User talk:Greg Aharonian
Same-sex marriage and procreation[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Same-sex marriage and procreation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Same-sex marriage and procreation. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Same-sex marriage and procreation[edit]
I have nominated Same-sex marriage and procreation, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Same-sex marriage and procreation. 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. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You got a raw deal[edit]
Some administrator named "krimpet" deleted your article without any comment. You should definitely ask for a deletion review. I think it's ridiculous. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
How do I ask for a deletion review?[edit]
Mandsford, how do I ask for a deletion review?
Your recent edits[edit]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Same-sex procreation[edit]
Glad I could help. I put in a word on krimpet's page as well, and I'm glad you were able to persuade him to reconsider. I think you've got a good article going. Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. Can you go back and correct the referencing in this article? If you need help read WP:CITE & WP:FOOT. I added the reference section at the bottom of the article so your citations will automatically show up there. The way you're doing it right now isn't the normal practice of WP articles. If you need help, let me or someone else know. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is the normal practice an absolute, draconian requirement? If not, I would like to keep it as is. Personally, I always find it irritating to have to click on a reference link to find out what the reference actually is. It is very disruptive ergonomically, since I lose my train of thought with regards to the paragraph in which the reference appears. Now, in cases where there are multiple references at the end of the sentence, I can see the use of listing them at the bottom. But when there is one reference, it is less disruptive to my thinking about what I am reading to leave the reference inline. Otherwise, I have to click to jump down to the reference at the bottom, and then click back. --Greg Aharonian (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'd classify it as a draconian requirement, but all articles on WP follow (are supposed to) that guideline. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is the normal practice an absolute, draconian requirement? If not, I would like to keep it as is. Personally, I always find it irritating to have to click on a reference link to find out what the reference actually is. It is very disruptive ergonomically, since I lose my train of thought with regards to the paragraph in which the reference appears. Now, in cases where there are multiple references at the end of the sentence, I can see the use of listing them at the bottom. But when there is one reference, it is less disruptive to my thinking about what I am reading to leave the reference inline. Otherwise, I have to click to jump down to the reference at the bottom, and then click back. --Greg Aharonian (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let me experiment with converting a few of them to references. --Greg Aharonian (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Same-sex marriage and procreation[edit]
I have nominated Same-sex marriage and procreation, 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/Same-sex marriage and procreation (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. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)