterian Church (Toronto) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

does not meet notability level - WP:ORG

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. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Leaskdale) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Leaskdale) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Leaskdale) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]