User:North Atlanticist Usonian/Archive 1

"Normally, both your asses would be dead as f*cking fried chicken, but you happen to pull this shit while I'm in a transitional period.

Adam and Steve

Your edits to "Adam and Steve" were unfortunate, because you used an incorrect pseudo-word "Abrahamist"[sic] when you meant "Abrahamic", and anyway "Abrahamic" is not useful in that context because Muslims do not have the book of Genesis in their scriptures, and there is no evidence that Muslims use the slogan. Also, I have no idea what the hell File:SomerSmoking.jpg is, and I really don't care what it is, but I don't want to load it at a high resolution just to leave a comment on your talk page, which is why I had to leave my comment here... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Change on Shia Page

I have reverted your changes because you have introduced typos and eliminated too much contents. Can you please use the discussion page to discuss your intent behind these changes. Thanks much! Xareen (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

EL

Hey, EL=European Leading so the best european time in the year so far. Kante4 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PassaMethod (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Kante4 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My English

 †

Thank you for complimenting my English :) I basically studied English as a foreign language for about 10 or 11 years in school. Also, when I was a child, cartoons channels like Cartoon Network were not dubbed in Romanian (now they are), and movies are still subtitled instead of dubbed over, so I got to hear a lot of English while watching TV. Also, I think the fact that I come from a bilingual Hungarian/Romanian family made me more receptive to other languages. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I really do not think about how pleasant a language is. They are how they are. I can appreciate how a language sounds when I do not understand it, but if I understand the words, I can't judge weather it's pleasant sounding or not. Each language has its ups and downs. I can tell you one thing I find quite unpleasant: English spoken with a thick Romanian accent Example. I probably have that accent when I'm too lazy to pronounce correctly, but it annoys the hell out of me when I hear it in others. I don't know why, as other accents don't bother me. Except maybe English with a Hungarian accent :) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting --Smart30 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Gfoley4's talk page.
Message added 14:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colour

If you want your name to be a different colour then I suggest that you use this method.

This is your signature. Please make sure that the custom signature box is checked, otherwise you'll be left with a looooooooooooong blue link. Also make sure that your sig complies with this guideline. Alternatively, you can check this colour information page.

Any problems let me know.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy this code into your preferences (note: this is only an example)

[[User:PassaMethod|<font color="gold">Passa</font>]][[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="brown">Method</font>]]

Which should look like this:PassaMethod

Thanks PassaMethod (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My text is red.. [[User:PassaMethod|<font color="gold">Passa<font/>]][[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="brown">Method<font/>]] (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know; don't know how it happened. Did you copy the code above? Just highlight the text, right-click and select "Copy" and paste into the Signature bit into your preferences. Also make sure that the custom box is selected (I'll get an inspiration pic in a min).--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 16:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a nightmare. Can you consult someone more experienced than yourself maybe? Everything is red now. [[User:PassaMethod|<font color="gold">Passa<font/>]][[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="brown">Method<font/>]] (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I copied it exactly as you said. [[User:PassaMethod|<font color="gold">Passa<font/>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="brown">Method<font/>]] (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the picture.

The old Preferences page, containing the Signature section .

Please note that this preferences screenshot is outdated.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

When i try to select custom box it says There are problems with some of your input [[User:PassaMethod|<font color="gold">Passa<font/>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="brown">Method<font/>]] (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It also says "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." [[User:PassaMethod|<font color="gold">Passa<font/>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="brown">Method<font/>]] (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not use the alternate codes- copy and paste into the preferences. Alternatively, experiment in a sandbox.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy the code exactly like this (without the nowiki tags) into the Signature box and select the "Treat the above as wiki markup"

[[User:PassaMethod|<font color="gold">Passa</font>]][[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="brown">Method</font>]]

That should be the final nail in the coffin. If you're still stuck then don't hesitate to contact me or place {{helpme}} on your talk page (a.k.a here) --^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Im just going to stick with the original. PassaMethod (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Example: [[User:MassaMethod|<font color="ENTER COLOR" face="ENTER FONT">MazzaMethod</font>]] [[User talk:MassaMethod|<font color="ENTER COLOR" face="ENTER FONT">talk</font>]] Enter this in the sig box and pick the colors/fonts you wish.

Then hit the "Treat above as Wiki markup" button if you haven't already. —GFOLEY FOUR— 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Try Tahoma for the font in the first part, papyrus in the second part. Try maroon for the first font and orange for the second font. —GFOLEY FOUR— 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if it works..... MazzaMethod talk 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets see if it works now.... PassaMethod talk 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yay, it works!! Except for the talk part which is defunct PassaMethod talk 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, any link that links to the page that it is on will appear bold. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Deism

Please stop adding deism distinction headers. They aren't "confused" with atheism or agnosticism in any way, they're totally different concepts. Don't add them without consensus, please. Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ban on Sharia law

Hello. In the article Ban on Sharia law you wrote "...support the creation of federal legislation that would ban the application or implementation of of Islamic law (Sharia) in courts in any jurisdiction in the United States or elsewhere." (emphasis mine). The references only mention a ban in the United States. Are you planning to expand this to cover bans in other countries? Thanks, Shire Reeve (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox model

Please stop adding blank or almost blank copies of {{Infobox model}} to articles. Infoboxes should only be added to articles where they are relevant and blank infoboxes should never be added. Articles should generally only have one infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I echo this comment. For example, Megan Fox is more of an actress these days than she is a model. Therefore, Infobox person suits her better. When you added this, you should have put all the information that was in Infobox person to this infobox as well. If you had, I would not have been as inclined to revert partially on the basis that Infobox person is more informative. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Well, sure. There's a couple of ways of to explain it. One is, this would constitute fairly contentious material, I think. I didn't see any discussion beforehand, and we would need to have to considerable discussion and perhaps an RfC showing a clear community consensus before we want to go down this path. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

If someone is primarily an actress but has done some modeling work, that is not an adequate rationale to change the infobox just so you can add hair and eye color. Please use the model infobox only for people who are primarily models, such as Cindy Crawford. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Basically what I just stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay then. Pass a Method talk 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hayden Panettiere

If most of the work someone does is acting; if a person becomes very well know for acting, but does some modeling work in addition; if most of the Wikipedia article is about the person's acting: that person is primarily an actor, not a model. Hayden Panettiere is an actress. You have to use a little judgment. This isn't rocket science. I would suggest putting aside you focus on hair and eye color unless it is very obvious that the person is a model. Cresix (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah you tell him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.214.75.99 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: What

No, not really but I dont care. My friends know as well as my family. There is a huge community of irreligious people is MENA and many muslim countries. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I havenot told my parents nor my GF parents but the rest knows. The reason I havent told them is because I dont feel like I need to share nor make a statement about my lack of belief in a personal god or afterlife. They are also old and might have a heart attack when I tell them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

Hi, you recently add a quote to Angelina Jolie which I reverted because the reference was not specific so couldn't be verified. I'm sure as a reviewer you are well aware of Biographies of living persons policies. If would like to add the quote please find a specific page link that can be verified. Thanks. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit to African-American article

Hi, PassaMethod.

I can't figure out the sequence of event or edits that led to your undo, but I had made two changes to wording, yielding this paragraph: << In this same period, a smaller number of people favored Afro-American, a common shortening (as is 'Anglo-American'). However, after the decline in popularity of the 'Afro' hairstyle in the late 1970s, many blacks began to be offended by the term 'Afro-American' because of its association with the hairstyle and the time period. . >> I think "decline" is better than "demise" -- the Afro isn't dead -- and I think my change to the end of the sentence is appropriate as well. Let me know if you agree, and if so one of us can put my two changes back.

Thanx/Jo3sampl

Bahrain protests

Excuse me? Why did you revert my edit and accused me of vandalism? I was highly offended by your accusation. My edit was properly sourced and you accused me without reason. Please explain. EkoGraf (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to revert your 1st edit. Your second edit for 36 deaths was false, as the ref did not support the claims. Your ref was also unpunctual. The ref dates to March when we have newer sources. Pass a Method talk 17:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It was not false, I added three sources for those 36 deaths, the first confirming 31 protestors died, the second four policemen died, the third a Saudi soldier died, that is 36. But I understand why it could have been confusing. So now I have added them in a way it could be confirmed that 36 people died. So please read my last edit. If you have a problem with it please discuss before reverting. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You should have expressed it simpler. You said there were 36 deaths, but then i see an outdated March source that says 20(something) deaths. What am i suposed to assume? I did not mean to cause offense. Btw, that should be 35 deaths as that Saudi soldier is among the security officers i think. Pass a Method talk 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Saudi soldier was shot and killed. I added a source that specificly says the four policemen were killed when they were run over by protestors with their cars. The Peninsula Shield Force is specificly a military force, not a police force. The sources don't say for one moment that the Saudi is included among the policemen. And like I said, new source I added specificly says the way those four died which is highly different than how the Saudi died. At this point you would have to add a source which explicitly states that the Saudi was counted among the policemen. The Bahrainis were only stating their own casualties, which were separate of those of the Shield Force. EkoGraf (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they were officially tasked with securing and protecting key infrastructure meaning they were carrying out police duties. Thats where you became confused with terminology. I would still appreciate it if you self-revert, unless you can find distinctive refs distinguishing police deaths from soldier deaths Pass a Method talk 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit though, i could be wrong Pass a Method talk 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand very perfectly. The sources are already quite clear. The refs already distinguish police deaths (all four runned down by cars) from soldier deaths (shot and killed). One source states that four policemen were killed, a source which was talking about Bahrain casualties exclusivly. It doesn't mention even in one moment that the Saudi was counted among them. It doesn't make mention of the Saudi at all. In addition, one more source is provided that torpedoes your theory totaly, and that is that the four policemen reported killed were confirmed to have died after protestors ran them over with their cars. The Saudi was shot and killed. I think that makes it preaty clear that the four were killed by cars while the Saudi was killed by a gun. You cann't be more clearer than that. If you have a source where it is explicitly stated that the Saudi was counted among the four, which would be strange since he died from a bullet and the four died from cars hitting them, than please add that source. In the meantime everything is properly sourced at the moment and I would urge you not to remove properly sourced information. Thank you. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please specify which source says that "all four were run down by cars" ? Thanks Pass a Method talk 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in the reply, watching Game of Thrones on HBO. Here is the source [1]. Will quote it: According to authorities, four police officers were killed after being struck by cars during protests led by the tiny Sunni-ruled kingdom's Shiite majority. Hope it clears it up now. EkoGraf (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph in that ref indicates the four police officers died in seperate events (with two police officers mentioned for 1 court case). So, doesn't this crush your theory? Pass a Method talk 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That Saudi soldier was probably hit by a car and then shot. I've seen youtube footage, but i can't be bothered to find sources though. Pass a Method talk 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, right now you are not following Wikipedia guidelines on verifibility anymore but simply twisting everything so it would seem you are right. Nothing crushing my theory, you saying that the soldier was probably hit by a car and then shot is your personal opinion and could constitute original research since you don't have any sources to back up that claim. I am asking you nicely, please refrain from making up unsourced claims. The sources are clear on the situation. Four Bahrain police officers were ran over by protestors with their cars and the soldier was shot and killed, the sources don't say anything about the soldier being included among the four or even that the soldier was first hit by a car and than shot. I have provided enough sources for my edit, it is now up to you to provide sources for your claims because, like I said, Wikipedia is based on verifibility. My edit has been verified, your claim has not. If you have a problem with that please talk to an administrator for a neutral opinion, but I am telling you you cann't make an unsourced edit. EkoGraf (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Temp

I think that that template is quite flawed in categorizing Humanists, Deists, and Pantheists as necessarily Irreligious. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See also: Template talk:Irreligious people --Cybercobra (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Irreligious people

Template:Irreligious people has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cybercobra (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:April 2011

In my talk you questioned my actions as, " Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Next time, instead of constantly asking for sources as you did here and here why don't you use the google search engine to find refs yourself? Thank you."

Let me add my points here, as also in my talk:

in Talk:Alawi I asked "are Alawis syncretic?" not as a general discussion but as a question that, if mentioning Alawis as syncretic in article lead is valid as there was no citation. Now I see a ref is been added. It seems OK now.

I would have expected a reply in relevant talk instead of here though. :P You confused my review request as forum discussion. So In here I really disagree that the hadith is authentic and I even not asked for source there. I found that the description source, (i.e. the order of who descried the hadith) is not a very strong one and this hadith may be considered as a weak or non-auhtentic hadith to many Islamic scholars. So, my suggestion is to remove this disputable hadith. Only finding a hadith do not make it authentic, there are method of classifying hadith in regard to authenticity.

In case of Alawi my first try to find a good source has failed. It is not others duty to find citations but the editors who introduces some information which requires citations.

According to Wikipedia:Five pillars "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." Next time instead of constantly adding information without citing sources, I think it is better if you, please try to add sources; and as you search engines you already have the sources.

It is better not to advise (or advertise) any specific search engine. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 08:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cenk

Strategy: Find a copyright compatible image by searching for the exact term. It must permit a) commercial reuse and b) modification. If a compatible image cannot be found, ask photographers/uploaders if they are willing to change the copyright. Repeat with less exact terms.

Search term

• Cenk Uygur

Step 1: Google images search - advanced search - license = labeled for commercial reuse with modification [2]

result: [3] nothing

Step 2: Flickr image search - advanced search - only search within creative commons licensed content, commercial reuse and modification [4]

result: [5] junk

Step 3: Flickr image search - advanced search - only search within creative commons licensed content, commercial reuse (not modification) [6]

result: same as above

Step 4: Flickr image search - advanced search - only search within creative commons licensed content, modification (not commercial reuse) [7]

result: [8] and [9] either are possibilities, though not ideal. The Flickr photographer has to be contacted and asked to change their license to not prohibit commercial reuse.

Step 4: Flickr image search - advanced search - only search within creative commons licensed content, (not modification, not commercial reuse) [10]

result: [11] and [12] both appear to be taken from MSNBC's website and thus are 'flicker-washed', not compatible because the original copyright was not compatible before it was changed.

Step 5: Flickr image search - regular search - (do not search only creative commons licensed content) [13]

result: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] several look great but they would all have to have their license changed to allow both commercial use and modification.

Search term

• The Young Turks

result: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] last try, good photos again, but none with the right copyrights, photographers have to be contacted

Ocaasi ^c 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion?

So whats the conclusion? Pass a Method talk 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion is, barring further search, there are images that look good but are not copyright compatible. The photographers need to be contacted individually through Flickr and asked if they will change their licenses. Ocaasi ^c 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the best approach would be to contact either Cenk's press agent, The Young Turks information line, or MSNBC, and ask them for a copyright-free photo that could be used on Wikipedia. They'd probably be happy to provide one. They just have to realize that once they license it, others can sell or modify it (and so can they). Ocaasi ^c 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Arianne Schrodel Station 26 arianne@station26la.com tel 310.584.1207 fax 310.584.1548 cell 213.200.8240 (TYT website). Ocaasi ^c 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy-rights are so annoying. I'm not going to go through all that just to get 1 picture. Google should probably install some new tools to make non-copy-right more accessible because this is useless. Thanks for all the help though. I appreciate it. Pass a Method talk 19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

They're annoying, but I've come around to them a bit. Some people make their living taking photographs, and for the photographers at least, copyrights are meaningful. Also, Wikipedia's license is so radical--anyone can reuse it, mix it, sell it--that it's really important to get copyright correct. It's often worth the effort; don't forget that once an image is included properly, it will be viewed by tens if not hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. There's a lot of leverage there which makes the research worthwhile. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've learnt quite a bit from you. We're all volunteering anyway. Cenk Uygur is a guy i look up to, thats why i thought a pic would look sweet, but not neccessary though. Pass a Method talk 20:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, he's a cool dude. He cracks me up. Try his press agent... I'm sure she wants a photo to be on his Wikipedia page. It's first on the google search for his name [30] and was viewed almost 30,000 times last month alone. Ocaasi ^c 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• A few emails, but one came back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenk_Uygur . The graphiclab is working on the background and lighting, since those are not great. He's not exactly smiling at his best, but it's an image and he looks decent. Ocaasi ^c 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks so much. It looks great. I was too lazy to do it but i guess you have more patience than me. Cenk Uygur is a rare voice of rationality in the media, especially coming from such a conservative background. Pass a Method talk 22:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sectarian

Do you know any reference which states what percentage of deaths of the entire Iraq war consisted of sectarian conflicts? shia/sunni etc. Pass a Method talk 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved this here to keep it in one place. I do not know of any reliable info on percentage of deaths of the entire Iraq war from sectarian conflicts. This discussion might be moved to Talk:Iraq War and Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War. Others might be able to help out. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

bin Laden

Hiya, I accidentally reverted both of your recent edits to the article, when I only meant to revert the second. See the FAQ on the talk page for why we shouldn't call him a terrorist, and also WP:WTA. I didn't mean to revert your edit about his children, apologies! I have restored it with this edit. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem Pass a Method talk 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Block threat

I was highly offended by your assertion that I post unsourced information and took more offensive at your threat of blocking. I have done nothing but trying to establish a neutral figure on the number of dead. The number of 10,000 you are currently forsing was claimed (note claimed) by the rebels, and has not been verified independently by any government or non-goevernmental group. The number of 3,800 I am adding is based, like I said in my edit summery that you probably didn't read, on the verified reports of killed in the table of the article Casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war. If you would read it you would see that me, user Lothar and user Zenithfel have established that despite the rebel claim of 10,000 killed, only a summed up total 3,800 people have been reported killed since the start of the war. The lower toll must be presented so the balance of dead could be presented properly. I am not advocating the removal of the rebel's claimed figure, but I am insisting that a lower toll, which by all acounts is more realistic, be presented so we could remain in line with Wikipedias policy on neutrality (NPOV). I will expect a reply and a proposal so we could try and find some common ground here and a compromise. But, please in the future don't start and threaten people with blocks from the start. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your assertions are a violation a Wikipedia:No original research policy. Pass a Method talk 07:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What assertions? EkoGraf (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR states that "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research", which is exactly what you did, when you said you yourself "have established" the lower figure. Please thoroughly read WP:OR policy to see where i'm coming from. Thanks Pass a Method talk 07:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That article does not contain original research, the fatalities table that has been established and updated by me and two more editors is highly properly sourced. There is nothing made up or unsourced in the table, it's properly sourced. What's the problem? EkoGraf (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You have till now, not provided a source that specifically gives the 3,800 figure. Pass a Method talk 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, than. You want to talk about verifiability. You have not proposed a solution to the grately unbalanced and POV figure that is currently in the article on the Arab uprisings since you are now only letting the rebel figure stand there, which has not been independently confirmed and there is a high probability of it being inflated for propaganda purposes (and the number of deaths that has been reported - 3,800 - just goes further in confirming this). The 10,000 figure is highly unreliable and unverified (and this has been stated in those same articles that report the number - not independently confirmed), and as far as I know, Wikipedia has a rule on reliability and verifibility. The number is neather reliable or verifiable. If you won't include the lower figure than remove the higher figure all together and state in the table something like number of killed unknown, ranging in the thousands and in the totals section put number doesn't include dead from Libyan civil war. Because the article needs to be balanced. I am trying to compromise here. EkoGraf (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of unconstructive arguing here, i think it will be more productive if we used google news: past month results and looked through all the sources. Another useful link for sources is libyan death toll: past month. This might take a little while. Pass a Method talk 08:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already found several sources giving a death toll of 30 000 : [31], [32], [33], [34]. Pass a Method talk 08:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, on closer inspection, most recent sources give figures between 10 000 and 30 000 Pass a Method talk 08:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I already know about those. 10,000-30,000 is based on the 10,000 claim and 30,000 claim. I give up, going to bed, however whatever you do (leave or don't leave the 10,000 figure) do not, and I repeat, do not put the 30,000 figure. Because that one is even more unreliable than the rebels claim since it was given was given by a US government official only a few days after the rebels 10,000 claim. 20,000 dead in three days? I don't think so. EkoGraf (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, do not put 30,000 because than it will be strongly in violation of the NPOV and Verifiability rule, because how come the rebels (who are in the country) claim one day 10,000 dead, than two-three days later a US politician (who is nowhere near Libya) claims 30,000 (20,000 people died in a couple of days)? EkoGraf (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the sources originate from that US politicians claim of 30,000. Multiple references originating from one source don't constitute several sources. Again, one US politicians claim is even more unreliable than the rebels claim. And I am asking you again, 10,000 one day than two days later 30,000? Logic? And that politician himself said maybe which means he isn't sure himself. EkoGraf (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the official is from Tripoli. Its getting quite obvious you are ignorant of wikipedia policy, hence you keep repeating the same lame arguments. I (once again) urge you to read Wikipedia:No original research policy, because you're arguments are textbook violations of wikipedia policies. Pass a Method talk 08:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with certain sources because of "propaganda purposes" (as you put it), you need to go to WP:RSN. Otherwise, your claims are null Pass a Method talk 08:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I should reaffirm that the 10,000 figure does not exactly mean KIA. You should also keep in mind that every day people die in Misrata, Zintan, and Nalut, and most of the deaths like in this week have not been reported by rebel spokesmen. You should also know that the 10k to 30k difference didn't just happen in 2 days worth of fighting, the 30k difference is what nato was keeping track of including by air, and on a specific date they decided to release it. Much like how the Egyptian revolution was originally only 365 deaths at its end, doctors and human rights researchers discovered after investigating more reports from very city in all hospitals, that 854 had actually died. 8.5/3.5 x 3800 = 9,200 would be an egyptian proportion. But we know that Libya is a hell of a lot deadlier than egypt, so its definitely higher than 9000. Zenithfel (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell me, tell EkoGraf. He's the one saying calling for the 3800 figure Pass a Method talk 13:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am saying again, the news reports that are stating the 10,000-30,000 are all based on the 10,000 figure stated by rebels and 30,000 figure stated by the US politician. They are all coming from those two sources. And they are not from the last two weeks like you said, they are from two weeks ago when it was first reported. There have been no reports on an updated toll in the last two weeks. And again, the 30,000 figure was stated only two-three days after the 10,000 figure was claimed by the rebels (a jump of 20,000 in two days). The official who claimed it is not in Tripoli (like you said), he is the US ambassador for Libya, but he is no longer in Libya, he was expelled. At this point I would be more for keeping the 10,000 figure than including the 30,000 figure, because the rebels are certainly better informed on the number of dead since they are on the ground there in the country unlike the politician who is not even there. Plus, the rebel's figure is at least a semi-official figure, while the politicians figure is not eather semi-official or official (it was his personal opinion). And, unlike the politician's figure which was not backed up by anyone, the rebel figure was at least backed up by the French (not surprising). Also, the sources don't say anything about the 30,000 figure being a NATO figure and it was not released by them. In any case, like I already said this morning, I was already dropping the case for the 3,800 figure. Leave the 10,000 figure, but the 30,000 figure is by all accounts unrealistic and is not backed up by any other independent sources, unlike the 10,000 which was backed up by the French government. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

the 10,000 figure was also backed by Iranian sources, Arab sources and several other sources. It is however still obvious you have not read wikipedia guidelines and policies however, seeing how you keep making the same null arguments. Whether content is true/logical is not how wikipedia policy works. Its all about VERIFIABILITY. I dont know how many more times i have to repeat this to you. I have already repeated myself 10 times. Pass a Method talk 17:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I already said three times now, I don't have objections anymore to the 10,000 figure and dropped the 3,800 argument (10,000 wasn't backed by Iranian, Arab and other sources, they reported on the rebel claim, there is a difference, but whatever). The point is I don't have objections on the 10,000 figure, my objections now are on the 30,000 figure which fails on Verifiability more than the 10,000, because it has not been confirmed by anyone except the politician who stated his own opinion based on what he heard and he didn't confirm it but said may be. Also, please watch your language, calling me ignorant is in breach of Wikipedia's policy on civility, I never said for one moment anything to you that could be offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to repeat 3 times, i acknowedged it. However, it seems you are making up your own rules on what WP:Verifiability means. If you want me to take you seriously, please get a decision/consensus from WP:RSN. Pass a Method talk 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Stellas4lunch's talk page.
Message added 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:Verifiable states that 'the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources'. If you buy the Eastern Daily Press on the 30th April, you will be able to verify the story. I believe you are confusing verifiability with the ease thereof. I will revert both articles AGF. Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Personal beliefs

Template:Personal beliefs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cybercobra (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
Message added 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gangsta rap

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Gangsta rap. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Also, please cite sources properly with your future edits, adhering to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Dan56 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. There is nothing explicitly stating what you have added to the article, so please explain. Dan56 (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Talk:Gangsta rap.
Message added 16:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quranism

Hi Method Man,

I have altered the template as you suggested.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Pass a Method talk 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Ebikeguy's talk page.
Message added 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Template

This template is open to discussion and modifications.

New

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at J8079s's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ball (disambiguation), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No but thanks for the invite. Pass a Method talk 05:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. * Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out if you're interest changes.... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Paraceratherium skull

Hi, PassaMethod. I think you intended to ask commons:User:FunkMonk about the skull. The image was not uploaded by me. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Political position of UKIP

Hi PassaMethod - the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. In that debate, an array of sources describe UKIP as "right wing", and the only one produced to defend the "centre right" (which appears to be a relatively recent change to a until-then stable section) label is research into how the party's supporters view themselves - which is no statement about where the party actually is. Thus my support for the better sourced description. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Why did the US hate Communism?

Hello. You have a new message at Σ's talk page. Message added 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pontificalibus (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pontificalibus (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pontificalibus (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pontificalibus (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't the Japanese surrender with germany?

The japanese surrendered a few months after germany. Why didn't the Japanese surrender at the same time as Germany? Pass a Method talk 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! Simple question, but a thorough answer would fill pages.

Very short answer

They didn't surrender at the same time because they didn't have to.

Short answer

• Remember that Germany and Japan were but two members of "The Axis" - there were quite a number of other members.
• None of the Axis members wanted to surrender - they all intended to win the war. Each surrendered when they were no longer willing/able to resist the various onslaughts of the Allies. i.e. Not every member of the Axis surrendered at the same time.

Slightly longer answer

• The Germans surrendered when they did because they could no longer withstand the Soviets/etc from the one set of fronts to the east, and the British/British Commonwealth/Americans/etc from another set of fronts from the west and south.
• As this was happening in Europe, the Japanese were still resisting the onslaught of the British/British Commonwealth/Americans/etc the in the Pacific.
• The Japanese had a neutrality pact with the Soviets, so "their borders" in East Asia were "under control". So much so that when the going got tough for the Japanese in the Pacific theatre, the Japanese steadily relocated their best resources away from East Asia and into the Pacific theatre.
• With the surrender of Germany, the Soviets were now able to divert their resources away from Europe. And so they did! Vast numbers of troops and vast amounts of resources were relocated to East Asia.
• At the various conferences of Allied leaders, (i.e. Cairo Nov 43; Tehran Nov/Dec 43; Yalta Feb 45; Potsdam Jul/Aug 45), various "promises" were made between "The Big Three", in particular, that three months after the surrender of Germany, the Soviets would enter the war against Japan.
• So, to the day, three months after the surrender of Germany, the Soviets broke the Neutrality Pact and invaded Manchuria.
• If the Japanese weren't already having enough troubles in the Pacific theatre, they now had the Soviets advancing VERY quickly from the previously "safe" north and east. And "to put the icing on the cake", the Allies had started dropping Atomic bombs on the Japanese "home islands". Also, it was obvious to the Japanese that invasions of the "home islands" had been planned and preparations for their execution were occurring.
• Thus, Japanese surrender eventually followed. (But it was not immediate, and it was not without all sorts of "Palace coups" and "goings-on" within the Japanese "Big Six" and other Japanese powerbrokers ... )

I hope that's useful? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Guru Nanak Darbar Gurdwara

The article Guru Nanak Darbar Gurdwara has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet WP:N. We do not have articles on every church, gurdwara, mosque, synagogue and temple in the world.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpg

I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

sorry i dont delve into images Pass a Method talk 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick contribution. However, I must apologize, for I'm not sure that I made clear the purpose of the mediation. Your preferred choices (which also happen to be my preferred choices), are not going to fly. That boat has sailed. The question is, would you therefore prefer to have the titles of the articles be "pro-life" and "pro-choice", or would you prefer the mediator's suggestion? I see you end saying you wouldn't mind the mediator's suggestion, but could you possibly make that clearer, if indeed, you would be okay with it? HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If those are the only choices then i go with the mediator. Pass a Method talk 23:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pic of the day

Picture of the day

Wait for Me, Daddy is a photograph taken by Claude P. Dettloff of the British Columbia newspaper The Province. It depicts a column of Canadian Army soldiers of the British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught's Own) marching in New Westminster on October 1, 1940. In the foreground, five-year-old Warren "Whitey" Bernard runs out of his mother's reach towards his father, Private Jack Bernard. The photograph received extensive exposure worldwide, and was used in Canadian war-bond drives.Photograph credit: Claude P. Dettloff; restored by Yann Forget

Titles

My main objection to the moves before was that it was done without discussion and was never completed. It needs a central discussion as to the common name, Sura Al-Fatiha, Surah Al-Fatiha, Al-Fatiha, Sura 1, Al-Fatiha or Surah 1, Al-Fatiha. I'm not sure if they need the number as well as the name nor where the best place for the discussion is. Also if they are going to be at Surah Name then Sura should be moved to Surah as well. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that WP:Common name would apply. Also Al-Fatiha is the first hit on Google and Sura 1 is the second hit when searching for sura or surah 1. The best place to discuss it would probably be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Islam

What do you mean by "wp:v" on your removal here ? "University of Arkansas" is not verifiable to you? It was an introductory sentence, followed by the root of the name. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:N Which means verifiability and notibility. You should provide me a page number or a link in order for me to verify the claim. The reason why i think it might be non-notable is because religions such as Sikhism and Jainism are not linked to a particular person, race or locality, so its an unencyclopedic entry anyway. Pass a Method talk 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@AdamRce, you edit is so odd and unusual. Its not needed, add it somewhere else--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No-one is talking to you here. I fixed the concerns anyways. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Saul

Sorry, a Google and a Flickr search showed no copyright compatible images. I'd contact his publicist directly and ask if s/he is willing to license a photo under a creative commons license which permits commercial reuse and modification (allows us to use it, reuse it, mix it, sell it). Good luck, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, forget about it. I'll find a pic for Saul Alvarez some other time. Thanks for the heads up anyway. Pass a Method talk 21:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. We typically uses review articles. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. Additionally, the diberri tool will aid in the formatting of references; all one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? I quoted 3 refs, which one is unreliable? Pass a Method talk 22:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to go round asking umpteen people about this issue on their own talk pages, as you have done. I have given you some guidance on my talk page and that points you to the correct place to make your query etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Abdi

Unfortunately, Google and Flickr searchers turned up no creative-commons compatible licenses, including the photo you suggested. That was an Asics advertisement, which is definitely under their complete control. I found a few images which might be open to re-licensing if you contacted the owners and confirmed they are the original photographers or owners:

• http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletics-heroes/displayhero.asp?HeroID=7698
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/burhaan_dahir/4406903366/in/photostream

Sorry it's not better news, good luck. -Ocaasi 13:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.41.54 (talk)

Punt

Hi Passa, sorry I'm no expert, but yes I believe the only active oil exploration in Somalia at the moment is in Puntland. The only stuff I've heard of anyway. TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Alzarian16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3RR on 2011 Norway attacks

I don't have time to list the diffs, but your repeated removal of the term Islamophobia and similar terms from 2011 Norway attacks, against apparent community consensus, appears to be way beyond 3RR. Please desist, and take the matter to the Norway article's talk page if you wish to pursue it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no conensus. I have invited you to speak on three different talk pages, but you have not bothered to reply. Pass a Method talk 11:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have previously replied to you on my talk page. 3RR applies, regardless. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The same seems to apply to your repeated addition of Stop the Islamisation of Norway. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Messages

Hi, I've left some messages on my talk page. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why, but that user you mentioned (User:Pigsonthewing) has nominated it for deletion. Its neutrality can't be disputed now that you and I resolved the problem and came at a consensus. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that too, but i'm most likely not going to vote as i dont have a really strong opinion on it. Pass a Method talk 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

Please don't start an edit war over the inclusion of Zionism in the lead. Keep it to the talk page and wait for a consensus before removing anything you don't like. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also do not edit war over sourced text from the body of the articel based on commetns like "Please find a non-jewish newspaper" as this reads like a kind of anti-Semitism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

PA

This comment looks a bit like a PA, please remain civil http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&diff=441560118&oldid=441559809http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&diff=441560118&oldid=441559809.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i started getting confused by your writing. Pass a Method talk 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ReliableCoaster

There was no reason to report ReliableCoaster at AN/I. He had not violated the 3RR rule, which at this point was the only thing he could have been blocked for without notice. The other items would have required continued warnings up to a final warning, after which a repeat of the behaviour sees a block done, often for 24 hours for a first time. CycloneGU (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anders Behring Breivik, 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. Please do not revert the work of many editors (including me); if you dislike certain material, go into the article and edit just that content WWGB (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Gobonobo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 29, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian uprising

The previous version of the intro placed WP:UNDUE emphasis on the phantasmagorical "reforms" of the Syrian government while whitewashing the scope of the security crackdown over the past several months. I do not favor reverting to that version. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kudzu1, also it was me which changed the intro 30 mins ago. Sopher99 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just having a look

I just had to see what kind of person believed the riots in England - a leading news item in every major media organisation around the world for the last 3 days - are "not notable enough" to deserve a Wikipedia article. While I realise you made that idiotic nomination in the early days of the riots ... when you get it wrong, you REALLY get it wrong.

Here's a clue: Next time, look before you leap. Deterence ^Talk 05:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

English Defence League

Can you explain here or on the talk page how the material you removed was improperly sourced? But on the same matter, you added here that Breivik's manifesto supported Serbian paramilitarism, when in the source, I can find no such thing. Can you explain that too? Christopher Connor (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I will now add a source for the sebian paramilitarism [35], [36], [37].

As for the EDL, I will respond on the talk page Pass a Method talk 07:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to respond to my points. You reverted, so now you have to explain your position, as I did. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Re edl membership: Just returned an edit that you reverted with a clearer reference; you describded it as unsourced but don't seem to have actually noticed or read the reference which carries academic credibility. I'm slightly bemused — Preceding unsigned comment added by S ellinson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR

hi, You have touched 3RR WP:3RR in the List of the oldest mosques in the world‎ page. Please discuss before you revert again. Wasif (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, your edit here said in the summary, "No secondary sources", when clearly there was. You also gave a warning to the other editor for original research. Did you check their edit at all? Christopher Connor (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a secondary source. In fact it is impossible for there to have been a mosque in the 620s in India, unless you're saying Muslims took a boeing 747 and landed in Delhi. Ridiculous Pass a Method talk 17:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My computer is acting really strange right now. Please wait so i can give a proper response. And please do not defend comical edits such as this. Thanks. Pass a Method talk 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a secondary source, what sort of source is it? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

that is a WP:PRIMARY source Pass a Method talk 19:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a secondary source. Was Raja Valiyathampuram directly involved in the construction of the mosque? No, he couldn't have been, because he was born several centuries after it was built. I see you've now re-added the original research template and removed my comments. This is bizarre, because even you said it was sourced, so how can it also be original research? Think about what you're doing: you agree an edit is sourced, but nonetheless still add an original-research template to the editor's talk page. Also, removing another editor's comments is a violation of the talk-page guidelines. You say your computer is not working properly so you can't yet reply to my comments, but you can still edit war and make several other edits. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

my computer is working again now and i have thus replied to you. Pass a Method talk 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your defense of the mosque built in India is the equivalent of saying that man landed on the moon in the stone age. Or like saying that Christianity reached the Amazonian jungle before it reached the outskirt of Jerusalem. Your defense of an Indian mosque in 629 is mind-boggingly unintelligent, and i hope you're joking when you're defending this claim. How the **** could there have been a mosque in India when a mosque has not even been built in Mecca, the holiest site in islam?! Please stop wasting time with this nonsensical tirade. If you really want to continue this debate then lets take it to WP:RSN so you can embaress yourself some more. Pass a Method talk 20:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like conversations being spread across multiple pages. Do you mind if I put your comments on my talk page on your talk page so the conversation is intact? Christopher Connor (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

go ahead. Pass a Method talk 20:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, based on the timestamps. Note that I've never defended or commented on the reliability of the source, so your accusations are false. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please go through article Cheraman Juma Masjid for more sources and the history of the masjid. Don't be childish like saying ..........a mosque in the 620s in India, unless you're saying Muslims took a boeing 747 and landed in Delhi before going through all the related sources. Wasif (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

Hi. You didn't leave a summary for these edits to Somalis in the United Kingdom. What was your reason for removing that statistic? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Cordless Larry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please be careful

Hello. Please be careful when reverting edits. In this edit you actually added vandalism back into the article, which I assume was the opposite of what you were trying to do; fortunately someone else caught it and reverted back to the non-vandalized version. Thanks, BMRR (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i did not see the second vandal. I should have reverted both of them. Pass a Method talk 18:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Islamic divorce

Thanks for helping to clean up these articles. They were a mess. Unfortunately, the Divorce (Islamic) article is still a bit confusing. Is there any chance that you know the answers to any of these questions:

• What does the word talaq actually refer to? Divorce in general (including secular)? Just Islamic divorces? A specific procedure of divorce used by Islamic men but not by women? The lead of the article implies that the word talaq can be used for all divorces, but the talaq section makes it sound like a specific type of divorce.
• Are the words talaq and khula used by non-Arab muslims?
• What are the rules for khula? Is khula only possible in Sunni Islam? If so, how does a woman get a divorce in Shia?
• If an Islamic couple wants to get divorced in a secular state, what do they do? Do they typically do both a legal divorce and a religious divorce? Do they refer to the two with different words?

Thanks for your help! Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Im not finished with the divorce (islamic) article so dont worry about the confusing state. Heres the answers:

• Talaq is a verb directed from a man to his wife meaning a divorce. Talaq is an arabic word, so i guess it couyld be used by non-muslim Arabs.
• Yes Talaq is used by non-arab muslims but not always, sometimes their own language is used.
• Sunnis and Shias are not completely homogenous groups. They have further sub-sects and thus further varied disagreements.
• In a secular state, A man simply says Talaq three times, a woman finds an imam in a local mosque to do the procedure. Shias require two witnesses who overhears the couple and then bears witness to the divorce.

But you have to understand that controversies always exist among muslim scholars who often disagree, sometimes even from within the same school of thought. This has a lot to do with hadiths and which hadith is viewed as authentic or weak - which is suject to a lot of interpretation. Pass a Method talk 17:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I managed to track down a book on Islamic jurisprudence, but it had very little about divorce and didn't even mention khula. In fact, I've had a very difficult time finding any consistent information about khula. Some people say it is a type of talaq, and other people say it isn't. And I can't find any information on what schools allow khula and which ones don't. Any clarification you can add to this article would be greatly appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Im a bit busy at the moment but i will get back to it this evening or tomorrow. Note; i am collabborating with other editors here. Also, here is the pre-redirected version of khula. Pass a Method talk 18:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Random talk page coment on my page)

copy from my talk page- Norway has a very large territorial claim in antartica despite not having any overseas territories anywhere near Antartica. On what basis was their claim in Antartica granted? Pass a Method talk 20:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, but what prompted you to tell me this, and why right now, did I do somethign wrong, somewhere? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You, sorry.– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque

94.168.150.103 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Reliable sources have been cited, would you kindly stop undoing the changes...

historians and travellers of the early period confirm this such as al-Maqdisi and Nasir Khusru. Also great geographers such as al-Istakhri and Ibn Hawqal, clearly set this understanding and this is carried throughout different periods. In the Late Ottoman and modern period this understanding is still previlant with an new name al-Haram As-Sharif. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.150.103 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

08:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC) thank you for the message but I have cited reliable sources and this is the case in all early, medival and modern historical/ geographical primary sources. Please review your undertanding from secondary sources. Thank you

---

October 2011

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Lisa Lopes. Thank you. [38] Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

In regards to the Syrian uprising I AM using specificly referenced death tolls, where we have definetly precise numbers determined by independent health organisations with a breakdown between military and civilian. However, the case with Libya is totaly different. There, since the start, the numbers floated about the death toll have specificly come from eather the rebels or the US (both anti-gaddafi so not neutral). With the US claiming 30,000 dead three months ago, than the rebels claiming 50,000 dead a month ago, than the rebels again claiming 30,000 dead a few weeks ago and now a few days ago the rebels claimed 25,000. And all of that are summed up numbers of both civilians and combatants. Except at the start of the war there have been no independently verified numbers on Libya. To any person watching this you can figure out its simple propaganda. So we need to get to a specific independent number of killed among rebels, loyalists and civilians separately, because the whole war (including the NATO bombing) was based on the accusations of mass murder of civilian protesters. But now, as it seems, since we are getting a more clearer picture, more combatants have been killed than civilians. At one point even a rebel spokesman claimed 15,000 loyalists were killed, which would be more than half of the currently stated number. What motivates me is the truth. EkoGraf (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, specific, not rounded, numbers have been published by newspapers for Syria. The 2,981 was published through media outlets, don't know whats so retarded about that. As far as the Yemeni 1,638 number goes, we came to it based on various numbers published from different phases of the uprising (protests before street fighting, street fighting, protests after the street fighting). Users Lothar and Zenithfel have been helping me in regard to the casualties in Libya. I realy don't understand why you find exact, not rounded, numbers published my the media or the ones that we have been able to acertain so strange. EkoGraf (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cousin marriage

Hello. I have replied on Talk:Cousin marriage. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary redirect

I'd suggest starting an new WP:RFD discussion if you want to override a decision to enforce the no cross-namespace redirects rule, instead of just reverting the results of an earlier RFD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your query at Insect talk-page

This seems a pretty accurate overall description of Silverfish. (Just FYI, this kind of query is best placed at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, thats definitely the insect i was looking for. Pass a Method talk 13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda Please explain how doing one revert is edit warring? You are on three reverts on this article, the content I added is reliable sourced and accurate. Use the talk page, there is a section there for the content I added. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You just broke WP:3RR self revert. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

i haven't broken 3rr Pass a Method talk 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been reported for editwarring.[39] The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on how many reverts you have been making on that article. I noticed you have reverted two editors within a period of 24 hours. An edit warring report has been made by another user here. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Revert again and you might possibly get blocked from editing for the first time. Minima© (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue IV, October 2011 Front Cover • From the editor • General news Membership • August drive results To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

WQA

I've hatted your ban proposal at WQA. Please see the top of that page: WQA is not for bans or sanctions. You need to go to some admin noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Current capital

I undid your change to State of Palestine. According to current Palestinian legislation, Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine. That is the current status. How can you say it is not? Icarus^talk 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article 0 (number)‎, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Asking for evidence of Sufism

Hello PassaMethod. Thank you kindly for your comment. There is no issue of inconsistency. Many Sunni Muslims listed on Wikipedia already have citations or other internal evidence clearly demonstrating that the are Sunnis (90% of all Muslims anyway), but very few alleged Sufis have citations or other internal evidence demonstrating that they are Sufis (who constitute a very small minority of Sunni Muslims). I would indeed like evidence for both. I trust you don't think I have a problem with Sufis. I do not have a problem with them, or with any faith choices anyone might want to make. I am also very grateful for the excellent third-party and neutral references you have added. Thanks. Great job. Best wishes,GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Article on Said Nursi

Hello PassaMethod. I just realized that you made a change in the article on Said Nursi. I am trying to improve the quality of this article and am knowledgeable on this topic. I couldn't figure out your contribution. Can you state what you did and can you advice sth to do? Thank you for your contribution.

rinduzahid

(talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

EDL

I noticed you had reverted my edits to the English Defence League page.

1. ... is a far-right street protest movement which opposes what "some believe" to be a spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England.

I had edited it to "opposes the spread of Islamism, Sharia law..." which is basically their mission statement. What does "some believe" even signify? Isn't that a tad POV? Half the references provided are dead, by the way.

2. "EDL members have clashed with counter-demonstrators, including supporters of Unite Against Fascism (UAF)" I had added "and the extremist group Muslims Against Crusades". Why does the UAF deserve a special mention and not the MAC?

Ecthelion 8 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The UAF deserves special mention because they are not discussed in the lede, being an "antifascist" group. MAC is already covered with the first sentence on "sharia law, islamic extremism etc." MAC is not the only unique islamic group targeted by EDL. EDL also targets other groups such as Hizb Tahrir, MDL, pro-palestine muslims etc. Therefore adding MAC constitutes WP:UNDUE weight. Pass a Method talk 18:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I get your drift, but the point of the sentence was clashes. As a NPOV, I thought it would be suitable to include that they have clashed with Islamic extremist groups (violent clashes are NOT covered in the protesting against "sharia law.." etc) and not just the UAF. I can't think of a reason NOT to include ".... supporters of Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and extremist groups such as the Muslims Against Crusades".

Considering that they HAVE clashed with those groups. Protesting against sharia/islamism etc does not imply they clash with them (violently so as well) at their demonstrations. Just seems fair. And about 1?

Also, can this be moved to the Talk page? Ecthelion 8 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The lede has been stable for a while now, so i'd prefer to keep it as it is. You can move it to the talk page if you want. Pass a Method talk 19:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

SDL article

Hi. I have started the SDL article as I felt it was inappropriate to have nothing more than a redirect to the EDL article. I accept that it is still small but don't you think you are premature in proposing deletion? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my decision to delete it. Every SDL demonstration has had EDL flags plus EDL members. SDL mostly consists of an EDL base. If we create SDL we will also hae to create NDL, DDL, WDL, FDL, GDL etc. I think a redirect to EDL is sufficient. Pass a Method talk 15:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop undoing my work while I'm trying to improve the article. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and I apologise if I have caused you any offence - that was never my intention. However, I was not aware that Slaversten had expressed an opinion on whether the SDL should have a separate article or not and I didn'y "disregard" the opinions of the established editor Sean Hoyland...I disagreed with him and wanted to discuss the point further. I never regard improving articles as a "waste a lot of time and effort which could be spent in better ways". Far from barely replying to any issues you raise, it was I who first contacted you by personal message to discuss why you were proposing to delete an article I had just started, and then it was I who initiated discussion on the talk page. I don't claim to know anything more about the Scottish Defence League than anyone else and you are correct that I have not edited on this subject before, though you will notice that I edit widely on political issues in general as I actually teach politics for a living. I am now approaching 10,000 edits over a four year period and, to my knowledge, have never before been reported to a noticeboard. I take from your very strong reaction that you are indeed angry so, once again, I apologise. I trust that we can continue this dialogue. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for a compromise if it truly serves both sides of any dispute. In this case, I see that you feel strongly that there should only be one article as the SDL is an offshoot of the EDL. From my perspective, I would want any reader that is searching for Scottish Defence League to go straight to the key information being sought. Could I suggest that a better solution might be to have the detail from what I have added to the Scottish Defence League article placed in a separate subsection within the English Defence League article? That way, we could redirect Scottish Defence League straight to the subsection. The subsection could also make clear that the SDL is an offshoot of the EDL and that the suggestion is that EDL members often outnumber SDL members at any SDL event in Scotland? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I will. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:EDL

Category:EDL, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging SDL info into EDL articles

Hi there. Thanks for letting me know what you are doing. Quite happy except you have missed out several of the demonstrations I had listed. Is that for a reason? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Jamey Rodemeyer. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me

I am new at this, and am having problems with Rangoon11, who is deleting my edits on the Occupy Movement page. I noted that you were talking to him also. I place a piece that Occupy Edinburgh had been officially recognised by the Edinburgh Council. He thought that was unimportant. He seems to think that police removing protestors is significant (bad news). I think the article is biased. I mentioned that on the discussion page, and he said "sofixit". He won't let me. Thanks. :) OccupyLink (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Park51 in WTC Template

Reverted your edits, because Park51 is two blocks away from the WTC. The Template is for topics relating directly to the WTC, not those that are tangentially. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

that is an iffy asertion, but i will take your word for t. Pass a Method talk 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of your edits

In this edit I explained that your own source states that your statement is less than reliable, however your edit presented it as doctrine. Please edit more carefully and only add facts that represent correct information. I noticed that you have also added the same unreliable statement to the page on Child marriage and I suggest you correct that. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i will reword it. Pass a Method talk 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, not ok, when you make a 1 line section in a page with less than reliable information. It seems that as in WP:POINT that edit is making a point about child marriage, while there is absolutely, absolutely no historical basis for the year of birth of Mary and that statement would have established her year of birth as 12-14 years before 5-2BC. Not accurate. Per WP:STATUSQUO you should have discussed this on the talk page before re-insertion, bu I modified it to make a long story short. But the category certainly does not belong there. Please edit carefully. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop misquoting the text! Catholics and Orthodox consider Apocrypha unreliable, but Protestants don't. Pass a Method talk 22:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is your reference about the reliability of that sources a) on historical grounds and b) among specific groups of Protestants. In any case, for it to be reliable it must be reliable among "historians" in general, not some groups of Protestants. So what are your WP:RS references for the reliability of that statement apart from your own assertion? History2007 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded it to state exactly what is in the source. What dya think?Pass a Method talk 22:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Much ado about nothing and a total waste of time. You make a statement in the article that is already disqualified in the same sentence as less than reliable! And that edits reflects a total lack of understanding of the field. According to New Advent will make people chuckle because New Advent is just the website, the "source" is the Catholic Encyclopedia which is also available within Wikisource. May I suggest that you edit "those pages that you know something about" so everyone's time does not get wasted explaining these basic items to you? History2007 (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

whatever, im not touching that article again Pass a Method talk 22:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Islam

Can you please stop putting false information in Islam, if you didn't know I have explained my reason for reverting your nonsense at Talk:Islam#Wrong percentage given for Sunnis. The CIA factbook is usually not the best source for certain things because it is not always upto date, and I believe that you missinterpreted it's usage of "over 75%". CIA states that Shias are 20% so that obviously leaves behind Sunnis at 80%, and it doesn't mention any other sect.--Kiftaan (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

re Friendly advice

Hey. I replied at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brandon Byram

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 Brandon Byram 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 a person or group of people, 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pass a Method talk 01:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding on phone

As long as the sources are cited, I don't mind the change. I'd recommend citing in article rather than on talk, perhaps with small notes for each figure, so noone can deny that the 75 - 80 range isn't sources properly. I'd do it myself, but I'm currently getting my grandmother moved into hospice and won't be near a computer until later this evening. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual intercourse#Restrictions on sex information in the lead

You can explain there why you feel this information should come so early on in the lead and/or doesn't fit with the religious paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pedophilia article

PassaMethod, discuss major changes like this, which I reverted, on the talk page first. I can tell you now that such a section will not go over well with regard to including it in the Pedophilia article and that you should try to gain consensus on the talk page before reinserting it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Learn to cite

Will you learn to use WP:Citation templates or something resembling it? Jeez! With edits like the one you made to the erection article,[40] you're leaving behind work for others with such inconsiderateness. I hope Herostratus reverts you. Probably OR/synthesis editing anyway. But then again, you'd probably just accuse me of being Herostratus again.

And tell Zzuuzz to stop stalking you. He/She blocked me before you even reported it.[41] It's also not nice to call people trolls. 98.224.13.56 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Erection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Embarrass (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) 11:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding because you are named as part of User:Kiftaan's mass-sockpuppet conspiracy theory. The thread is The user who cried sock. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too.--Cattus ^talk 19:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!, Best wishes, GregorB (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! happy holidays to you too. Sasha (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, thanks. Best wishes. It is good to have the season also at WP. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year and merry christmas to you too. Vishal14k Vishal14K 20:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I have no idea who you are but merry christmas and happy new year to you too! :) --Der Golem (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Same to you and more of it! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you too, eh? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you to! The Moody Blue (Talk) 00:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm an ATHEIST, you insensitive cad! I worship my HP-41C, the finest programmable calculator ever made. But if you insist on having "happy holidays", I can't stop you. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the WikiLove - I really needed it!! Jane (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your wishes. It is my pleasure to wish you and all your dear ones Merry Christmas 2011 and Happy New Year 2012. Wars, 18:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too. And a Happy New Year.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, the same to you! De728631 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

When you add or change content, as you did to the article Elvis Presley, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Thank you. The "underage girls" material you added goes too far beyond what can be supported by the sources given (and it seems like undue weight, and advancing a non-neutral POV). Please discuss it on the Talk page and get a consensus if you wish to remake any of those changes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for the changes you made to Priscilla Presley -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just to give you one specific example, you added the statement "The big age diffrence has caused some controversy subsequently, particularly because the state in which Elvis lived, Tennessee, had an age of consent at 18", supported by this and this. However, the first one simply makes a factual statement that Elvis started dating Priscilla when she was 14 - it says nothing about any subsequent controversy or about Tennessee, and the second one makes no mention of Elvis or Priscilla at all. And so the statement is unsourced synthesis on your part. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your change to Category:Erotic fiction, as it is not a subcategory of Category:Pederastic literature -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, those sources do not support "This relationship, and his relationships with other 14 year old girls have caused some controversy". Your edits have been challenged and reverted, and now you need to discuss them on the Talk page and gain a consensus to support their inclusion (and please be aware that the Daily Mail is generally not considered a reliable source). Should you continue to add you own Synthesis, I will have no alternative but to seek some sanction against your editing (I will not take any admin action myself, as I am involved in the content disagreement) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

A tag has been placed on Pass a Method, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Elvis Presley

In order to support your opinion, I have added some additional sources to the Elvis talk page. See Talk:Elvis Presley. It should be noted, however, that there is a certain gang that polices the Elvis article. These guys frequently remove contributions they do not like, even if they are well sourced. See also these personal attacks by DocKino: [42]. Onefortyone (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now cited some further sources. See Talk:Elvis Presley. But DocKino is still suppressing all sources that prove him wrong. Onefortyone (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino has written on the Elvis talk page: "If you wish to make a new proposal about a sentence you'd like to add addressing 'the issues that came up with Priscilla's age', please do so in a new thread." Indeed, we should make a new proposal. For that purpose, I have cited some additional sources that contradict Guralnick's claim. By the way, concerning the questionable behavior of DocKino, you should also consult the following page: Requests_for_comment/DocKino. Onefortyone (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino now goes so far as to remove critical comments by other users from the Elvis talk page. See [43]. Onefortyone (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For a new proposal concerning young Priscilla Presley at Graceland, may I ask you to have a further look at Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if DocKino has still some serious ownership issues concerning the Elvis article. He calls the recent proposal "terrible", "ill-considered", "potentially libelous", "clearly biased", and "poorly sourced" and threatens to revert any attempt to bring it into the article claiming that such reversions are not subject to the 3RR. See these comments: [44] and [45]. In my opinion, his behavior is not acceptable. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DocKino still doesn't compromise on Priscilla Presley. However, he has stated on the Elvis talk page, that "I believe that Pass a Method, if this editor is interested in doing so, is capable of coming up with a thoughtful, policy-abiding proposal with which we can move forward." Onefortyone (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Elvis Presley. There are some new proposals. Perhaps with one of these we can move forward. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

You should be aware of this conversation about your editing. Doc Tropics 05:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Pedobear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jailbait (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) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Category

Hi Pass a Method,

The category you created (Category:Internet personality deaths), shouldn't it be re-named to "Deceased internet personalities" or "internet personalities who have died" ? "Internet personality deaths" doesn't sound too correct... and is it for any person who's an internet personality, who has also died? Thanks, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, i will rename it. It is for internet ersonalities who are specifically known for their internet appearaces Pass a Method talk 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Category Removed?

Hi. Please, can you explain removing the "youtube" category on Ben Breedlove's article? Truly asking to learn, not in a defensive way. Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I replaced it with a more specific category. But i dont feel strongly about it. Pass a Method talk 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very new here and really don't want to tromp on toes, but I think that the "youtube" category should remain. I see the logic in "internet personalities, deceased", but youtube is a strong entity separate of the word "internet." Any thoughts? Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done check it out Pass a Method talk 19:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Petersontinam (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Herman Cain

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ism schism: Out of pure curiosity, could you please direct me to where this user broke 3RR, or was in danger of doing so? While you're at it, could you please take a read of this, and take a peak at this. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are being reverted dude

Hi - you seem extremely opinionated and unable to edit within NPOV in regards to homosexual edits, can you just stop editing in that sector please -if you continue to contribute there then take this as a warning - if you continue with your POV edits , especially to the articles about living people , then I am going to report you and request you are topic banned on homosexual content.. Youreallycan 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

re Using raw Google Books URLs as a reference

Do not use raw Google Books URLs a references. Instead, use {{cite book}} with the material. The Google Books URL field can go in the "url" field of {{cite book}}. You've been counseled on this before, so rather then correcting your refusal or inability to do this correctly, in future I'm just going to revert the edit. Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nationmaster.com

Nationmaster.com is built from copies of old Wikipedia pages. We can't use it as a source, as it causes circular referencing.—Kww(talk) 14:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that you had only kept an existing reference, not added a new one.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Turn in one's grave for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Turn in one's grave 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/Turn in one's grave 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

when adding cats ...

Hi - when adding cats, there should be some content in the body of the article that verifies the cats existence. For example - you can't add a cat that a person is a (whatever) activist if there is no cited content about that activism in the body of the article. Regards - Youreallycan 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Anti-sharia law activists

Category:Anti-sharia law activists, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't see me post this on my own page ...

... I've nominated the category in question here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did see it Pass a Method talk 11:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Girl

Undo this edit.[46] It's redundant to the line before it and disregards that adult women can also be called girls. 107.22.27.63 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Love edits

Hi Pass a Method. I saw the edits that you made to the Love article and thought I'd ask you about them. Your addition to the article was " People with developmental disorders may have a very limited or minimal capability of experiencing of love."[47] I was wondering if you were working from a source. Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

no place in the article

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Incitatus13 (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Man-made law for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Man-made law 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/Man-made law 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. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Faith-head for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Faith-head 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/Faith-head 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. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sectarian violence among Muslims for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sectarian violence among Muslims 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/Sectarian violence among Muslims 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. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Turn in one's grave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surprise (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) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ban on sharia law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAIR (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) 10:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi, Pass a Method. Could you not add sources such as this to sex/medical articles, as you did to the Clitoris article? These type of sources are not acceptable for topics like this, per WP:MEDRS. I know that what your addition states is a matter of language, what the clitoris is sometimes called, but that name is also used in sexology. Therefore, I will remove your source and provide a scholarly one for that text instead. I will also remove "Because the clitoris is homologous to the penis" because that is already made clear at three places in the article. And that exact wording is currently in the Sexual stimulation section.

I also ask, like I have before, that you start using reference templates or better formatting of your references. As I am working on the Clitoris article, and will be looking to get it to GA status, I do not want to have to clean up after another person's references. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to split Park51 to Ground Zero controversy

Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Syrian Talk page

I set up a vote on whether to include alqaeda in the infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011–2012_Syrian_uprising Sopher99 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

AN comment

Sorry, but I have no clue who you are so I don't know why you would be commenting at AN to support a topic ban against me based on "civility issues" with me or even mentioning civility at all as it had nothing to do with civility. Did you comment in the wrong section?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision Party Bosses Rule Wikipedia

You gotta give the Circumcision Party Bosses credit for running an efficient machine here. All dissent gets knocked off the air.186.47.74.202 (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision

Dear Friends, we need your assistance at "Circumcision" on en.wikipedia.org to improve the article. The pro-circumcision editors have refused to edit their promotion of circumcision as an effective strategy against HIV/AIDS. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.144.159.147 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of English Defence League demonstrations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde (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) 10:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be editing different topics or related topics but different articles. I might also edit the same articles but at irregular intervals so you probably won't recognise me. Good luck finding me. Pass a Method talk 10:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC

You shouldn't edit the same articles at all. And like I said, I doubt you'll stop editing them. It's all you're interested in. And when you do edit them, the sexual topics (not the muslim-related topics), I'll be right there. It won't be difficult to spot you at all, especially since a "new editor" is expected. I've told you how WP:Fresh start is supposed to work, and why that does not apply to you. You are only trying to avoid scrutiny, and are probably feeling stung because your account now has a block associated with it. So when you get in trouble for inappropriately using WP:Fresh start, due to me or someone else reporting you, I can say that I did warn you. 50.16.131.13 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll never spot me, trust me on that. But i'll give you a clue to help you out, i'll create a new account next week. LMAO. Pass a Method talk 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you really believe that after what I just said above, then wow. Pardon my language, but I can only describe that as delusional. If you edit in any of the areas that resulted in us having conflict before (namely the sexual topic areas), then I will know who you are. Only one person edits these topics the way that you do, and that's you. If you do not edit in the areas that resulted in us having conflict before, like you are supposed to do in accordance with WP:Fresh start, then there won't be a matter of spotting you, now will there? That's the point -- you are not supposed to edit in those areas anymore once starting fresh. Like I told you before, it goes in one ear and out the other with you, no settling in for comprehension, which is why you are such a problematic editor. So make no mistake about it that I will be reporting you the moment I see that you have resumed editing in the same sexual topics area, if you do indeed take up a new account. I am also going to go ahead and alert others that you may be changing to a different account and may use that account in a way that does not reflect WP:Fresh start. And the next time you decide to violate WP:TALK and do something like this, go ahead and remove all of the posts. That's better than leaving the posts out of context, as they are now. 222.45.72.124 (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've got a trick under my sleave but im not going to tell you what it is. lol Pass a Method talk 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I can't wait until that "trick" gets you permanently blocked. 222.45.72.124 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

*shakes head* Pass a Method talk 01:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition to Language

Hello, Pass a Method. You recently added the same sentence ("Forty per cent of the world's languages are endangered...") to two different places in the article Language. I assumed that this was an error, and removed the second addition. If you think it should be there (in the section "The study of language", renamed "Overview") rather than the lead section, you may want to edit the article again. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Gay rights, BLPs, etc.

Please stop pushing LGBT rights in various articles. You are putting material in the lead that doesn't belong. You are labeling people as LGBT activists in the occupation field of the infobox. All of this is inappropriate and POV.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Radcliffe and Pitt are possibly the most notable LGBT rights activists, but neither the template or lede acknowledged this. This is why i felt it should be added to either the lede or template. As for adding it to the "occupation" line, i had since corrected myself and added it to the "known for" line. Pass a Method talk 18:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. I suggest it is unwise to strike those IP comments at WP:ANI unless and until it has been actually identified by checkuser or by SPI as being the same person as the blocked IP -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I will block you if you do it again! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, i made the strike before your comment. But he aready admitted it is him so i dont see the purpose in checkuser. By the way, this IP has been blocked at least half a dozen times over the past 3 months but keeps coming back with either a proxy or has a normal IP Pass a Method talk 19:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess we just crossed in the ether. The old IP to which you referred was blocked for being an open proxy in China. If this 50... IP is a block-evader, you'd need a confirmed sockpuppet diagnosis by someone uninvolved before striking their comments, and even then you really should leave it to someone else to do - I'm sure you can see it's not proper for you to do it just on your own say. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As shown in this part of the discussion that Pass a Method removed from his talk page, I always edit under a proxy and I don't have a registered account yet. I just don't want to get that sucked into Wikipedia and I like the privacy that proxies provide. So running a CheckUser won't identify me as someone else. I may register one day, once I truly see a need to do so. But, for now, I'm content with the way I've been keeping on. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please cease

...messing with the IP's statement. It is unwise to get into an edit war while you are under some scrutiny. If your statement holds merit on the IP then let an admin make that determination. Advice to help you avoid trouble.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning copied over from ANI

PassaMethod, note the following -

• Do not refer to someone as an activist (any kind) unless the source supports it (that's misuse of sources)
• Do not refer to someone as an activist as their job in infoboxes and ledes, unless they work for Stonewall or Greenpeace or are chained to a tree/railings somewhere (that's WP:UNDUE
• Do not edit war. Should I find you edit warring over this again, this will be blockworthy.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Allright, i wont do any of the above things again. But what about the IP? He has already admitted it is him here. Isn't that block evasion? Pass a Method talk 21:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd need to find out more - you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia through an open proxy (there are exceptions for closed proxies and editors stuck behind the Great Firewall of China, and proxies are usually blocked, but I'd need to check what the implications are if the user stopped using proxy IPs.

Note also that I'm not saying that if an actor publically supports a cause, it shouldn't be included in the article. There was pretty much a reverse situation at Zachary Quinto a while back, where a couple of users were a little over keen to keep out details of his support for the LGBT community. But 'activist', particularly when put in the infobox, implies that they do it as a job or it is a primary activity. Even with Quinto - who clearly is an activist, he makes films, stars in plays, is active in organisations - his primary activity is being an actor. If he started turning down roles to spend more time in activism and got better known for that, then it should say activist in the infobox. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the activism material. I left in some of Pass's edits that were in the body of the articles, although I did reword some to be more source-compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Cnilep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bad formatting

I noticed that I had made some formatting errors, based on your edit here. I'm a bit rusty, as I've been away from Wikipedia for some months. I thought my additions summarized the madhhab header well and neutralized the caption for the Azhar picture. Could you explain to me how such an edit could be properly formatted? Or perhaps there's an article somewhere in the Wikipedia:Help desk that might help me brush up on my formatting a bit? MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS is a useful link Pass a Method talk 13:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In appropriate

It is not appropriate to remove well referenced text without consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Love, and bipolar disorder

Hello! Your edit to bipolar disorder seemed rather jarring to me, both in terms of its emphasis and location in the article -- I've changed its emphasis, and moved it down the article to a more appropriate place -- The Anome (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bahraini uprising

Hello,

I noticed you were involved in the past in editing the article, so I though you might be interested in a this discussion. Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 16:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats your opinion on pending changes?

Whats your opinion on pending changes feature on wikipedia? Also, can you helpp me at 11:30 or 12pm?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since i'm a reviewer i support it. But im a little late Pass a Method talk 23:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

then 1:30am?

ok Pass a Method talk 00:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

talk

You have mail, someone (not me) wants to talk to you at 7:30pm or 8pm or 10 pm--Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

False templates

Both the templates you added are nonsensical. But then you've done that before so I shouldn't expect any less. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning my edits to the George Washington article and my two warnings

I find the two warnings you added to my talk page to be extremely unfair and uncalled for. Concerning the first warning, I did not remove content without (in my view) justifying why I removed the label "deist. Clearly my reason was not up to your standards, but I didn't remove content with a blank edit summary, so that warning was entirely inappropriate. Concerning the second warning, you're accusing me of "Disruptive editing"! This is certainly not the case. Apparently disruptive editing is, "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia", clearly my edits are not disruptive because I do not intend to disrupt the progress towards improving the article. In fact, my two edits were among several to the George Washington article, which I made to contribute to its progress and not to disrupt.

I'm going to let the edits slide because I definitely do not want to start an edit war. You clearly have an agenda (as your user page says you're a deist, so you're going to keep pushing that for your own interests) and you're determined to include Deism in the infobox on that page. You're clearly a much more experienced editor than I am, with more rights on the wiki, so I just hope you're more careful in handing out warnings and threatening to block users for their constructive edits. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the label Deist in the infobox was not accompanied by any references alongside it, only further down. So the material I removed wasn't strictly "sourced". (Now it is.) -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My warnings were completely justified because you deleted sourced information. Infoboxes do not need references if it is already covered in the article. Only for ethnicity is a reference required. I do not have an agenda. I am simply stating facts which can be verified by scores of online books and journals. I can find WAY more references if you think 11 is not enough.

The reason your edits were disruptive is because they do not adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. We should give a balanced outlook on articles. To only mention GW's Episcolopian beliefs and ignoring his deist views is violates the above wikipedia principles.

As for my userpage mentioning im a deist, that is a strawman and off-topic. Pass a Method talk 22:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision sentence about summaries etc.

Rather than simply revert these changes every time, could you at least come and discuss them on the talk page? The sentence as it currently stands is awful. garik (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 129.49.73.32 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. When you recently edited Acronym and initialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MYOB (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) 10:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Masturbation Freud

I tried to put Freud's views on the topic in the masturbation article but the editors won't let me until consensus is established would you support my attempt?--RJR3333 (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of pornography

That's a very good point. I hadn't really thought of that, but yes, of course pornography can be thought of as educational! My only real objection is implying that erotica is the same as pornography. Re-reading my edit summary, I see now that it came off as being kind of snotty. I'm sorry about that. Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to insult

I am not trying to insult you but I suggest you skim the following policies and guidelines, WP:N, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. I also suggest you close the RfC as all the reactions will be the same. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

note: someone has already closed the RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.140 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Image use in Homosexuality

I suggest you go to WP:IUP to see the proper guidelines for image use and placement on WIkipedia. It is important not only to use images sparingly, academically, and in the appropriate places but to respect the privacy rights of any living persons depicted in the image. Unfortunately, the images you placed in Homosexuality, while they were likely in good faith, had to be removed. Best of luck contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:People in a first-cousin relationship

Category:People in a first-cousin relationship, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality

Pass a Method, try to be more careful to check the background on the things you want to add to articles. I and another editor had to revert you on your asexuality edits. As I stated in my edit summary, asexuality is not yet accepted as a main sexual orientation. It is highly debated as a sexual orientation, as mentioned in its article. This has also been debated at Template talk:Sexual orientation.

Did you read the Sexual orientation and etiology part of the Asexuality article before adding the edits that you did? If you had, or do, you should understand what I mean by asexuality not being a main sexual orientation. Why is it listed in the Sexual orientation template box if it's not a main sexual orientation then? Read here to see why. Flyer22 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This reference does not make asexuality a main category of sexual orientation among researchers or even the general public. I could add references, references that are used in the Asexuality article, backing the assertion that asexuality is not a main category of sexual orientation. Heck, I could even use the American Psychological Association source, which is authoritative, to show how sexual orientation is usually defined among scientists; if you notice, it excludes asexuality. So thanks for displaying once again that you do not listen to reason, don't really read/comprehend what you do read, don't follow WP:Consensus, and that you will always use a source to back you even when it does not back you in the way that you are using it. You were additionally told that asexuality is not part of the heterosexual–homosexual continuum,[48][49] but have disregarded that in your reverts of me.

Your limited understanding of sexuality and sexual orientation have become tedious. And since you want to play the "Make me prove that I'm right" game yet again, no matter how many times I'm always right when it comes to challenging/debating you on such subjects, then so be it. I will be posting a complaint to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, then posting a note to the related articles, and finally individually asking editors who are well-versed in sexual topics to weigh in there. Flyer22 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ben (Gay is Okay)

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 Ben (Gay is Okay) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. JDDJS (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

When you are reverted, you are expected to start up discussion on the talk page before reverting back, per BRD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ben (Gay is Okay) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ben (Gay is Okay) 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/Ben (Gay is Okay) 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 template from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ben (Gay is Okay)

I have created Template:Did you know nominations/Ben (Gay is Okay) under eligibility rules of WP:DYK. One of proposed hooks will be reviewed. Thank you for your contributions to this article. --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Hello Pass a Method! This barnstar is for all the fine edits that you make on Wikipedia! Enjoy, AnupamTalk 04:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What "Pass a Method" means to a programmer

(Just friendly chat and curiosity.)
Pass a Method, I work with programming languages.

To sort some things, you call the sort function and tell it the things you want it to sort:

sort(things, CompareMethod)

For sort to work, it needs to know how to compare 2 of things to determine which are less, equal, or greater than the other, which is the method

CompareMethod(thing1, thing2).

In computer lingo, you "pass a method" like CompareMethod to the sort routine.

Does this have anything to do with your username? --Javaweb (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Sin

Thank you for your interest in the sin article, and your constructive edits. I'd like to discuss some of your changes on the article talk page (Talk:Sin#Lede) Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your edits to sin. I've commented at the talk page. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your further thoughts and comments are requested at the sin talk. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions at the sin talk page. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Im dissapointed with your decision to merely page protect without addressing Jakew as i was hoping for at least a caution. BWilkins notedhere that it was a violation of 3RR, but you ignored that. Can you tell me what you will do to prevent Jakew from returning to the same behavior as soon as the protection expires? Pass a Method talk 21:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, and there are more than two people edit-warring on that article. I don't doubt that Jakew's edit warring was wrong, but I also don't doubt that there has been a lot of edit warring from several editors over the past month. The action most likely to stop the edit-warring all around and to get whatever issues people have with the article addressed is to protect the article, not to block Jakew. -- tariqabjotu 22:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All three trials were stopped early due to data-dependent processes (formal-stopping rules), and this may have introduced a risk of bias to the studies.

Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men

Nandi Siegfried1,*, Martie Muller2, Jonathan J Deeks3, Jimmy Volmink4 Editorial Group: Cochrane HIV/AIDS Group

Published Online: 7 OCT 2009

Nandi Siegfried is a South African public health specialist and has been an active member of the Cochrane Collaboration since 1998. She served as co-director of the South African Cochrane Centre until March 2004. Nandi is the Deputy Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group (CRG) and in partnership with the CRG established the successful African HIV/AIDS Mentoring Programme which aims to increase the number of HIV/AIDS reviews relevant to the African region. Presentations: Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries: achievements and challenges

Martie Muller, Statistician and associated member of the SA Cochrane Centre, Medical Research Council, Cape Town and senior scientist at the Institute for Maritime Technology, Simon’s Town. Areas of interest: biostatistics, meta-analysis, diagnostic test accuracy, functional data analysis, spatio-temporal modeling.

Jimmy Volmink is the Head of the Department of Primary Care at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. He previously worked as the Director of Research and Analysis at the Global Health Council in Washington DC, USA and as the director of the South African Cochrane Centre located in Cape Town, South Africa. He serves on committees and advisory boards of various international organizations, including the Cochrane Collaboration and the World Health Organization. He is an editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group and has authored numerous journal articles and book chapters.

Jon Deeks is Professor of Biostatistics, Director of the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, and leads the Biostatistics, Evidence Synthesis and Test Evaluation Research Group in the School of Health and Population Sciences, where he also holds a position of Joint Research Lead.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2/full

In the case of circumcision trials it was not possible to blind personnel delivering the intervention or the participants. It is possible, however, to blind the assessors, and we therefore only rated the blinding of assessors as adequate, inadequate, or unclear. Participants and study personnel could not be blinded to the allocated interventions (circumcision or not). It is unclear whether this lack of blinding could influence the outcome (HIV status) via, for example, sexual risk behaviour or differentiated treatment by study personnel.

Attrition was high in all three trials. We rated the risk of bias due to incomplete outcome reporting as moderate in all three trials, as acceptable statistical survival analysis techniques were used to estimate HIV event distribution over time by accumulating for staggered enrolment and incomplete discrete follow-up.

Other potential threats to validity

All three trials were stopped early due to data-dependent processes (formal-stopping rules), and this may have introduced a risk of bias to the studies.

Feedback from Elizabeth Royle, 8 May 2009

Summary

In the What's New section the authors make the following statement: "Update of previous review of observational studies; now contains data from three large RCTs. Evidence conclusive and no further updates required."

I appreciate that this review may provide very clear results, but would question the validity of the assertion that no further updates are required. My understanding is that large effect sizes tended to ameliorate over time as more trials are performed and incorporated into meta-analyses. This may be due to an initial publication bias of trials with positive results followed by publication of those with less clear or negative results over time. At any rate, in this case, whether the effect size is reduced through the updating process or becomes even more significant, I do believe that the review authors have an obligation to perform updates on a regular basis in order to ensure that their review incorporates all the available data, and continues to provide the best evidential basis for future healthcare policies in this area.

Fearless187.32.220.234 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

South African Cochrane Collaboration Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries

Nandi Siegfried is a South African public health specialist and has been an active member of the Cochrane Collaboration since 1998. She served as co-director of the South African Cochrane Centre until March 2004. Nandi is the Deputy Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group (CRG) and in partnership with the CRG established the successful African HIV/AIDS Mentoring Programme which aims to increase the number of HIV/AIDS reviews relevant to the African region. Presentations: Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries: achievements and challenges Fearless 190.200.132.100 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for BEN (song)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sin

Editor2020 added a tag to one of your references: [Need quotation to verify]. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Most read pages

I'm not sure but there may be something at Wikipedia:Statistics. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Universe

I reverted your change to the lede of the Universe article because it was redundant and, while the Multiverse stuff is interesting and all that, it's hypothetical at this time. The livescience.com source didn't say anything not accompanied by "may", "possibly", "potential", etc. I posted a note on the Talk page but wanted to tell you here, too. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Biased editing

Your edit on the Manny Pacquiao‎ article came to my attention recently, I think because someone brought it to a admin board for review, and after looking into the specifics of the circumstances, it struck me as a very biased edit. Since then, I have seen your edits pop up on several other articles that I have had watchlisted and I have looked at your recent contribution history a couple of times. In MANY cases, you seem very intent on inserting a bias into articles, and as such, I have made revisions to your changes. Our goal in Wikipedia is not to advocate a cause, push a viewpoint, or make one side or another gain or lose ground. Terms must be specific, not just generally understood.

For example, the term America, while generally understood in common speech in the US and in many places around the world to be synonymous with "United States", does not specifically mean that. America is a land mass extending from Chile to Canada and if one uses it within an encyclopedia article, it would probably require explanation to be clear on what is meant. In addition, if a source says US, you cannot arbitrarily change to the term "America", and you should not make claims like "largest" without clearly specifying what is meant by that, and terms like "largest" should be avoided anyway (see WP:PEACOCK).

In other cases, I see that you have taken a small unrelated item and inserted it into an article, possibly to showcase a particular political position. This is not encyclopedic, whether it is political, legal, personal, etc. Wikipedia is not a bastion of political action, nor of gossip. Wikipedia serves to inform, unless it is clearly related to the overall article subject, unrelated items should be left out. For example, recently a company filed a lawsuit against Taco Bell for not having enough beef in their taco filling. This was added by me to the Taco Bell article, but after another editor very very patiently and repeated explained why it shouldn't be included, I finally saw what they were saying and it was left out of the Taco Bell article. The point is, anyone can file a lawsuit, anyone at a company can make a dumb statement, and just because the news reports on it, doesn't automatically mean it is fit for inclusion in an article. Large companies can be expected to deal with dozens or hundreds of legal complaints every year, and as such it is important that only information that is substantively going to change the company gets included, not every single thing.

Just writing you this note as a courtesy to exercise more care in adding biased information to articles.

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you actually read the comments above, but you do not just add things here without proper context. Just like with the Manny Pacquiao‎ thing, where it was blown way out of proportion by zealous editors and bloggers, I ask you... did you read the letter supposedly written by Ken Charles, vice president of global diversity and inclusion of General Mills? Do you know the context? Did the article you cited do any analysis of it? How reliable is the source here? Do you have other statements from Ken Charles and General Mills that put this into a proper context as well? In other words, did you do research before simply cutting and pasting, or did you find something that fit a narrative that you are trying to push and then tacked it into the General Mills article? Without even two seconds of looking I find that the same Ken Charles and General Mills state, "We are honored to represent Corporate America’s support for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)." I am not saying this needs to also be included in the article, but what I am saying is that you're being sloppy about how you include things, and above I tried to explain that we need to be cautious about including biased information. Step back, exercise due diligence, and don't simply think that because a big media name prints something, it will automatically be fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply

You have a reply to your charge of disruptive editing that you left on my user talk page. Again, it is preferrable to use the article Talk pages for such discussions. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent moves

I would strongly suggest that you not do any more Homosexuality => LGBT moves without consensus. While it may improve accuracy, it's a fairly major change to implement across a large number of articles without discussing it first, and it can be confusing for people who don't know the acronym. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also bad from a grammar/style point-of-view. (LGBT people/topics/issues/subjects/etc. not just LGBT) LadyofShalott 22:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I came here to say roughly the same thing. Also, please note, I have reverted a couple of your moves...it's nothing personal, but it needs consensus and the grammar isn't always right. For instance, "LGBT in the Hebrew Bible" doesn't make sense, because while the bible talks about homosexuality, I don't think it says anything about Transgender.

Also, if any admins are still watching this page, perhaps you could help me with this move. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Circumcision, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (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) 14:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Religion topics

You have recently edited the above named template in accord with personal opinions that "all religions should have their denominations listed or none", which is I believe a paraphrase of one of your edit summaries. Sadly, that determination is not up to a single editor to decide, although that seems to have been your own motivation in the edits you have made. You may also note that most, if not all, of your recent edits to the template have been reversed. There is a talk page associated with the template which could, reasonably, be used to indicate which changes you believe should be made to the template, and why you believe they should be made. So far as I can see, you have yet to make a single edit to that talk page. It is, in general, considered reasonable to do so, particularly if a given editor seems to wish to make changes to that template, like yourself. There is every chance that your continuing to make changes to the template, without any discussion, would be taken as edit warrings as per WP:EDITWAR, and that continuing in the way you have done could, potentially, result in some form of sanctions or the template being placed under stronger protection. Under the circumstances, it would be reasonable, and more clearly acting in accord with conduct guidelines, to propose any changes to the template on the talk page, have them discussed, and receive approval for the changes before making edits which are again reverted, as it seems your edits to date have been. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Procedure for copying within Wikipedia

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one page into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much grammar problems, please be professional

Your recent edits have too much grammar mistakes like "a South African and Brazilian ambassador ", "Not longer", please show more professionalism and respect. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to learn English65.49.68.196 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, many people is very sensitive about the Wikipedia articles, please discuss your major changes on talk before modifying the article freely. Wikipedia is not your own. Such behaviors can lead to group escalations and account deletion65.49.68.180 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but point out the irony in the above posts... "Too much grammar problems"? Try "too many grammar problems". Many people is sensitive? Such behaviors? Sorry. I'll go away now, but I couldn't help but chuckle at somebody telling somebody else that they had too much grammar problems. Forgive me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Account Monitoring Notification

More than 20 collective complaints have been submitted about the controversal edits you did in the past 30 days. Your account is now under monitoring. Please read carefully WP:Consensus. When the complaints ammount reaches 25, you will be blocked from editing for at least 60 days. WikiBOT 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.68.174 (talk)

Stop edit warring over the image of a human penis

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Penis, you may be blocked from editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Penis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Existence of God(s)

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Talk:Existence_of_God(s)#Article_title_question.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You're right

regarding our United States exchange. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding wrong, mis-cited material targeting people with Psychiatric disabilities to Love

I see from the talk page that you believe that people with bipolar disorder are singled out by having problems with the ability to experience love, and that you support you view with citations that are say nothing of the kind- despite opposition. While i understand that you may have difficulties understanding references etc, I found the result shocking, and ask that you consider the potential impact of your editing.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks

I noticed your remarks at Talk:God#Recent changes to the Lead in response to User:Adjwilley. Much of what was said was proper discussion of the scope of the article and the need to avoid bias. It's good that you both are willing to make concessions and seek compromise. But this statement crossed the line:

Fifthly, only a imbecile would call atheism/agnosticism a "religion". Even a kindergartener knows that atheism/agnosticism are not religions. Your infantile responses are getting really tiresome.

There's no need to use terms like "imbecile", "kindergartner", and "infantile", particularly since Adjwilley linked to the respected site adherents.org, which lists secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist third in "Major Religions of the World, Ranked by Number of Adherents." It's reasonable to infer that both Adjwilley and adherents.org use the term "religion" in a non-precise way as a convenient shorthand for classification purposes, and not as a statement about the supposed existence of an "atheist religion". Would you please strike those sentences? And, in the future, if you read something that an otherwise rational-seeming person wrote that sounds idiotic, please first consider whether you have interpreted their meaning properly (and ask for clarification, if necessary) before calling names. Cheers, alanyst 16:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That website puts atheism in a religion-related table. It never once states that atheism is a religion. Pass a Method talk 17:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have written "the next largest religion is listed as Secular/non-religious/Atheist/Agnostic" instead of "the next largest religion is Secular/non-religious/Atheist/Agnostic". That was certainly my intent. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @PassaMethod: My point is that throwing out insults is a poor way to behave regardless—but particularly if the person's remarks are susceptible to a good-faith interpretation, which Adjwilley has kindly clarified above. alanyst 18:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I've got pretty thick skin, but I really do appreciate the apology. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits

This is a warning. Your recent edits to Talk:Existence of God, Template:Religion topics, and possibly elsewhere have rather clearly demonstrated that you are editing from a personal POV perspective. While that is acceptable, as per guidelines, editors who have such potential POV problems are requested to act under the supervision of others who do not share that POV problem. Also, some of your comments on Talk:Existence of God, such as your question whether someone else has a "sight problem or a memory problem," make it rather clear that you as an individual may well have a WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY problem. Ax you should know, all of these could be, and often are, taken as potentially serious problems, and could, if they continue, result in disciplinary sanctions.

Regarding your own question to me on that page, I believe that you might reasonably perhaps also acquaint yourself with [{WP:WEIGHT]] and WP:RECENTISM. The fact that, according to some modern scientific thought, such ideas are given some degree of credence is not necessarily of such overriding importance that it must effectively be taken as being sufficient to alter the title of an article about a philosophical topic which has been around and discussed for millenia. I believe it would very much be in your own best interests to make more of an effort to discuss such changes in advance and achieve consensus of involved editors before continuing in making unilateral, undiscussed changes to content in the future, such as those to the page mentioned above, Template:Religion topics, and other of your recent edits of a similar nature. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I surmise from your message on my talk page that you prefer to communicate via templates. Here is one:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You could also try making your case on the article's talk page, Talk:List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, for why you think it is appropriate to use Wikipedia's voice to weasel a statement connecting same sex marriage to incest. Good luck with your research, 68.101.74.199 (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple violations of WP:BRD

It is unfortunate that you continue to make major changes to numerous articles and refuse to engage in discussion on the talk pages. Your changes to the ledes of several socially conservative articles without discussion and without consensus is unacceptable. I must insist that you make an effort to follow WP:BRD, i.e. Bold-Revert-Discuss. The Discuss component is important in arriving at consensus. If you do not discuss then you are nothing more than a POV Edit Warrior. Is that your objective here? – Lionel ^(talk) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

If I might make a friendly suggestion...I'm not trying to pile on here, and this is not related to the other posts on your talk page today...it's meant entirely in good faith. I wanted to recommend that you try to leave better edit summaries when you edit articles. Most of your summaries are either blank, automatic (i.e. name of section, or Twinkle), or nearly meaningless (i.e. "copyedit", "lede", "fmt", "add", "wording", etc.). Some of your edits are pretty major edits, stuff like rewriting Leads, while others are controversial. Sometimes it seems like you're trying to slip these edits under the radar by using innocuous-looking edit summaries. For instance, changing Abraham Lincoln's religion in the infobox is a fairly controversial edit (and was reverted), but you made the change with an edit summary of "format".

In my opinion the ideal edit summary should say exactly what you're doing and why you're doing it. The Lincoln edit should have had a summary like "Listing religion as Deism, per such and such a source". This edit to God should have had a summary like "Adding names Vishnu and Krishna for Hinduism, Baha for Bahai, and Ahura Mazda for Zoroastrianism to the Lead paragraph on the names of God" rather than "add content". Edit summaries like "copyedit" and "format" should be reserved for truly minor edits that don't change the meaning or substance of the article. Using them for controversial edits makes other editors lose trust in you, and trust is something that's hard to earn back.

Please don't be offended by my comments. They were not meant to be offensive, and are offered as a gesture of good faith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just a note: this comes across as being very deceptive. Using an edit summary of "spacing" to make substantive changes to the sentence? If you're adding the words "highly popular", all you have to do is say you're adding the words "highly popular". ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed, i prefer to keep my edit summaries short. Pass a Method talk 01:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent wording changes

Hey there - I watch REAL Women of Canada and after seeing your change to the lede there I also noticed a discussion about your making the same change in other articles. I've reverted these changes as "socially conservative" is an acceptable neutral and descriptive phrase, while "traditional values" is POV and potentially vague (which traditional values do they promote? hospitality? not meddling in family privacy?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Social conservative" is also vague. Which social topics are being preserved? English WP is read by people from all over the world and conservatives can be wildly different in every country. Some wikipedians tend to treat English wikipedia as if it is read by only Americans, but i should remind you that English is the most spoken language in the world and is spoken on all continents. Pass a Method talk 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Social" is added to "conservative" in order to distinguish from fiscal or economic conservatives - the term is clear and I'm not aware that it has other meanings elsewhere. At any rate, if you believe it is too vague, please suggest something neutral to replace it - "traditional values" is the term used by these groups and others that promote similar political agendas, but WP must use a neutral tone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You have not properly responded to my query. Let me state it clearer. I said that the current wording gives an American bias. Considering that the meaning of "social conservatism" differs widely accross the world, shouldn't we allow for a more varied wording? At least in some articles? Pass a Method talk 18:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your query by disagreeing that "social conservatism" is an American term, suggesting that you explain what you believe it means in other English-speaking regions, and asking you to suggest neutral wording if we cannot agree that "social conservative" is appropriate. "Traditional values" is undoubtedly inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

for example if you lived in the Netherlands, a social conservative could mean the oppoite from what it means in the US since the Netherlands is historically liberal. Pass a Method talk 18:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like wild speculation. Do you have any evidence that in the Netherlands, "social conservatism" is used to mean support of rights for women and LGBT people, multiculturalism, etc.? These sources [50] [51] for example would seem to contradict that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Circumcision surgical procedure

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Circumcision surgical procedure. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Circumcision. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Circumcision - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the speedy tag, geez doesn't the "under construction" tag mean anything? Zad68 21:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Break

I know we're kind of in the middle of a discussion at Talk:God, but I've had some rather pressing issues come up in real life that I need to make a priority. I'm planning to take a wikibreak, so I probably won't be able to participate in any discussions for the next couple of weeks. Anyway I wanted to thank you for being willing to discuss things with me on the talk page, and I appreciate the good faith you've shown there recently. I hope that someday we'll come down on the same side of an argument, but until then I suppose we can agree to disagree. Peace, ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality

Honestly, it is very hard to believe that anyone who would remotely consider themselves a reasonable adult human being would consider this edit even remotely acceptable. Rather, it very strongly indicates a rather juvenile attitude and a possible predisposition to trolling. You have already been warned recently for your conduct. Should you continue in like manner, there is every reason to believe you will be made subject to sanctions of some sort. Under the circumstances, that might include potentially serious sanctions. From this point forward, please make an effort to engage in behavior that would be expected from the rational adult you presumably claim yourself to be. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Focus on the Family

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Focus on the Family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle

You did a drive by twikle of me on an issue being discussed without any discussion by yourself. I consider that to be highly improper and a form of vandalism. You failed to address the NPOV concern or the Undue Weight concern. I suggest you join the conversation rather than elevate the dispute. Arzel (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Your addition to In God we trust has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the content [52] predates [53], so I would be fairly surprised if it is a copyright violation. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Burma

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Burma. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Axis occupation of Vojvodina. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Focus and attention

Hi, I have seen some of your edits for some time and some comments on John Carter's page, and I must say that I can not figure out what you are doing. I have not seen what could be called vandalism from you, but I am sorry to be upfront but must say that the edits seem "pointless" most of the time. You changed teacher to preacher on Jesus just now, losing conformity to source. I have not actually seen any great edits and no terrible edits, but most of the time they are very lukewarm and need attention. Could you please try and only edit when you feel focused? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, unfortunately. The recent edit to Template:Christianity comes to mind. Adding the Seventh-day Adventists is not, in and of itself, necessarily a bad idea, but, in all honesty, adding the broader Adventism would have made more sense, but that broader topic was actually already included. One definitely gets the impression that your edits are, well, done on a whim, without any clear understanding of the topics, or, apparently, much effort to understand them in advance. Your recent indication that you were basically unaware of and made no apparent effort to follow WP:RS is a further concern. If I may be so bold, I really doubt that your own opinions, which seem to be the driving force in these edits, are really the best indicators of what should and should not be included. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, the edit made to creationism messed up the presentation of the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of African-American firsts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of African-American firsts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Enver Čolaković

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Enver Čolaković. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Angel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Halo

Major religious groups (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heathenry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)