User talk:AnonMoos/Archive2

FNORD

Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up!24.176.20.60 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Divisions of Islam Islamic science Eugene R. Black WCWM Masoretes Bulgarian customs Islamic art Battle of the Trench Eudes of Aquitaine The Kids Will Have Their Say Fiqh Popular Front (France) Nikah Islands of North Korea Franz Hartmann List of Salvadoran Americans Kink List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors

Cleanup Seal of the Prophets Abd Shams ibn Abd al-Manaf Atenism Merge Queen of Sheba Isra and Mi'raj Abdul Qadir Jilani Add Sources Din (Arabic term) People of the Book Laylat al-Qadr Wikify Optera Alavi Bohras Expand Ihram Tawalla Criticism of Hinduism Amazons

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Petrus Alfonsi

The Petrus article seems more comprehensive and includes everything from the Peter one, as far as I can tell. Suppose we just used that one, and copied the list of works from the Peter article to a new "works" section in the petrus one? If that makes sense... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

CB Edits

I know, but you gotta admit that first sentence just ran on and on with 3 changes of subject. Now that sentence about pre-20th Century CBs sounds like a non-sequitur, which I think it is in the opening paragraph. --zabadoh 17:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mona Baker

The Mona Baker case isn't as straightforward as some make it out to be. There are more details in this article: Academic boycotts of Israel. --70.51.230.180 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

Can you cite that? I've never heard that in my life and I doubt any of the multiple people who worked on the article have heard that either, and they understand Hebrew better than I do. One can argue "Elohim" might be plural, but "Adonai" is not. Remember, no original research. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I said this before and I'll say it again: No original research. If every other Hebrew speaker in the world understands that "Adonai" is either singular or does not fit anywhere into the conjugation system at all, under Wikipedia policies, you are incorrect. Whether you are actually wrong or not is irrelevant--You're writing your own original research into the wiki which violates policy. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Adonai is the plural of Adon or the emphatic form of Adon --AustinWellbelove (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In Reply....

Actually, I was upset with the phrase "Open Sesame," so I changed it to "Open Says Me" and left the Popeye-style parsing as you call it in parentheses for those who aren't intelligent enough to know the difference. But thanks again for your misguided assumption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisabee729 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Ruth

I acknowledge that Ruth is not counted as a saint by the Catholic Church according to the listing I have just searched, which somewhat surprises me, as I am a Catholic and have noted how many other Old Testament personalities are. However, I do note that as included in the article now Ruth is included in at least one calendar of saints. I'm going through the calendars of saints one by one, so I don't yet know how many others she might be on. So, on that basis, I can't answer your question as to how often she is called a saint, because I haven't checked all the calendars yet. Also, like with all the other articles being put in the Saints project, Book of Ruth is going to be added to the project watchlist, so that the rest of the members of the project can also monitor it for changes, vandalism, and what not, as well as, at least potentially, help improve it. Based on the article's talk page, it's the only project so far that can say that. That actually surprises me, because I thought that the Bible project might have already marked it, but evidently they haven't. You are free to remove the banner if you see fit, however. John Carter 16:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a single list that I know of to refer to, as the different churches all use their own liturgical calendars. I initially created the Category:Old Testament saints in what I now know was the mistaken idea that most or all of the individuals who are regarded as saints by the Christian churches from the so-called Old Testament would be basically fairly universally included in the calendars of all the Christian churches who keep calendars of saints. I was more than a little surprised to find that the Catholics don't regard Ruth as a saint. She is listed in the Calendar of Saints (Lutheran), which was my basis for including her in that category of individuals from the Old Testament considered saints by the Christian churches. As I don't yet know her status in any of the Orthodox or other churches, I think it might be more than reasonable to change the category, in this case, to Category:Lutheran saints, and maybe later change it to something else if and when I find that she is included in other lists as well. Please let me know what you think of the idea. Sorry for any unnecessary confusion and extra effort this has caused you. John Carter 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Test pages

You know if you want to create a test page all you need to do is create a sub-page on your user page, like this: User:AnonMoos/test_page. It may be easier than using your main user page as a test page. There are also sandboxes available. Bytebear 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tangent on language

gd-0Bha Gàidhlig aig seaneairean agus seanmhairean agam.

Thanks for your note on date formats on the Regnans in Excelsis talk page. Seeing your interest in language, I thought you'd enjoy this userbox from my talk page. The translation: "My grandfathers and grandmothers could speak Gaelic." —OtherDave 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Female wartime crossdresser category

The transsexual and transgender people category is not only for transsexuals, but also for transgender people, who by definition subvert the rules of gender representation, which all these women did. It is essentially an umbrella category for people who were transexual OR transgendered. I personally think that the transgender people and behavior category is poorly named, but I have added it for the sake of inclusiveness. Asarelah 02:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Chai

Am Yisirael Chai has been a long time rallying cry as well as a Jewish song. I have edited the article to reflect this (removing the word "ancient"). As for the "Black Hebrews", I could not verify "kai" was their spelling for ??, so I removed it. And even if it was, it shouldn't be included. They are a tiny (hate filled) group with a non-standard transliteration. Epson291 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, and your nonsense about the verb stuff makes no sense. The translation could also be "The people of Israel are still living" it is just a translation. And Israel refers to the Jewish people. (The word Jew just comes from Judea) Epson291 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC) And its not a slogan, thats not the correct term at all. Epson291 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I've seen you've made several edits to the page, I'm not (trying to) attack the work you've done on the page. Epson291 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have readded some of what I orinally wrote on your talk page, you removed it, please do not do it again. I have responded at talk:chai (symbol) as I feel it isn't going to be resolved here in addition to you editing my comments out. Epson291 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Zanj

I hear you and Hal are fighting over what the Zanj were. Here's a quote from another article that Hal says is ignorant but I want a second opinion:

According to J. Phillipe Rushton, Arab relations with blacks whom the Muslims had dealt as slave traders for over 1000 years could be summed up as follows:

“ Although the Koran stated that there were no superior and inferior races and therefore no bar to racial intermarriage, in practice this pious doctrine was disregarded. Arabs did not want their daughters to marry even hybridized blacks. The Ethiopians were the most respected, the "Zanj" (Bantu and other Negroid tribes from East and West Africa south of the Sahara) the least respected, with Nubians occupying an intermediate position ”

Judging from the above quote, Zanj seems to mean unhybridized black person or negroid. So the Nubians and Ethiopians were not considered zanj because they were very much hybridized with the Arabs and/or had much exposure to Arab culture.

According to Cavalli-Sforza:

The mixed genetic makeup and use of Afro-Asiatic languages reflect the history of the Ethiopians, who for a long time had close contacts with the Arabs. In and around the earliest Christian times, there was an empire that took in both regions. Its capital was first at Saba (Sheba) in Arabia and later at Axum, in Africa. According to Ethiopian tradition, Makeda, the Queen of Sheba, visited King Solomon and had by him a son, Menelek, founder of the Ethiopian dynasty, which has only recently been overthrown. The Bible tells of these events.

Christmasgirl

8.3

Indeed it is, but I do it with the idea that a person will either understand why I added it or ask me why, in most cases it's obvious the article needs it. In this case it a combination of the overly long intro (especially for the article size) and the odd bolding at the start of directory table. Vicarious 09:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added your references where they belong

Pls look at the reference i have added, you can decide to continue adding your reference or start a war. end the war, and leave well be alone. do not delete other editors tags or references, do not add or. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it alone please, i have shown u a jesture of good will and added your ref to the other article, end the war. Notice i have made an extensive contribution to ethnic groups in Africa, it is an area i know very well.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 11:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unity Church

A denomination of 2 million is significant. Granted, I'm biased because I'm one of the 2 million, but it's also the only major Western Christian denomination to embrace mysticism. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The real test is, is the Unity Church more important than the Nestorian churches in the global history of Christianity over the last 2,000 years (not just the English speaking world over the last 200 years)? AnonMoos 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)"

I would say "yes". After all, Jehovah's Witnesses are listed, and they have 6 million. Is 6 million the cutoff? --Scottandrewhutchins 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It has as much right to be there as JW, and it's not taking up additional space since it's on the same line. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unity exists all over the world, and its radio, television, and priont publications increase its awareness. When you cite the time factor, it dates back to the nineteenth century, as do Chrisitan Science, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Trefoil knot

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, AnonMoos! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule videophysics\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chai (symbol)

Just wanted to let you know that I had volunteered to mediate this case, but I wanted to find out first if there is still an issue that requires resolution, since the case is kind of old. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that both parties have agreed to mediation, I've started the discussion here, at least for now. Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten the Chai (symbol) case. Just have been a little busy. I will get the RfC drafted on Saturday or Sunday. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Piran Bay

Hi. Ok, I found some time to explain further why the image needs to be corrected. Please, don't refer to my argumentation as stupid since there are some good reasons and I am not sure if you are fully familiar with the situation. The thing is that the border is not defined, neither on the sea nor on the land. Prior to 1991, Slovenia exercised a full jurisdiction over the whole Bay and the official standpoint of the government is that the border is according to status in 1991. Croatian claim is according to traditional principles but that doesn't mean that it has a better background to claim the territory. Untill the border is not agreed by both sides, saying claimed by one of the countries is therefore POV. So, my suggestion would be (as I see that you are the author of the map):

• If the map illustrates Drnovšek-Račan agreement, the claimed by area should be marked as Slovenian, since this is what the agreement says. And the map can omit the central line.
• If the map just shows the Piran Bay, name the area as disputed territory and omit the corridor, since there is no corridor. So, Italian waters, Slovenian waters, Croatian waters, international waters and disputed area.
• Perhapes the best solution would be to have 3 maps in the article, one with Slovenian and one with Croatia view and one with a compromise solution (but corrected as mentioned in the first paragraph).

I hope you see my point now. Well, personally, this border dispute has been in our media far too long and I am really fed up with it since the only thing it does is it worsens the relations between the two countries. Best regards. --Tone 12:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an image is badly needed. However, the present image does not correspond to the caption. By the Drnovšek-Račan agreement, the disputed area belongs to Slovenia and should be marked as such. So, as I said before already, possible changes are either to correct the map so it will correspond to the agreement or to put there a map without the corridor, as the corridor is something "invented" by the agreement. So, if the map shows just the geography, name the area as disputed territory and omit the corridor, since there is no corridor. So, Italian waters, Slovenian waters, Croatian waters, international waters and disputed area. I am trying to be objective but I realize it is sometimes hard. So, what do you think about modifying the map? --Tone 16:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there is no major problem, it's only my opinion that modifying the captions would be more appropriate. Perhapes we should leave it for a while or ask a third party. --Tone 10:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, concrete suggestion. Put: Slovenian waters, according to the agreement (or a shorter formulation maybe...). Or, without the corridor and marked Disputed area (and the text below the image without mentioning the agreement.) What do you think? --Tone 10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

the J in Jehoshaphat

Anon, you never did answer my question about where the J came from in other Hebrew names which contain Gods name, Names such as Jehoshaphat. If through the course of time the name meaning "YHWH is salvation" came to be pronounced as "Jehoshaphat" then that is enough evidence of how the tetragrammaton may be pronounced as "Jehovah". since it is a simple matter of pronunciation ie. Michael is Migel, Paul is Pablo, John is Juan (you follow?) then there can be no arguement against pronouncing the name as Jehovah. But to say one is wrong for doing so,is wrong.(I personally believe that opposition to pronouncing Gods name in any of it's various forms is opposition to people calling on the name of God, which is...we don't need to go there,right? I would not fight against pronouncing Gods name.) I don't dispute your knowledge of language. Please though,leave your personal opinions out of your editing and let the articles be edited objectively by others, then you will be better off. You tend to use words like "most" and "the Majority of" instead of "Many" which seems to be supporting your own view that your beliefs are correct,you yourself being in the majority. How many mondern linguists are there? where are the stats? the interviews? have all modern linguists taken a poll on this? where is the evidence that most of these educated people are saying this? if this information is not available then it is only your opinion saying that most of the modern scholars blah,blah,blah. And your points on my talk page about your anonymous name and such, you kinda lost me "dude" Kljenni 16:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you how the name Jehovah came into being Kljenni 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Indiana 8.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indiana 8.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Chai

Find a reference for you claim it is spelt kai by the "Black Hebrews", I cannot, or I will remove it. I have asked you before.Epson291 05:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yeshu" vs. "Yeshua" [of Nazareth]

Greetings, AnonMoos! I've added a few more questions about your response to this query on the Humanities Reference Desk, April 20 (3.12). Would appreciate if you'd answer there. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Further: I've amended my response there to clarify that it was based strictly on contemporary usage. Please note that it might have been instructive in yours, had you linked to the pages on Yeshua and Yeshu—the existence of which I only discovered afterwards. -- Deborahjay 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

okay, so,

Explain to me quickly why this is "obvious vandalism" and I should not block you for WP:3RR. Go ahead and reply here. ··coelacan 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article Rafida has been protected due to edit warring. However if you suspect the user was a sockpuppet and should be blocked please let me know, so that the article is not unnecessarily locked. – Riana _ऋ 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton again

There's another proposal at Talk:Tetragrammaton to move all the content about Jehovah from that article and Yahweh to its own article. Given your past interest, you may want to comment. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Piran Bay image

Hi! I'd just like to ask you to change the name of Capodistria on your map to Koper, to keep it in accordance with Wikipedia's naming. edolen1 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard

3RR case for you is closed as no violation, as reversion of sockpuppets vandalism is protected as an exemption from the 3RR. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

Good point. I suppose it wouldn't be of much use to English-language projects like Wiktionary, Wikiversity, or WikiSource either. I suppose I was going through my edit history and sorting images into those that were empty descriptions pages for Commons images and those that were under the right license for Commons, but without paying enough attention. Sorry about the oversight. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for visiting my talk page. I replied there. Geometry guy 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Elohim

Please provide source(s) for that claim. Also, please sign your comments. Perspicacite 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pluralis maiestatis would be Latin, not Biblical Hebrew and it's majestatis not maiestatis. It's great that you have ascertained the extent of my knowledge regarding other languages, but in order to back up your claim please provide sources. Perspicacite 00:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions by Brandon Toropov and Luke Buckles, page 369[1]:

"Despite the –im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God, is grammatically singular, regularly taking singular predicate forms in the Hebrew Bible. The word elohim likely had an origin in a plural grammatical form, because, when the Hebrew Bible uses elohim not in reference to God, it takes plural forms (e.g. Exodus 20:3). Some scholars interpret the –im ending as an expression of majesty (pluralis majestatis) or excellence (pluralis excellentiae), expressing high dignity or greatness: compare with the similar use of plurals of ba’al (master) and adon (lord)."

Farther down that same page we have an extended explanation of what I added to the Islam section: "The singular, Eloah, is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in Job, 41 times). The same divine name is found in Arabic (ilah) and Aramaic (elah)."

Funny how religious scholars agree with my "nonsense." Perspicacite 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent addition of Documentary Hypothesis to the article Elohim is possibly warranted, however I note that the article Documentary Hypothesis itself, as are most of the academic commentators, fail to acknowledge that the entire premise of the Wellhausen proposal is based on the simple assumption that a God can not be known by different names at the same time. Given that Moses was known by more then four names, this also not being mentioned in the article on Moses, it seems that the entire hypothesis is questionable on logical grounds.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wingdings

If it did receive a great deal of media attention (which would need a verifiable source), then perhaps a brief mention in the introduction is worthwhile (maybe something along the lines of "The typeface gained considerable media attention following the September 11, 2001 attacks when numerous apocryphal stories arose alleging that certain combinations of characters would produce apparently portentous series of glyphs."). However, since the string "Q33" is not in any way related to the attacks, I feel that it is not worth including a full section on it. That said, if a verifiable source can be found for the claim that Microsoft altered the typeface (such that "NYC" can be read as "I love New York") then this may also be worth including. As it was, the section was not encyclopaedic. I hope my reasoning behind the removal is now clearer? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it. At least one third of that which I deleted was related to 9/11. The rest was equally worthy of deletion. However, as I have already stated that I will not 'interfere' any more, and as you seem to have some particularly strong desire for that section to remain (meaning that my messages have been rather more pleasant than yours, IMO) I think this correspondence can be considered closed. I'd also note that I wouldn't support your claim that the majority of 'non-type-geeks' wouldn't have heard of it otherwise. It was reasonably well known for reasons other than that: primarily that it's a daft typeface. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Masih edit

My apologies for that incorrect edit. I'll update the Typo list later today to ignore Masih. Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Gorean article links

My apologies for the intial short answer, twas late here and did think that directing you to the guidelines would be sufficient. However, as the guidelines can be TL;DR I'll reproduce two of the guidelines which I think warrant the removal of that link

from WP:EL

2 - Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". - note that last bit - "unverifiable research"

11 - Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

it may not be a blog (mind you, all these sorts of pages look the same to me!) but it is someones personal page.

Hope this helps! --The internet is serious business 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. so we can avoid a possible edit war why don't we both look for better links? after all, what is wikipedia if we don't help each other to contribute? Hit me up at my talk page (I promise a better answer this time!)The internet is serious business 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary on Arab

Can you please clarify your statement on my talk page that "The term "Semitic peoples" is acceptable to be included in the article, but the term "Semite" itself is not acceptable when referring to a modern context (as opposed to ancient history)..." What is calling someone a "Semite" a problem? Thank you. --Lanternix 16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• So this whole article Semitic is wrong or what? --Lanternix 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re

Yeah, sorry about that. There's quite a few instances of that and I usually pick up on them, my attention must have wandered. —Xezbeth 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazons

Please read the National Geographic's research carefully as it states clearly "Blonde Amazon Warrior Women"

User:Turquoiseeyes 19

36, July 4, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elise_Sutton_FemDom_Loving_Female_Authority-bookcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Elise_Sutton_FemDom_Loving_Female_Authority-bookcover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

List of circle topics

Dude! Read the edit prior to my first edit of that page. Your statement is erroneous. I simply reworded the list introduction to reflect what was and is. The textual introduction was false. If you feel so inclined, it would be appropriate to extract all mathematical items and create a new list rather than delete wisdom and work won through diligence.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Friendly advice from an outsider

I don't know what your dispute is about nor on which side of it I am, but I do notice it's got a bit too heated at points. Just hold your right arm over your left and say to yourself "Calm, calm, calm" (works for me). Sam Blacketer 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

PR on Community sanction noticeboard

considering this response (see edit summary) you've received from said user, you might be interested in presenting some information into this noticeboard case. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag of the United States

Thanks for removing that anachronistic Malaysia reference. I'd removed it earlier, but decided not to get in an edit war with someone who insisted on keeping it there. Glad to see it gone!  :) Popkultur 18:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

PNG transparency Javascript "fix" option?

How do I turn off the PNG transparency Javascript code, which I strongly suspect is contributing to slower loading of pages with inline images, and significantly increasing the frequency of browser crashes on my system? I'm currently using "Classic" skin. I was told that you might know something about this. Thanks. AnonMoos 05:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the only way to solve the decreased speed issue (short of upgrading hardware) is to either upgrade to Internet Explorer version 7 or use a different browser such as Mozilla Firefox. Both of these are free downloads. If the new code is actually making your browser crash then I suspect there is something wrong with your computer because no one else has reported increased browser crashes as a direct result of the JavaScript workaround. However, on pages with a large number of PNG images, the workaround may cause your browser to temporarily freeze while the JavaScript code is working.

Please let me know if this answers your question. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't feel like downloading a 50 megabyte Microsoft monolithic update (which will probably end up causing more problems than it solves on my particular system), especially when the problem could be much more easily solved at your end. Your alleged "fix" is not C language code deeply integrated into the infrastructure of the underlying Wikimedia software -- it's superficial Javascript, which serves a purely cosmetic purpose (adding no real significant functionality). Since it's really mere cosmetic fluff (not essential to the basic functioning of Wikipedia), and since it degrades the Wikipedia browsing experience for many people, it's really incumbent on you to add an customization option that allows people to turn off this alleged "feature". Thank you for acting reasonably in this matter. AnonMoos 17:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If we offered an option to turn off the workaround, then people would just turn it off and then complain that they couldn't view some of the transparent PNG and SVG images correctly. If you're adverse to downloading a 14.8 MB update from Microsoft (which will, incidentally, significantly improve the security and performance of your computer), then why not download Firefox? Firefox is only 5.7 MB and can be easily removed if you decide you hate it.

Now, while upgrading is really the best option here, I will take another look at the JavaScript code to see if I can improve its efficiency/performance. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, looking at the JavaScript code again, I do see a couple of ways to improve performance. Please be patient; hopefully I'll have an optimized version of the code implemented within 24 hours. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

please go ahead and move "Israel's Nuclear Monopoly"

Your right. Israel's Nuclear Monopoly should be moved to Israel and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I don't know how to do that. Can you do it for me? I'm still a newbie:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.6.99 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks for polishing up with your copy editing. It's great to have such help. Kind regards from the Alps. ;-) --Nemissimo 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories in Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel

Just to let you know, I've begun a discussion on the right categories for this article on its talk page: Talk:Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel. Your input would be appreciated. -- Lincolnite 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help at the Humanities desk

... on the Max Shulman story, "Love Is A Fallacy". Unimaginative Username 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mater lectionis

Don't call me "dude" firstly. Vav is the most prevalent way to call it in English today, and I and others are not trying to "impose modern Israeli names" [sic], I can see perhaps from your edits you think either A), Hebrew only exits 2000 years ago in the Bible, B), Hebrew only exists for a small subset of non-Jewish Academics or C), Hebrew isn't a modern thriving language today, with far more speakers then said people calling it my what are now archaic English names for Hebrew letters. Epson291 11:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:PIJ emblem.png

You are welcome. I'm always glad to find someone interested in the academic side of these things. I noticed that there is a dispute above with a user I know. Perhaps I could help? Tewfik^Talk 03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Heart

Sorry about that. Technically, "HEAVY BLACK HEART" is more correct, but if there's a usability issue I'll leave it alone. Superm401 - Talk 01:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Chastity

Why would somebody who is serious about chastity not prefer an arranged marriage in favor of courtship? Jpritikin 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Guelphs

I just didn't revert far enough. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

Is this you from Usenet? (If it's not, you'll have no idea what I mean...)FlaviaR (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New extended version of BDSM

Hi AnonMoos, the German featured article BDSM has been translated into Englisch and is now avaible on Wikipedia. It took a while, but finely it was done. ;-)

It would be great if you could be active in the discussion. Knowledge on UK/US specifics is desperately needed. Kind Regards.--Nemissimo (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

North-south divide image reply

Canary islands are dependencies of Spain, considered south. Kingj123 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Permission to change license of images to "Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA"

Since you've edited these images, I need to ask your permission before changing the license. The images:

• Image:wikipedia isometric cube 3.jpg
• Image:wikipedia dimetric cube 3.jpg
• Image:Isometric perspective camera rotations.jpg

Thanks! SharkD (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Imaginitive userfication

User:AnonMoos/Imaginative Sex - have fun. Uncle G suggested some sources at DRV, I think. No need to go back to DRV once its sourced, obviously, just move it in, consensus is pretty clear. Happy new one, Guy (Help!) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

zombietime

Thanks for pointing it out. It makes the writing more difficult, but I'll try to fix it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hunters of gor.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hunters of gor.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fatimid

I don't deal in original research and I'm not saying anything contradictory to historical fact. I’m not claiming he did not destroy the church of the holy sepulcher, and in fact he did. However, you have overstepped your boundaries when it comes to establishing historical fact and historical conjecture. All I’m saying is get your facts straight, and do not mix fact with fiction. Secondly do not accuse me of a bias I do not have. Third, I personally have not done any scholarly work but my grandfather has a PhD in subjects concerning Islamic and Arabic history. His thesis was on the Ismaili’s. I have spoken with him about the subject and am aware of all the significant scholarly research. I know what I am talking about and would not intentionally deceive anybody. Now tell me what your qualifications are on the subject. --DRC27 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to claim that my suggestions for improving the quality of this article is influenced by what you perceive to be my religious tradition; that is very insulting. Furthermore you seem biased in your posts as shown by: "if Hakim had shown more respect for my religion (instead of ordering the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 A.D)…" Someone in such a biased position as you is not even remotely qualified to claim authority over a subject such as this. I am in contact with professors who are experts in the fields of Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Islamic studies. My grandfather for example, being one of those aforementioned professors, received his PhD in Islamic/Near Eastern studies from the University of Michigan with a specialization in Ismaili thought (and since you are so quick to accuse others of biases, which I suspect is a projection of your own flaws, I want to make it clear that neither he nor I are Muslims). I do not need to qualify myself to someone such as yourself seeing as I am more of an authority on the subject anyways. And since u seem to be so interested in this subject, I have been told that a lot of information concerning Al-Hakim has been found in the Genizah documents. The information present there has contradicted a lot of the so called “facts” about Al-Hakim that you mentioned. Since history is not all fact, and contains a lot of speculation and conjecture, I suggest you choose what to believe carefully and avoid forming hasty biased opinions based on shady testimonia. The journal of near eastern studies as well as the encyclopedia of islam, even though reputable in their own right, rely on whatever information is available. With hardly any information available on certain subjects it is not wise to blindly accept certain questionable information, even though it may suit your own personal and sometimes biased purposes. I’m planning an edit of this article to make it more scholarly and less biased. I’m sure you wont mind. --DRC27 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Tripoli

I strongly object to your reverting the Treaty of Tripoli article. The new material that I submitted was documented and cited, but you removed it. The fact is, the claims made in the article (and the POV speech which is cited to support it) is contradicted by several published scholars. Also, if you want to argue the religious nature of the Founding Fathers, cite your sources; I certainly cite mine. Pooua (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed the Founding Fathers were all orthodox Christians (though some were), nor is that relevant to the article on the Treaty of Tripoli. Please stop reverting the entire article. If you have disagreement with a portion of the article, offer your own revision. Pooua (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation

You have been listed as a party in the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#New antisemitism. It would be very helpful if you would sign up; not only are you an articulate voice for your position, but I'm not sure if the mediation can go forward without all the listed parties. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one of 18 that hasn't signed up, and I think it's not being accepted for that reason. It doesn't really matter what your views are, picture in, picture out, some other outcome - the fact is, you're an articulate voice on the subject, and would really help matters. Do you think you could re-consider and sign up? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Takbir

You may be an extremely pious Muslim, but if your skills in Arabic linguistics and grammatical analysis are weak, then all the piety in the world won't necessarily help you to usefully edit article "Takbir" (or the related section in the Flag of Iraq article). Furthermore, your idea that what is worshipped in Islam is completely different and separate from what is worshipped in other religions does not appear to be shared by many of your fellow Muslims, who have no hesitation in translating الله into other languages with the word which is normally used to refer to the monotheistic divinity in each language (in English, this word is "God" with a capital G). Not to mention that Arabic-speaking Muslims normally have no problem with Arabic-speaking Christians referring to what they worship by means of the word الله also. When the Malaysian government recently tried to force Malaysian Christians to avoid referring to the Christian God as "Allah" in print publications, this measure received very little support even within Malaysia, and the government soon had to back down.

So it's quite inappropriate for you to edit Wikipedia to make it conform to your own personal viewpoint, which seems to be a minority viewpoint among Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First you are wrong, My Arabic linguistics and grammatical analysis are NOT weak, There is Shadda (الله) on the 2nd L, you cant' dived Allah name to 2 words. If you dived the word, it will be like this, AL LLAH (Double L) Because of the Shadda on the 2nd L, not AL ILAH just like you said. the west translated it, which it forbidden in Islam. Mussav (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Venusonahal.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Venusonahal.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue

Just to say thanks for removing my duplicate comment from the talk page. I sent off the edit, then noticed a typo in the headline and stopped the transmission to correct it. But the thing was already well on its way. When my slow connection got me back to the edit page, you had already done the correction. You even deleted the version with the faulty headline! Thanks again! Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Word for "Jew" in languages of former Yugoslavia

AnonMoos, thanks for joining the Language Desk discussion on the above query I'd posted there. You might be amused (hopefully not dismayed) by the response of a linguist colleague of Polish Jewish extraction (as am I, inter alia), who observed, Yes, the Polish language retains its word for Jew that's similar to the derogatory term, and it doesn't seem to stop the Poles from using it, hmmmmm....?! We engage in correcting mistranslations of the whole Jew/Hebrew/Israelite set wherever we find them and invite you to join in. I appreciate your input! -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work

I've seen your edits around Wikipedia often, and, although you may not have noticed me, I just wanted to say good job. :) (Also, you may want to archive your talk page soon. My computer is freezing up just trying to send you this message.) --Alexc3 ^(talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Or

I added {{cn}} because the proposition that "or" is usually written with a capital letter is being made with nothing to back it up, and the reason that this happens because it needs to be distinguished from the conjunction is likewise being made with nothing to back it up. I don't think either of these are self-evident, and so we need a citation. Hence the "citation needed" tag. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your "citation needed" tag is rather pointless. The word "Or" could be capitalized for any of three reasons: 1) In some styles of blazoning, all color words are capitalized. 2) To emphasize a word which is semantically very important for blazoning, but which is short (two letters) and in its lowercase form easily visually overlooked (containing no typographic wide letters, ascenders, or descenders). 3) The rather obvious fact that the conjunction and tincture name are otherwise spelled identically. AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To take your points in order: 1) Yes, this is certainly true, and finding a citation for it will be trivial. However, this applies to all names of tinctures, which is a very good reason not to mention capitalisation only under the entry for or, but instead to mention it in a general section about tinctures towards the start. As for 2 and 3, they serve merely to demonstrate why it would be useful if blazons did adopt this practice: they don't show that in fact it's common practice anywhere. Indeed, I don't believe it is: I have never seen a blazon where all tinctures were lowercase except or, and I think the burden of proof rests on whoever is making this claim. Can you find an example of a blazon which has all tinctures in lowercase except or? The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Attributed arms

Hey, thanks for finding or making those shields. Also responded to your comment on the talk page. Gimmetrow 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Saint Faith

Thanks for your help with the article on Saint Faith. I'm unclear as to why you reverted my edits about her attributes and relics. I'm currently expanding the article, which is a stub. No explanation was given for your revision. Can you clarify? Thank you! --Polylerus (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Darell

In the Toran and Bayta Darell article's talk, you mentioned that it might be good to rename the article. I think so too, but "Darell family" sounds... cumbersome. What do you think now? —ScouterSig 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kali's teeth bracelet

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kali's teeth bracelet, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kali's teeth bracelet. Neitherday (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Kiva Kahl

I noticed your note on Schumweb's talk page. You mentioned that the article was speedied. Is that true? The delete log says that it had been "dated prod", but there's no mention of the date and no link to a prod debate. –BozoTheScary (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. I refreshed myself on the deletion procedures. Someone put a prod tag on the article. It sat there without being removed for 5 days. Schuminweb deleted the article. He did the right thing, because no one removed the tag.

The right thing for you to do would be to ask Schuminweb to consider your correspondence as the equivalent of a late removal of the prod tag. This will advance the article to a deletion discussion. I will be happy to participate in that. Please be nice. He did the right thing. He can't advocate for every article out there with a languishing prod tag. If he chooses not to reinstate the article, you should post a request for a Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This article should be in the Wikipedia. She is notable from at least 2 directions. Someone just needs to advocate for the article. It will help substantially if you can work up a new version of the article as a subpage of your User page. You can use the Google cache of the article as a starting point. –BozoTheScary (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiva Kahl and cast your vote with your arguments. It is out of Schuminweb's hands. –BozoTheScary (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kali's teeth bracelet

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kali's teeth bracelet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali's teeth bracelet. Thank you. Neitherday (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

YOU Stop messing with categories of Arrow Cross

Nazism isn't a German only ideology, its used by various different groups who follow it. The Arrow Cross Party's ideology (see the "Ideology") is inline with Nazism, not Fascism. If you don't know the difference, then why bother editing articles to do with it? - Gennarous (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF

I noticed your comment in this edit [[2]]. I want to inform you, that you are violating WP:AGF in this case. Thanks for reading. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Update

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for that, I actually meant for that to be in your talk page(I thought it was) but now that you mention it it may have been in your use page, it did seem a bit odd for a talk page. So once again I apologize.--Teacherbrock (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Contribution to King-James-Only Movement

I noticed you recently made a minor correction in King-James-Only Movement. The article really needs much more dramatic work at citing sources that support the claims. If you are able to help in this way, that would be great. If no one adds any citations soon, I will be deleting the uncited material as discussed in the article's talk page.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Isratine proposal

Wikipedia has guidelines regarding the citing of sources (Wikipedia:Citing sources) It doesn't matter if the form of a link gives little idea of what is linked to. People who are interested can simply click on the link to find out. Furthermore, it violated a neutral point of view of the article (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) to claim that "not all historical details given are accurate". Stop re-adding your biased commentary to links otherwise it will create a dispute that may require a Wikipedia administrator to intervene to explain to you how things work around here. --Loremaster (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop decontextualizing Gaddafi link: "White Book (ISRATIN)" is completely and utterly indadequate as a description of the external link on the Isratine article. People need to be told where they're going and and why they might want to go there, and "White Book (ISRATIN)"[sic] serves none of those purposes. Furthermore, the link is full of historical falsehoods, and Wikipedia is not required to be neutral between the proposition that the earth is flat and the proposition that the earth is round. AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong on both counts. Although we can debate a better title for this link, the notion that we are linking to a website "full of historical falsehoods" is your OPINION not a fact. Even if it was a fact, it is against Wikipedia guidelines regarding the citing of sources to include such a critique within the title of the link. What you are doing is simply unacceptable. That being said, if you can cite a reputable source which argues that the White Book is "full of historical falsehoods", we can discuss adding this criticism within the text of the article rather than in the title of the link. --Loremaster (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Map in Land of Israel

There's an ongoing discussion in that article about whether a map of David's kingdom is too fringily extensive or not that I think could benefit from knowledgeable input, so I thought you might want to look in. Cheers,John Z (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I warn you

don't try to implicate nationalism in my actions again. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

this is re [3]. user's contribution consist prevalently of revert-warring and argumentative non-sequiturs. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Red Lion v FCC

Just wanted to let you know that I answered your question from a few months back at Talk:Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission. I've added a name & link in the article. Cheers, Cgingold (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexual symbol

Good idea! The pink and blue heterosexual symbol belongs on the page concerning the topic on heterosexuality. Caden S (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hey. I just posed a question on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YHWH aleim, YHWH's Council of Elohim regarding Martha's edits. Could you head over and let me know what you think? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cruft!?

I'm sorry, I don't know what "cruft" is or means. Evening Scribe (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Classical_language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirusivaperur (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Classical language. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Neopaganism in the United States article

Misquotation of David Waldron on the "Neopaganism in the United States article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.251.77 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Dr David Waldron and I am cited as claiming that there are 10 million neo-Pagans in the United States in 2000 up from 4.5 million in 1990. You were right to draw attention to this as it is a misquotation from a reference pertaining to the number of Wiccan related books sold as recorded by the American Book sellers association in relation to the size of the Wiccan related industry. However I am very unhappy as being represented as having made this claim. Particular that in the article I then proceed to discuss the problematic nature of using such stats to give a solid account of the numbers of Pagans and the problems inherent in determining what actually defines something as Wiccan or Pagan related. I have attempted to alter the references on the Numbers of neo-Pagans in America article and an accompanying map making the same claim erroneously on my behalf. However I am unfamiliar with editing wiki and have merely made reference to the misquotation.

While there is nothing to be done from your perspective I've noticed that Wiki imitation sites have me listed as making the same claim with the same citation.

Anyway if the articles pertaining to numbers of neo-Pagans in the United States could be cleaned up in relation to my own research I would be most grateful.

You can contact me if you need to at my listing at the University of Ballarat home page. I'd rather not list my email here directly due to Spam issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.251.77 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Din-i Ilahi

I have commented on Talk:Din-i-Ilahi regarding the Persian/Arabic issue, would love if you weighed in. ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamastan

Why do you prefer a dead link with a partial quote rather than a live link with the full quote? Do you have a political agenda?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

revert war on .ps

Hey AnonMoos. Why do you keep reverting the edit a bot is making to the .ps article? Example: [4] You have done it 9 times now, i don't think it's going to stop, and i think the bot's edit is correct. —fudoreaper (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus and the vipers

I'm going to let this thing go soon, because I understand how much Jesus means to you, whereas he means absolutly nothing to me. I wasn't serious about the article in the first place; I just want you now to take a moment and consider how much pain this article caused you and think how Muslims would feel the same when you take an Islamic phrase and interpret it your own way which differes from what their mamas taught them. HD1986 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Akhenaton" vs. "Akhenaten"

Re: Osarseph. Thanks for the clarification. Whether typo or variant transliteration, a wikipedia entry doesn't need inconsistent name usage. However, a section describing the variant transliterations might make sense, or a link to a page on the phenomenon. Ojophoyimbo (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot

It's an error. Thanks, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09 27 September 2008 (UTC).

P.S. For something very recent like that it's worth stopping the bot by leaving a message on it's talk page. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10 27 September 2008 (UTC).

Okay I'll give you that but...

But you are still silly. I may have spelled it wrong but Dr Strangelove is actually A BRITISH FILM!!! HAHA, it not even an iota american. IMDB sure agrees with me! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/ Look under country ITS BRITISH! Jabunga (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I forgot to remove your talk from my watchlist

But now the porblem is solved. I'm really sorry for stalking you; seeing the places you hang out at did me nothing but nausea and ruining my mood for the weekend. HD1986 (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

socialism

They actually were in reply, but I must have read your statement too fast. I know, that socialism called socialism is tabu, but I wanted to add that contrary to the myth of a socialist, communist free USA, there always were strong "socialist" movements (New Deal, cpusa, the sds in the 60s, Chomsky, Davis and other teachers). You say all these still don't count and I guess I have to agree.--Radh (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just read your angry mail on my page and you are of course right. It seems even my reading goes out of the window when I think about socialism these days. But isn't this even more strange: milder forms of the left have absolutely no chance in the US, but hardcore Stalinism did for a short time. The large SDS full of intelligent people simply runs amok and gets taken over by some hundred maoists and then by 30 Weatherpeople.--Radh (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Some news!

Classical language page's "favorite" editor User:Thirusivaperur' s sockpuppet Kalarimaster (talk · contribs · count) (now banned) made his intentions about Sanskrit clear at Talk:India#Disruptive_Edit stating

• "At least, there are now officially 3 classical Dravidian languages and just 1 (read Sanskrit) foreign language. This is something we can be proud of. The dravidian race is the last classical civilization on earth. And everybody should know that."
• "This is a wrong interpretation of history of mankind to maintain the myth, that foreign languages of India aren't that, what they are, foreign. The first settlers of India are Dravidian people alongside perhaps Austro-Asiatic languages. These people are the first people. It's notable, that people accorded Adivasi rights and status, are also belonging to Dravidian language family. Hence all other language families are definitely foreign to the original people. Through the mix of the foreigners languages and the native languages, Sanskrit and all the other north indian languages evolved. I don't care about these Indo-Aryan speakers as long as the Indian government does the right choices. 95% of Indo-Aryan peoples are f**** freaks, definitely trying to play down the dravidian race."
• "I won't say, that Sanskrit is not influential to any language in India. Anyway, Sanskrit as everybody knows is just a mix of this foreign language and the local populations (of dravidian race, brown skin). However, Sanskrit in a whole is not purely native. I don't like that. Of course Dravidian Languages are, as the government recognises, very special among all languages of the world. They have a long recorded history, and they are still spoken by 200 million people. Therefore they are somehow superior. Other languages didn't survive as spoken languages. These are facts. And that's why, i assume, people here try to suppress our heritage to the world. They are jealous about our ancient civilization, the last surviving in the world and angry about the government of India, because they made this official! These people are evil. We should get rid of them"

Thats all. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama/smoke filled room

About Obama and the Smoke filled room- a group of party leaders did select him from behind the scenes- and there is no such thing as grass roots enthusiasm when you are simply waving a race card in the air that gets you over 50% of your core votes- most of them from never-before voters. This to me is perfect use of a "smoke-filled room". The powers that be only allowed him in because of the economic crisis and other world issues- what is easier to scape goat/impeach/assassinate then the first black president?.--Nokternus420 (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do agree with you. The thing with the smoke filled room doesn't suit Obama at all as he didn't have hidden support from a group of wealthy executives but more a massive support from previous "non-voters" and various "anti social" race groups who felt they weren't represented in prior elections. Needless to say though, Obama is nothing like any prior president because of his capability to attract voters who could be deemed "racist" in a reverse way, seeing that something like 45% of Obamas voters only voted for him because of his skin colour, with many not even knowing his policies or even what party he was affiliated with. Any ideas on where something about this would fit? I feel it is very encyclopedic as something like this has never occured in US Politics.--Nokternus420 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Gorean

Hey Aronmoos, could you please look at the Gorean section and offer opinion or revisions on the area about Home Stone? I also added a citation for Home Stone, World of Gor website. You are more familiar than I with editing here, could you also offer some advice on what sections need citations and I could assist with the research? 74.184.106.207 (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why my user name did not appear in the message above, but it was me that left the message. OrionTheWolf (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

..I agree about making the wording objective, and not to sound as if it is a one true way perspective. I also added some questions and comments to the talk section of the Gorean article. I would like to try my hand at rewriting what is there, with the same content, but just different wording (such as the word serious, when describing a group of Goreans). You are very knowledgable in editing and adding to wikipedia, as well as you have contributed quite a bit to the article, so I would look to you for guidance on formatting, content, etc. Thanks! OrionTheWolf (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Aronmoos, actually Norman wrote an introduction for the Chronicles of Gor site and has approved it. The problem we cannot link to those articles is that they require you to register to see them. So I am limited to only citing the public info. Any suggestions on how to handle it? I wanted to link to some of Luther and Marcus's stuff but Neuro removed those links saying they did not fit standards because they were a geocities site. Thanks! OrionTheWolf (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on that source I added. Should have paid closer attention to that. I will continue researching and trying to find better sources for the Gor and Gorean articles. Damn it is difficult though as most peer reviewed stuff is just criticism of it from other wirters or reviewers of sci fi. OrionTheWolf (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

chastity etimology

I readded the section Chastity#Etymology. I hope its to your liking..... Fresheneesz (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to resolve our dispute

Hey, can we please resolve this without a war potentially exploding in our faces? I am deeply offended when my good-faith comments are censored on another person's talk page. I am even more offended when you call me a vandal, and claim that I have engaged "personal attacks" against you. Personally, I find your behavior far less than courtious to me, and I would like to resolve it peacfully.

I dispute your method of deleting people's work if you "happened to choose not to take on that extra amount of work at that particular time". This seems to be against wikipedia's editing policy. Please review that page to make sure you understand it.

I have noticed that you have prodigiously censored your talk page to remove any comment that goes against your point of view - I almost expect my current comment to be deleted. Note that if you do, I will find more formal forms to resolve this dispute. I have noted your most recent censorships:

I have also noticed that there are many editors that have been upset at your behavior. I will not be one to let it go unanswered. Please cooperate with me to resolve these issues peacefully and quickly. Thank you. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, why do you keep implying my spelling is wrong? I spell "etymology" and "censorship"[sic] correctly...

Second of all, is this the type of edit you consider the "very extensive and thoroughgoing revisions" neccessary to fix it? It looks much less extensive than the rant you placed on my talk page after deleting the section.

Lastly, I am going to stop arguing with you about your behavior here on your talk page. You have made it clear this needs some kind of dispute resolution. See you there. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry anonmoos, but you are forcing my hand. I didn't need to go through "thousands" of your edits to find significant evidence of misbehavior. I especially appalled at the censorship you have layed down on your talk page - on edits that are clearly in good faith. If you don't want to go through arbitration, all you have to do is tell me you will cooperate. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a moment to look this over. - Lambajan 05:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Moonchild

The site in question is not a reliable source and falls into a category prohibited by Wikipedia's external linking policy. That is, it is a social networking and blogging site. It is not the original publisher of the referenced article and may be violating the original author or publisher's copyright, and linking to sites appearing to violate copyright is another category not permitted by the linking policy. Finally, a reference to a published work does not require a link to the article, a standard text citation is sufficient. For these reasons, the link appears to be gratuitous, perhaps intended to drive traffic to the site. Watery Tart (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America

All I did was mention that the movie did mention Robert E. Lee's opposition to slavery. It happens at about the 10-minute mark. I didn't say anything about Alexander Stephens.24.6.172.215 (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Emphatic S and T

Hi AnonMoos, as you said on the Reference Desk, "sirat" comes from Latin "stratum", so I was wondering if there is something peculiar about loanwords using emphatic letters. I notice "imperator" was also borrowed and also uses the emphatic T. Does that happen often? If so, is there any linguistic reason for it? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Cross of St. Peter

Hi, good work on the touch-up you gave the article after my little overhaul- I think that the sections could possibly be expanded upon quite abit...your thoughts? Gavin (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I did purge the long list of death metal bands from the article some time ago. Perhaps more on the historical development of the cross - the tradition of Peter's crucifixion, the cross' use in heraldry etc. Its use in pre-Christian contexts if there are any etc. It will require some research but, worth a go? Gavin (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably use that article as a bit of inspiration as it were. Luckily I'm at Edinburgh University where they have masses of tomes dedicated purely to Christian symbolism and such- there is also a professor here who has completed a Ph.D Dissertation on the Cross and she seems to be quite knowledgeable about Peter's Cross. Of course as you say it will take allot of time- which this being this Christmas period I won't have much of but it is definitely a project I want to engage with. Its part of my drive to become a more serious contributor to the project so I have been scouting for articles I can work on. Thanks for the advice. Gavin (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re Ref Desk re Sirat al-Mustaqim

Hi AnonMoos, thank you for your reply to my Ref Desk question back on Nov 25 about Sirat al-Mustaqim. I haven't had a chance to reply and thank you until now. That (Chinvat bridge) was an interesting link. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

213.198.218.212

hey, i notice you've also been reverting the vandalism of this editor, i've tried posting warnings and he just copy and pastes them on to my page, what can be done about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.141 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam and Steve. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew conjugations (head's up)

Just to mention, in case you wouldn't otherwise notice a belated addition to your comment on the Language Ref Desk: I couldn't come up with a succinct explanation for nirdaf vs. raduf on my own, and I'm no great shakes on formal grammar and its terms. Since you went to the trouble of puzzling out the word, I'll add here for your personal delectation the curious (?) point that the Hebrew word for synonym is milah nirdefet (presumably "pursued word"?). -- Thanks for pitching in, Deborahjay (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Xmas

Saw your the Xmas discuss. Cute comment "Unconstructive surgery! So your point is... forget any discussion of former widespread familiarity with Latin and Greek by college-educated crowd as being irrelevant? Also, I've heard the XP called Kee-Rho as well as Kai-Rho. In so-called olden days, this Xmas as a serious "insult" to the Spirit of Christmas was really a non-issue because everyone understood the point. Curiosity question, do you have any formal training in Latin and Greek? Your languages say Hebrew and Arabic - don't tell me, you live in Israel! You really like that "Pater non est Filius" thing. What facinates you about such signs and symbols? Thanks for your interest in the Xmas article and taking time to comment before I "unconstruct" further into DE-structive surgery.

PS - I see you've started some new articles, yourself. A LOT of effort. I've done a few myself. Regards - SimonATL (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Characene

Hi AnonMoos. I saw you deleted the new map of the Charakene. What kind of information do you have? I followed with the map quite closely the description of Pliny (and Monika Schuol, who wrote a whole book on the Characene), the only source we have. -- Udimu (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting mistakes while I was cleaning up codepage layout

Thank you for correcting my replacement mistake. I only replaced "punct" with "ext-punct" with a word-processing program and I didn't realize that "Interpunct" would be changed also. --­ (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Help wanted

With your interests, you might want to take a look at some of Rktect's other contributions, both to article mainspace and talk pages. He claims I'm harassing him, but I think I am simply trying to deal with an editor with longstanding problems understanding our OR policies whose edits are not helpful to Wikipedia. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Weller appears to feel he needs to follow me around and contact others with notes like this.

Re: The Merneptah stele. I raise a simple question of a discrepancy between Gardiners Egyptian Grammar and Petries reading. Where Gardiner, writing in 1927 is surely aware of Petries reading shouldn't this be considered a comment by him on it? You inform me others have discussed this. Could you be so kind as to provide a link to this discussion? Rktect (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jezzar / Jazzar

Dear AnonMoos, I appreciate your rapid response to my query on the Jezzar Pasha talk page. I'm still not sure, though, and have restated the particular question in hopes of getting to the root of my problem in transliterating to English. If you'd please have another look there? -- Thanks! Deborahjay (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

kinship terminology

Good work here! Sadly, most of the related topic articles are weak. If you read through the talk pages there has sometimes ben good discussion but not enough knowledgable editors with the time to do the work needed. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rktect

Please note that Rktect is wrong on the Merneptah Stele. The text clearly reads Israel, not Syria. I have given bona fide referenced information on the word Israel in my edit here Takshy (perhaps Naharin) was generally the Egyptian term for Syria. I sourced my comments from this paragraph on Flinders Petrie's discovery of the stela which I wrote: here It is all from Margaret Drower's book. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion might benefit by a source that explains why Gardiner is wrong about the initial y. Flinders Petrie, while the father of modern Egyptology, made his translation before the language was very well understood.Rktect (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indef block: [5] dougweller (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

Hello, AnonMoos. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding copyright concerns with material recently removed from the article Abdul Rahman al-Iryani.. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. With respect to those copyright concerns, it seems that your problem is with the proposed replacement text. Unfortunately, we cannot continue to publish the copyright infringement pending arrival at an acceptable alternative. If you feel that the new text is unacceptable for some reason—WP:NPOV or what have you—you may wish instead to restore the article to the state it was in prior to the introduction of the copyright infringement. That would be this point, as the infringement was introduced in the next edit. While it's always a shame to lose subsequent improvements that are not infringements, it is sometimes our only option when contributors have violated our copyright policy and corrupted an article. I appreciate that you have yourself monitored the article for copyright infringement—a major problem on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiny Tafel

Thank you for the corrections gioto (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Deaths' ratio

Given your involvement and mine in the "Why is the Holocaust . . ." question on the Ref Dek/Hum, and the IP's reference there to the way in which a question about Palestinian vs Israeli civilian deaths would be answered, I did laugh when I read your "Over what period"? I don't like being bullied either. And, IMO, you sustained the right approach, thank you. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

What does "Falastine fee Qalby" mean?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk Regulars

Thank you for all your contributions to the Wikipedia Reference Desk! In recognition of your work I have added your name to the list of Reference Desk Regulars. If you would prefer not to be listed, please let me know or simply remove your signature. Thanks again, and happy editing! – 74  09:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: self-reverted stubs / Category:Gay novels

Thanks for your message about Delaney... unfortunately I'm not familiar with gay SF and was just going through Category:Gay novels & adding LGBT-novel-stub to novel stubs articles contained within. (fortunately realized my mistake b4 i had tagged all of them :-P). Assuming cat:Gay novels was for gay-themed (not just gay-authored) novels, I added a header note to Cat:Gay novels that it was for gay-themed novels & removed Delaney's subcat . though maybe I am wrong here?? (either way, the cat's scope needs to be made less ambiguous) I posted a message at WT:LGBT asking for clarification, your thoughts would be appreciated. Thx, Outsider80 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cosmic Cross" of St. Francis

Greetings, AnonMoos! I see you're doing yeoman's work on the Humanities Ref Desk today, so if I may be so bold, I'm hoping this query might be somewhere in your turf: A historical website whose English translation I'm presently editing shows this image entitled the "Cosmic Cross," related to St. Francis of Assisi. A single web source I've found (Cammino di Francesco) mentions "The Great Cosmic Cross is one of the oldest solar symbols and is a sign of divinity." Other hits, though, tend towards the astrological, etc. If you can steer me towards any Christian/Catholic-acceptable context and explanation of this emblem, I'd be most appreciative. (Or would you rather I post it on the WP:RD/H--if there's any room left there?!)-- Thanks! Deborahjay (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well! You delivered the goods, all right, and before midnight (GMT+2) at that. Plenty of supportive evidence (also in Wikimedia Commons: Jerusalem Cross) to name this cluster in keeping with the mainstream, and lose this cosmic confusion. Thanks again for the bounty; you are kindly regarded by this couple of infomongers on the Eastern Mediterranean shore. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

File:WandJlogo.svg

Thanks a million for checking on the code from my .svg. I opened it in my text editor and found the image reference. I was pretty sure that I deleted that image in Inkscape before I saved it. How do I prevent this thing from happening again? Also, did I successfully change the text into a "path." --Jwilkinsen (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SSNP Slander, POV and vandalism

Hello, I trust you are a sensible editor, can you take a look at the malicious and politically motivated editing that has been added to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party article recently. Over the past few days the page has been attacked and remade framing the party as a fascist Nazi spin off. The sources being used are all polemicists with a hostile agenda against the party. I suggest reversing the past weeks edits to around this edit [6] and fully protecting the page from any further changes for a while. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Montalbano

The current wave of silliness seems to have ended and very good job on clearing up after him, but apparently this guy has been doing similar vandalism since at least 2007. There is an old ANI report here. Ugh, I had to deal with a similar guy who was saying he was dating what seemed to be every Holloywood star and starlet alive; all very annoying, although it tends to get deleted by everyday editing. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Eric Rücker Eddison

Hello & let me apologize for problems with Eric Rücker Eddison. Ever since I install firefox3, wikiedits have often gone bad. I have had similar problems with blogspot - information gets dropped. I'm avoiding editting at this point. Please feel free to back out my edits or whatever makes sense. rewinn (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; I was off base...

...as, according to your explanation, you had something else in mind. Moreover, my edit with <str></str> was intrusive and as such, out of line; please accept my apology and assurance that I won't do that again. It was probably enough that I added the link for Romanization of Arabic indented as I did. And thanks for bringing it directly to my attention besides the correction and edit summary at the Language RD itself. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Elohim

First I removed your phrase "If Elohim were an ordinary plural word..." because in Hebrew these words really are ordinary. This is why I gave the example of "water" (מים transliteration "mayim"). This example is useful because it gives those who may not be familiar with Hebrew an understanding of how a plural concept becomes and acts like a single entity. Nevertheless, water (and many other words like it) truly are quite ordinary despite what English speakers might think about them.

Second, your version of the article adamantly argues that the God of Israel can no way be implicated as being plural in any way. Therefore, you would like to sensor the fact that the God of Israel is in fact implicated as in some way being plural not only by the morphological plural form of elohim, but also elsewhere in the text. Hence, to balance the article I added "While not the same as the plural morphology of Elohim, the God of Israel does appear to be referred to as plural in the use of first-person plural pronouns elsewhere in the text, "Let us create man in our own image, after our own likeness" (Gen 1:26). This is sometimes used as evidence that the plural morphological form of Elohim does indicate plural meaning."

Clearly this statement says (ALMOST IN YOUR VERY OWN WORDS TO ME) that this is not the same kind of plural reference to the God of Israel as the plural form Elohim, but instead gives outside evidence of the concept of plural. Why would you want to leave that evidence out of a balanced article? -smpf38

Why would you want to leave out an easy to understand example of a word that is NOT SINGULAR "water" that is used as a singular entity with singular verbs? -smpf38

You say that "These words actually have a dual morphology rather than a plural morphology..." So, would you argue that words with a "dual" morphology are less plural than words with a "plural morphology"? Of course, that isn't the case. Even words with a dual morphology, usually used to indicate words referring to things that come in pairs (like eyes), are often translated as plural into English. These are words with non-singular ending but areused with a singular verb. Smpf38 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ANON says: "The word Elohim occurs with singular meaning or agreement thousands of times in the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, ..."

Whether it has singular MEANING or not is precisely what is under debate. It is YOUR bias and interpretation that it absolutely must have a singular meaning. Your evidence for this is that the verb agreement is singular. However, your view is easily disproven by mounds of examples and evidence in the Hebrew language. For example, singular verbs are used when talking about eyes or ears (even when clearly referring to more than one eye or year). In other words, singular verbs are used even when the subject acting is not singular in meaning! Your refusal to divulge this information to the readers of this article demonstrates that you have no intention of providing a balanced and full disclosure of the facts.

ANON says: The word Elohim occurs with singular meaning or agreement thousands of times in the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, while first person plural pronouns which some may consider problematic occur pretty much in a handful of passages. So obviously, in most of the occurrences of Elohim in the Bible, there are no first person plural divine pronouns nearby. So it's very difficult to make a reasonable case as to how Elohim would somehow take its meaning from first person plural divine pronouns.

Well fortunately for me, that isn't the case being made by me or anybody else. You insist that Elohim (when referring to the God of Israel) can by no means be understood as having any meaning other than singular. However, we have in the Hebrew texts an entirely different grammatical phenomenon whereby the God of Israel refers to himself with a PLURAL pronoun. It isn't that Elohim "takes its meaning from first person plural divine pronouns" as your straw man claims. The idea would be that Elohim can include the idea of more than one Divine being, and therefore used the plural pronoun to refer to themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smpf38 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

I think that this article can be featured one. Just few more pictures and references. We dont have any article about Eastern Orthodox Christianity featured (excluding church two church fathers). I work on Serbian Orthodox Church so If you are interested write me :)--Vojvodaeist 14:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration of Hebrew topics

Hi AnonMoos! Please note that the text in italics after a Hebrew word in an article is a transliteration, not a transcription. The guidelines for transliterating Hebrew can be found at WP:HE. I have accordingly reverted your edit to Military Police Corps (Israel). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue has been chewed up, regurgitated, and chewed up again many times, and this was the consensus at WP:HE. It's time to move on to other issues. The idea of using kh for the letter het has been proposed and rejected because it is not practical for about 98% of the words, especially locality names, such as Holon, Haifa, Hadera, Hemed, Hatzerim, etc. etc. Also the correct way to pronounced het is more similar to he than khaf anyway. If you really feel strongly about the issue, bring it up again, but I'm not sure anyone wants to continue this anymore, after it took up over 3 years to come up with the current guideline. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You can also use Ḥ and ḥ for inline transliterations (the ones in italic), if it's really important to you (again, please read the guideline for details). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is the result of a very long series of discussions at WP:HE (you can't even imagine how long). If you feel strongly about it, use Ḥ or ḥ for the italicized transliterations. Or even better, add sound files, which I did for a number of localities. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Radio Hat is making the main page.

The Radio Hat article you edited is going to be in the Did You Know section of the main pages on April 1 at 5 PM central time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T:DYK/Q4

Thanks for the help. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Al Aaraaf

Looking at Poe's poem "Al Aaraaf", you moved some alternate names for Al Aaraaf, saying it does not belong in reference to the title of the poem. I put them back where they were, because the alternate names followed the line "a place called Al Aaraaf", which is clearly not in reference to the poem's title, so your edit summary was moot. Nevertheless, I'm not sure where the best place is best for these alternate names. What do you think? It seems to me that a first reference is always best and, since it is referenced in the lead, the alternates should go there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you chose not to discuss, despite my good faith attempt to do so. I still disagree with your choice; I for one don't see how saying "we are spelling it this way but it's also spelled this way" on the first mention of the term is so confusing or out of context. It's an arbitrary decision either way, but I suppose your arbitrary preference is no less valid than my arbitrary preference. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sincerely trying to keep this article at GA quality, which I brought it to only recently; thanks for assuming good faith. Typically, I see alternate spellings or names in the lead, upon first mention of the term. I suppose I'm okay with the placement, I was just surprised you did not engage in discussion. I have another question, however, and I'm sincerely trying to figure this out: How is "Al-A`raaf" not an alternative of "Al Aaraaf"? The two terms look different to me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what happened... I hadn't realized Al Aaraaf became Al-A`raaf in that sentence. Again, however, I have never claimed or tried to imply that these alternatives have any relevance to the title of the poem; the article never made that connection either, even the edits I made to it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alef and Tav (Alpha and Omega)

No evidence, you're right. But in my oppinion John was speaking in Aramaic, not in Greek (his Greek was very bad). I don't think that Jesus was speaking to him in Greek. Do you have any "scholarly source" for the opposite? I have an example for the doubtfulness of Greek being the original language of NT. In Matthew 7:3 - "why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - the Hebrew word for eye is Ayin, but this means also a "fountain", a "well". So the beam of timber could be really funny in someone's eye, but not so in a well. Yes, I know the Gospels were written in Koine Greek, and there is no evidence... P.S. The names of the Hebrew letters were pronounced during Jesus' time Aleph and Taw, as today. Waw is the letter for "and"... So my hypothesis may be worth to mention like it is that with "A and Z" in English. ChavilaWik (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)]

Thanks

Thanks for your continual copyediting of my work on Athanasian Creed. I seem to be prone to many small gramatical errors. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Brunnian reply

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

Sangokujin

Hi! I saw your recent edit. The word is not "the three countries person", but "the third countries person", like the word "third party". It is said that the original meaning was non Japanese used by Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers shortly after the WW2, as Korean and Taiwanese are not loser nor winnner of the WW2, even though they belonged to Japan during the war. Try this and use machine translation for [7] and ja:三国人. So correction, please. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the talk page? Other Japanese editor pointed out the same thing. As for the meaning of Japanese words, don't you think native Japanese knows better and are correct most of the time? But I'm not sure that I can rewrite the article properly. Could you do it for me? Or you are not interested in the article? Oda Mari (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your message. I should have shown you this dictionary page first. The page says 三国人/sangokujinn is same as 第三国人/daisanngokujinn. The linked page is this and it says "The third country person. Especially Koreans and Taiwanese who were in Japan during the occupation by the allied powers after WW2." I am reverting your edit. Hope you don't mind. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sylhet

please try improve Sylhet article as i created peer review for page, thanks. Wikipedia:Peer review/Sylhet/archive1. Bangali71 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Spasinou Charax and the Silk Routes

Hi, thanks for your comments on my Talk Page and for your interest in this subject. The term "Silk Road", which has caught on in English, is a rather loose term which has come to refer to all the routes used to transport goods between China and the "West", including the maritime routes. I much prefer the term "Silk Routes", which is what I have used in my books, though even this is somewhat of a misnomer because it tends to imply that silk was the only item of trade. There were certainly many routes used in this trade and few of them deserve the title "road"; the land-based routes were mostly just caravan tracks which were constantly changing depending on political, climactic, economic, and other factors.

But, to return to your question about Characene and Spasinou Charax - which was, in the first few centuries CE, the major port in the Persian Gulf, and had direct maritime connections to Roman Egypt, India and, presumably, the Far East. It was also a key point on an overland caravan route to Petra and beyond, and had land connections to Central Asia (and beyond) through Herat, and to India via Stakhr (near the ruins of Persepolis) and Kandahar, as well as the maritime routes. In 97 CE the Chinese envoy, Gan Ying, who had been sent to contact (and scout out) the Roman Empire, managed to reach Spasinou Charax. While he was in the region, although he was prevented from proceeding further, he was able to glean quite a lot of information on the Roman Empire - presumably from sailors and merchants in the port.

For details on all these matters (and much more) please see the notes to the draft versions of my annotated translations of the 'Chapter on the Western Regions' from the Hou Hanshu and the 3rd century Weilüe on the Silk Road Seattle website at: http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/texts.html . Better yet, check out the more up-to-date notes in the much-revised and expanded version of the former book which should be available on Amazon.com and through other booksellers within a few weeks. It's title will be: Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, 1st to 2nd Centuries CE)

I hope this answers your questions, but if you have any further queries, please don't hesitate to contact me again. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Islam Etymology

Thanks for your very valuable input at the language desk. Can you kindly look at the articles Islam and Islam_(term), I believe your contributions to it would be highly valued. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Voting on color soon

Hi user AnonMoos, looks like there is going to be a consensus voting on the color of ROC flag:commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg, please go there and voice your opinion. Arilang ^talk 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted comment

"Dude", concerning the User_talk:Pvasiliadis#Talk:Tetragrammaton, I am a little bit older wikipedia user than you and I know well enough what's going on here. I deleted your sentence -which has nothing to do with the discussed subject of the article- because I moved your comments from my discussion page to the relating article, this way making your deleted-by-me sentence meaningless. I thought you would understand. -- pvasiliadis  13:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Commas and periods

You reverted my edits to Al Aaraaf. In U. S. usage, aren't commas and periods supposed to be enclosed within quotation marks? British usage is different.Lestrade (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Your comment on Talk:Alex Martelli

You suggest on the talk page of Martelli's article that he may be the same person who posted to a non-normative sexuality forum. I have no idea whether or not this is the case. However, I am certain that if it is the same person, it is unrelated to his notability from WP's perspective. Moreover, especially if it is a different person, I am a bit concerned that the mention could be read as disparaging, and skirt WP:BLP (which applies even to talk pages).

Unless you feel that you are likely to be able to show both that it is the same person and that this activity is related to the subject's notability (both of which seem unlikely to me), I think it would be in best judgment to redact your comment from that talk page. LotLE×talk 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on my talk page as well, but I think understanding WP:BLP really is important to your editing career on WP. This is pretty key: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." As I wrote already, for some historical and legal reasons, BLP pretty much trumps all other considerations on WP (for better or worse). LotLE×talk 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, for example: "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc).". But really please, please read this full policy. I know your original question was made in good faith, but the more I look at this and talk to people, the clearer the redaction seems. LotLE×talk 23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(s) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect (s). Since you had some involvement with the (s) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Jo9100 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

removal of talk page comments

please dont, if you think these are personal attacks there are venues to raise your concerns, but please dont remove another editors comments. nableezy - 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RPA. And you are deleting 6k bytes over 1 word. nableezy - 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And while we are it WP:3RR. nableezy - 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You shouldnt be deleting it at all, take it to AN/I nableezy - 03:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Harlan's metaphysics

I seriously am sick of his horseshit. There was no "Palestine" becuase the Muslims rejected. Keep fighting him, he tried to change it back again. Report him already. He is only pushing a dishonest agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.3.163 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Moos, he's doing it again, the metaphysics are up. -- 20:14, 28 August 2009 72.229.3.163

The flag

Its mentioned in the text and its nice to have a visual to illustrate what is mentioned. How those who identify as Palestinian today saw it then is sort of irrelevant no? Tiamut^talk 11:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus, it illustrates the historical progression from a flag mandated to them to the flag they adopted as their own. Tiamut^talk 11:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking loosely and metaphorically. It remains relevant to the page. Its mentioned in the article text and it provides a visual contrast to the flag Palestinians adopted as their own. In short, I don't see the problem with keeping it. Tiamut^talk 19:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism save worth a thanks

Hey, I owe you an apology, I seem to assume automatically that trinitarians can't reason all that straight, and you certainly proved your intelligence there in the rebuttal to those deletionist anti-nontrinitarians who wanted that article deleted for their own triniatarian-agenda-reasons. Thanks for that effort, being encyclopedic, and having principles, or I would not be enjoying that article today. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

personal RFC on sneeky edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planetary_habitability&diff=311665773&oldid=311665338
I'm curious to know, do you consider this kind of edit sneeky and/or not encyclopedic??
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tower of Babel and Noah's Arc

First, thanks for catching me up on the mis-read which I then turned into a wrong answer on the Ref Desk. I have made the corrections. Second, I was looking at Noah's Arc and have noticed a lot of new text inserted today (Sept. 2) that strikes me as unlikely to be the claimed reflections of current academic scholarship, thought it may reflect the views of specific religious segments. However, as the evidence is now quite public that I have no scholarship in the area :-), I hesitate to comment at the article. In the interest of the encyclopedia, could you take a look? Thanks // BL \\ (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks for comment. Trying to relate the fact that there is a book in the middle east, and there is a book in United States that has caused many psychological damages to persons abroad, and both have people that have same issues. They are just alike. Philosophy, Principle. Lucifer (angel/man)75.203.101.117 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

OK, I thought I had followed the matter well enough, but I somehow missed your post to which you refer. I'll just go over to Harlan's page and ask him to avoid the "race" "racist" etc words, which seems to be the whole problem.John Z (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of YIMBY

An article that you have been involved in editing, YIMBY, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YIMBY. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nsaa (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping clean up the Article Rescue Squadron

Thanks for your help with [8] This is probably long overdue:

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		The Copyeditor's Barnstar is awarded for excellence in Copyediting. This barnstar is awarded to AnonMoos for his excellent work in copy editing articles. Thank you for continuing to make the project more professional in appearance. Ikip (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you are not a member of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron but if you are interested in the newsletter, but not in becoming a member of the squad, you can still sign up for future newsletters here:

• Wikipedia:ARSM#Interested_in_the_newsletter_but_not_in_joining_ARS. I would sure feel better about someone with your skills copy editing issue #2 when it comes out.

thanks again. Ikip (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

i commend you for giving editors more time than just 7 days:

"I gave User:Muffinz525 a month to tie up the loose ends, and he failed to even attempt to do so."

nice job. Ikip (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from user talk:ikip:

Thanks for commending me, but I'm not sure taht I could be a good all-round member of the Article Rescue Squadron, since I would probably only make a good effort if I had special expertise in the article's topic area, or if I happened to have a personal enthusiasm about the article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, I understand, most of the stuff that I see that is tagged for rescue I have little or no interest in either. Happy editing. Hope we see each other again soon. Ikip (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

if it's going to come to an argument

then I pull out.

look, NSH001 said that "an affirmation is the same as an oath in everything except name" is an opinion. I said that "people take an affirmation to avoid making an oath is an opinion." That's all. --VKokielov (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref desk

I thought it was directed at me, and I didn't mind. Nor do I agree that it was irrelevant to the discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In your rage against that guy, you missed the point he was making, that what Jesus said about Gehenna didn't necessarily relate to Revelation. And my answer (which now stands hanging there without context) was to try to point out that it does, at least according to Christian teaching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Storks

DoneSlatersteven (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite for Triple Moon symbol

Your crescent-circle-crescent symbol was for a long time flagged in Triple Goddess as "citation needed". In case that happens anywhere else, here's the cite I found for it. All citations demanded have now been fulfilled, at least until that content gets deleted again. Enjoy. Miss you there! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Triple Goddess

I think there's been progress at Triple Goddess (Neopaganism), as it's now titled. Would you care to look it over? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Proto-computer data-bank system

I've clarified some considerations in my WP:RD/L query - care to give it another go? -- Thanks! Deborahjay (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. - your turn to revert. I suggest using an edit summary when writing to the IP's talk page; they seem to like to cover up complaints via page blanking. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel Article Note

Hello

I have been watching the discussion, and decided to do some digging and came up with several citations that seem to back the material you wanted to leave in. I replaced some of the text, and cited where appropriate. Please review these citations and you can go to "Edit Issues in Criticism Section to see the citations and discuss a potential rewrite of the entire article. I welcome your input and assistance if you are able.

ThanksIlliniGradResearch (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. It seems that is what was going on, as he tried to hide the discussion. But I figured the best way to solve it was to let the citations do the talking and hopefully end the issue. Lets hope the user leaves you be so you can edit freely. Feel free to email me at anytime. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

www.arabic2english.org

please stop removing my links , they are completely related to the article, they are not spam , they are there for the users who speak arabic and find them useful. please put them back and check your guide line

www.arabic2english.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneeyedboxer (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

MSDOS 1.0

Was the actual file length in the FCB? There certainly was no other MSDOS 1 api to get it.

Also how did you set the length, as the MSDOS 1 api only allowed writing of 128-byte blocks. I guess you could update the FCB.

I thought it was not possible for a program to get or set the actual file length until MSDOS 2 added the POSIX-style file IO calls but I may be wrong. Where I worked we switched to MSDOS 2.0 immediatly and sold our software as requiring it, so I may be unclear on the limits of MSDOS 1.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.216.3 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In MS-DOS version 1, much of the read file / write file API was strongly CP/M compatible, but the filesystem on disk was FAT. If you only used strictly CP/M compatible file IO calls, then file lengths would be multiples of 128, yet the on-disk filesystem could still record the exact length of a file in bytes. AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Triquetra-Vesica-solid.png

A tag has been placed on File:Triquetra-Vesica-solid.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JaGa^talk 19:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Triquetra-Double.png

A tag has been placed on File:Triquetra-Double.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JaGa^talk 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Valknut-Symbol-triquetra.png

A tag has been placed on File:Valknut-Symbol-triquetra.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JaGa^talk 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Need your help on the Armilus page

Hi, I found a source for the Hebrew script version of the name Armilus, I've placed it in the talk page. Unfortunately, I really don't know how to work Hebrew on Wiki (or on my computer), so I was hoping you might be able to do it. Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First Treatise: Reason for removed ref?

What was your reason for removing "<ref>Robins, p. 82</ref>" from The First Grammatical Treatise#The author? LokiClock (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when the theory originates, but I do know the idea is at least as old as 1874, as the identity is, I believe, made in Cleasby-Vigfússon. However, I couldn't remember on which page the identity was made, and I thought it better to at least to support the fact. Date was not my concern, but when it is for another eye such as yourself, I would not make an assumption regarding it. If you were under the impression that it was a recent date, you can bar in a reason tag to the when tag stating that you remember statements to the effect of the theory being relatively recent. LokiClock (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if you can find the source, I'd like to see a "debatable" in the article. All I've heard so far is Þorodd == Rúnameistari, so that's what I wrote. LokiClock (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can gather the theoretical identities endorsed by the book, that would at least make for a statement to the effect of "some say ==Þorodd. (s=source) Others suggest such and such. (s=Haugen) Obviously even better if they're all mentioned in some single section of the book. That is, assuming you have access to the book, which I do not. As for the popular scientific opinion on the matter, we don't yet know if we'll even be able to find such information, much less claimed in such a way that it can be regarded as a factual claim with reasonable support. LokiClock (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'll try and make the time for that. I've been working lately, though, and it might be a while before I get around to working on any Wikipedia affairs. LokiClock (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

High five for the effort. Opens doors to proper research. I couldn't think of anything useful to say. Just, "I knew there was an ó!" Gamlason rings a bell, too, and I was sure I'd seen his full name somewhere, but then it's not like he's the only Gamlason on the planet. Of course, first thing that comes up with you google the name (í U.S.) is Vigfússon-Powell, turned to How Thorodd the Carpenter became a Grammarian LokiClock (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fish Heads (song)

is it a good song, what genre of music is it? --SexonfireKOL2010 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SexonfireKOL2010 (talk • contribs)

Shalom

Greetings, AnonMoos. To begin, I suggest a user talkpage archiving.

I'm very interested in running into someone like you over something like this -- if you could just sharpen your charges of ultra-fundamentalism and ultra-skepticism, I could respond in kind. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Athanasian translation

I know you don't like the BCP translation, but we need something, and so far I haven't found any widely-agreed-upon version other than it which is in the public domain. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

why use html over mediawiki syntax

in this [9] instance? -- Theoprakt (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tak

Many thanks for your input, and watching over the page. It has been a vandal magnet. And now I see you and I are struggling in discussion with "two" editors who have (officially) less than 1/3,000th of our collective edits. Oh well.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I've read through a fairly high enough percentage of the RS references at gnews to feel that what is in the article right now is actually a lesser mention than the proportion of discussion of it in RSs. And I've read all the references in the article now, and think the summaries of them are fairly summary and fairly represent what is said in the RSs. But I'll give it another look.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Struggling in discussion? I thought this was an encyclopedia, not an discussion board, and that we were trying to edit an article. Of course you will be struggling if your arguments lack substance and you have only your edit count to cling to. :) Casimirpo (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Takfir versus Holiday Greetings

While almost absurd parallel, maybe it would help as an practice in WP:NPOV. Takfir is hardly mostly about terrorist rallying cries. What do you think holiday greetings article has that Takfir doesnt? Casimirpo (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian Revolution flag

Hey AnonMoos,

Thanks for your assistance with the edits to the Coat of Arms of Egypt article. With regard to the my revert of your edit to the Egyptian Revolution flag (1952-1958) image file, I would be grateful if you would kindly explain the purpose of your edit, as I fear that I may have misconstrued it.

Many thanks. CrimeCentral (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Triple Goddess (neopaganism)

Hi AnonMoos. I've left you a comment on my page. For here on, I'll be replying to my talk page only. Xxglennxx (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Amen

Hi Anonmoos, I think that we should not get sucked into Manson's fantastical theories. He will not be convinced no matter how clearly or patiently these matters are explained. There is no reason to respond to his every rant. His writing style and conspiracy theories will be enough to show any casual reader that his views are fringe. I think a response is only needed where the topic is actually about the word Amen. Just a thought to try and keep the talk page calm.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand. I frequently have the urge to respond - my message here is a self reminder as well. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reversion at Aarne-Thompson classification system

You might be interested in this: Talk:Aarne-Thompson classification system#Aarne-Thompson_vs._Aarne-Thompson-Uther Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Aarne-Thompson

If the standard needs to be worked on, then let's work on the standard.

The Aarne-Thompson system of classification of folktales is a universally accepted system taught at the academic level. One person (Uther) cannot decide to revamp this system and hijack the wiki page for the Aarne-Thompson system to promotion of their own, not universally or peer-edited, version and expect that to hold to referenceable standard. Just because they add their name on the end to make some "ATU" system does not mean that is credible. If they want to try and slide in this type of advertisement they can make their own page for it, and not dilute the value of the Aarne-Thompson page, which clearly should only show the true Aarne-Thompson system.

Furthermore, I am working to provide the correct inline citations for the references because there are many good (credible) ways to purvey this information without personally marketing for someone's (Uther) book.

Thank you for not continuing to undo my work. The bottom line is "ATU" doesn't need to be listed here. It can have it's own page, for it's own creators attempts to push a product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adl0090 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

Thank you for your contribution on the talk page of Arabic Wikipedia and trying to discuss user النول. I'm not clear whether you considered his additions encyclopedic enough: I keep reverting the anecdotes he insists to add but I'm no longer sure if I'm right, and if it's appropriate to report vandalism. Please advise. --Abanima (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of BDSM Emblem

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is BDSM Emblem. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BDSM Emblem. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased Arabic Wikipedia Template

Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion of my personal space page about Arabic Wikipedia template. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. I would greatly appreciate your input in this matter. Thank you in advance. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 00:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I copied your response here. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)—NPOV check

Hi AnonMoos, I feel like the fool who rushed in where angels fear to tread. I appreciated your input because it really helped me clarify the two things I advocated changing. I suspect the article would benefit from additional source checking, (and a shade more finesse with the overall tone)… But, I'm not Wiccan and I won't be passing the wiki bar exam anytime soon so I feel ill-equipped to do much more than paw at the low hanging fruit. Advice is definitely welcome and thanks again.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your "import" procedure

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. It's an unhelpful side effect, but unfortunately page moves are necessary most of the time when importing old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Graham87 03:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Matriarchy

Hi, "lost in pre history" is a pejorative phrase --it´s not lost there. And it´s a good ideia to cite all ancient civilizations. 201.6.57.47 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I repeat the paragraph above. And as for the paragraph concerning berber and ama etymology, can´t we give a chance to these three scholars? They are three scholars who have studied the issue and who have reached the same point: tiamat, berber and amazon --linked to the prefix ama!! You asked what is teh relation to matriarchy? Well, tiamat is a supreme goddess (from sumerian mithology, see the first paragraph on which there is a citation from Cambridge mentioning a matriarchal sumerian civilization due to the adoration of a supreme goddess); amazons are considered an outstanding example of a matriarchal culture, and berbers as well. These three scholars have linked the terms. 187.21.142.164 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Knot articles

Hi AnonMoos,

Thanks for helping with the knot theory pictures and articles! I have a few questions:

1. What program do you use to increase the PNG compression ratio? (I've just been using Paint in Windows to convert the BMP files outputted by POV-Ray to PNG, but obviously this doesn't work very well.)
2. In your opinion, how many knots are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles? I've made an article for the 7₁ knot, and I was thinking of adding articles for 6₂ and 6₃. Should I stop there? Or would it make sense to do all of the 7-crossing knots?
3. I recently rewrote much of the trefoil knot article, and I added a section on trefoils in religion and culture. I know virtually nothing about this topic, and I assembled the pictures in this section mainly by doing Wikimedia Commons searches. Anything that you could add or correct in this section would be much appreciated.

Jim (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation

Please strike you BLP violation on Talk:Dalal Mughrabi. Tiamut^talk 09:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a similar request for you, here, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 48 hours, for repeatedly and strongly violating WP:BLP. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.  Sandstein  20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I also didn't capitalize jesus

I believe I have the right to think that it's nonsense. Sure I could be nice about it, and maybe as you said more people would help me out. Buuuut, I prefer to get help from people who really don't care that I think it's nonsense. Certainly you have the right to choose not to help if you decide (but you did, and I appreciate that), but you can't deny me my rights. ScienceApe (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no that's not what I meant. I don't capitalize any of those things because I think religion is garbage. My title is a joke. You were criticizing me for not capitalizing "jew" so I was rubbing it in by also boasting that I didn't capitalize jesus either, because I honestly don't care. ScienceApe (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

79.180.54.82

Hi, was your last remark on "Partition Plan"'s talk directed at me? 79.180.54.82 (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Kali's teeth bracelet

Any article can be put to AFD for any valid reason every six months. I suggest that you merge this article into another as it does not meet notability or verification guidelines. Cheers, Stillwaterising (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy change on BDSM images

Hi AnonMoos, I guess you have already heard about the Commons controversy initiated by Mr. Wales this weekend. Please have a look here. This could have massive consequences on all projects. Kind Regards from Bavaria, --Nemissimo (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BM hanging bowl

I think we've got your answer, over on my talkpage. All the best, Witty Lama 14:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad we could help! So, how about writing up a stub article about it now? :-) Witty Lama 15:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you can't see the personal attack in suggesting that the Jerusalem Post article is about Harlan. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What's with the removal of all gay references to the Da, Da, Da song in the Volkswagen commercials?

I inserted some cited references to Volkswagen's use of this commercial with gay themes and debuting on the coming-out episode of Ellen in 1997. The follow up parody from ABC for Spin City further played on these matters, as one of the characters from the show was gay. What is the justification for removing these facts? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewilke (talk • contribs) 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Three hares

What about taking that content and making it into a note. Not a refernece, but a note/footnote. Just a thought 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Stan

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in languages and cultures so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... Your page is really impressive, I particularly appreciated the symbols but it's so large that I only grasped a small part of it... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you had such a bad experience. I don't know much about Interwikis so I can tell you it wasn't me... I just hope it hasn't interfered with your decision. Sincerely yours, Capsot (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) and thanks for replying!

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI

I've raised an SPI for someone you've had some disputes with: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ksweith. If you had any input on this (pro or contra), I would be very glad to have it.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, several accounts + an IP have been blocked: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ksweith/Archive.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Galadriel

Hi, I've added a comment to the Galadriel Talk Page, thought you might be interested in adding to it :-). Cheers Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

elohim

Would you like to look at some recent edits I made to Elohim? I'm trying to make it more comprehensible to the ordinary reader, but I defer to your greater knowledge in case I've introduced errors.PiCo (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Celts

You want to add Iberia and Anatolia. But did you have read the talk page ?Sleeping water (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Matriarchy

Could you possibly join in on the discussion on the talk page? The editor from April is back, slightly different IP address but obviously the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, she won't be around long, I've recognised her now as a sock. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cross

Thankyou for your thoughts but

1. under the the aegis of the Heraldry Society of Scotland I am trying to produce a fully illustrated dictionary/glossary of terms used in the Anglophone heraldries - ref Romilly Squire, former chair and present committee member, one time painter at the Lyon Court (his address - 4/30, Elbe St Edinburgh EH6 7HW); the Lyon Clerk would probably also vouch for me as she has been a source of information and advice. The whole is researched from primary - or more or less primary - sources, some hard copy (like the Scots public Register and the two Lyon Court ordinaries) and some (like parts of the Canadian Public Register and the records of the South African Bureau of Heraldry; and uses some fairly reliable secondary sources like the members arms rolls of the Heraldry Society (England), the Heraldry Society of Scotland and the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada, plus a rather good site on the Civic Heraldry of England and Wales. And then there are all the previous dictionaries, ordinaries and armories - varying hugely in reliability. I sit with perhaps a hundred heraldic reference books at my elbow or on my computer. This all gives me a fairly good selection of the armory of the Anglophone heraldries. If I say a thing is very very rare its as a result of a lot of fundamentally boring flogging through as much primary and secondary material that can be found fairly easily without taking up residence at the HQs of the heraldic authorities. It's not my 'personal opinions 'to what is allegedly "very, very rare" etc.' in any particular context, but a reasonably well researched finding.

If Wikipedia is not interested in the findings of reasonably detailed research supported by a national heraldry society and a major state offical of a national heraldic authority, then it is hardly surprising that so many of the heraldic articles in Wikipedia are so bad and so often plain wrong. Unlike some people I am not on a vanity trip but an educational one!

2. The establishment of the Crusader Kingdom was as the result of an invasion and occupation of Palestine. That's historical fact. The Crusaders went from mainland Europe to the Levant and settled there and induced others to settle there - in a place they had not been settled in before.

3. Perhaps I am confused about a lot of things, but then aren't most folk. That's one of the points about Wikipewdia - to help cut down the amount of confusion and ignorance. Mich Taylor (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ankh

Most of the devices used in heraldry are not specifically heraldic - their names may be but their form is not: e.g. a crescent most potently an Islamic symbol but also quite common in heraldry. One may deal with the crescent as part of the iconography of Islam separately from its heraldic use, without there being any duplication. And that is what happens in this article which comes under more than one overall Wikipedia category - Cross symbols, Christian iconography, Christian symbols, Christian terms, Heraldic ordinaries, Jesus and history. So there are may need to be up to six 'duplication' one for each category (though it's difficult to see how Christian iconography and Christian symbols are markedly different). One bit of the article can discuss its aspect (depending on its category) and another bit can discuss its (depending on its category). Whose trying to impose what?

And as for discussion, I thought that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia not a forum or whatever: Wikipedia:About - 'Wikipedia ... is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly-editable model'. Mich Taylor (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal Politics

1. I referred to the Crusader kingdom which was restricted to the Palestinian littoral, the Levant and dsid not take other parts of the Near and Middle East

2. Did I even suggest I had a problem with defining the invasion and occupation of other places by Islamizing Arabs in the 7th century as anything other than invasion and occupation. Another historical fact as far as I am concerned. If "the Umayyad caliphate was the very definition of an exploitative colonialist empire oppressing native populations" then so could the Crusader kingdom have been - crudely speaking. Please don't try to put words into my mouth or ascribe attitudes to me - when you have only a few words of evidence.

3. I know very little about you, next to nothing at all - but I could make some guesses - but they would probably be wrong (like your wild guesses about me) Mich Taylor (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks. (:

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Translatish

Well, whatever it is, that archived RD/L link you provided made a good read, especialy in introducing me to the Voynich manuscript (personally relevant as I'm a recent devotee of the illustrated journal). Other than that, that Translatish thingy provoked in me a state of mild outrage that with the immense amount of real study and translation needed in this sorry world, people (?) are tricking around with elaborate... well, </rant>. I do> appreciate your coming to my aid and relieving the suspense; now: back to task. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Huge "plot" with spolers

I invite you to read the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary

It is very important that you do, apparently. Specially this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PLOTSUMNOT

...which is likely to provide you with vital information of which you seem to be oblivious. Once you have, I invite you to either undo your changes or go through the trouble other people did in good faith.

GustavoHime (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mudflap Girl

In your edit/undo of the revisions to the Mudflap Girl entry, you say that new information should be entered in the correct form. I am not nearly as familiar with the edit forms or formatting for wikipedia as you are. The trademark ownership for an image is clearly relevant information to an image. I would say that the legal ownership of a particular image is one of the most important facts to that image's public use or knowlege- which is why I put the information at the top of the article. If you have another suggestion or a more knowlegeable way to format this information, please let me know. Thank you Thomas Hugh (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Hugh (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tone and motivation

I found it curious the difference in tone between the message below

Unfortunately, your edits reduced the article to a third of its previous length, and even just examining what you left behind, a number of your changes were really not improvements (such as using "Rip Van Winkle´s" as a finite verb form, etc.).

... and the one posted in the (public) discussion page of the referred article. Please refrain from gratuitous rudeness in the future - to me and anyone else. I would have you refrain from the behaviour which motivated this exchange to begin with, but that appears to be beyond you.

I noticed that your main interests do not include anything related to the article in question, which begs the question of motivation. I truly don´t care about power trips, and I will not insist any further (I made that clear before) in making the point of obviousness.

GustavoHime (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your reply on my talk page:

Guy, I really don't see any great "rudeness" in my comments directly above. My "interest" in the subject is that I read the book around 25 years ago (along with many other science fiction books which I've read). I actually have a number of articles devoted to works of science fiction which I've read on my watchlist, even if they don't dominate my pattern of edits... AnonMoos (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The rudeness (without quotes) was not in the comment directly above, i.e. the one you put in my talk page and I reproduced here, "Unfortunately, your edits...". It was in the PUBLIC discussion page of the article. Please read my previous post directly above, I trust you can put two and two together. I find odd - this is all so odd - that you care at all about a book (and a quite below average one at that, considering the work of Lem) you read 25 years ago, that you keep it in your watchlist - that you HAVE a watchlist - and that you refer to me as "guy". Not only have I not failed to respect you, I use my full name as ID here. Please pardon me, but I state the obvious: your appear to identify yourself as ANONymous MOOSe.

GustavoHime (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied here before I bothered to look at the article´s discussion page. You did it again. Your post on my personal page was (if somewhat stupid as I made clear above) rather civil when compared to what you put there - not in form, but in innuendo. If you reply, know beforehand you will have the final word.

GustavoHime (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fenian Raids

Hi. I see you put a contradict flag on Fenian Raids back in Dec 2009. At the time, the article said that one of the raids happened both north and south of the border, which has since been rectified. I'm not sure if this was the contradiction, but I've removed the flag. If the contradiction still stands, feel free to put the flag back, and a note on the talk page. Cheers-- WORMMЯOW  09:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Your personal attacks on the Talk page at Israel Palestine and the United Nations have been brought to the attention of WP:AN/I here. [10] harlan (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for your help on the 2010 Bell article. AKA Typo Queen--DocOfSoc (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Triskelion

Thanks for your note. Y9ou inquired why I thought it to be an Optical illusion. Actually, it's not just my opinion. Take a look here. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Stan

In its many forms, it has both rotational symmetry and [[contour rivalry. That's what I see. While I do not want to waste reader's time, I also want to give them choices. Connections help: nonexistent connections don't -- indeed our gentle readers won't have any idea what isn't there. They can make a judgment. I would err on the side of WP:Inclusionism, not WP:Exclusionism. But that's just my opinion. Of course, the contrary would be just your opinion. I thought the test was WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. You may not like the source or its conclusion, but that seems only minimally relevant. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Stan

Lee Hong-koo

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Lee Hong-koo. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm glad that you repaired heraldic word "gad" to "chemron" in article Gorges family, thank you very much I made a mistake. -- 13:58, 28 September 2010 bironet