User talk:WhyDoIKeepForgetting

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, WhyDoIKeepForgetting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fribbler (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Houston A. Baker, Jr.

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, in addition to the boilerplate message above, that you have already violated this rule. Since you are a new user I will not report this violation, but I urge you to read and adhere to our policies like WP:3RR and WP:BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did violate the 3RR, since it specifies "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". The only 24 hour period in which I made three edits on that page includes one try for a compromise, which you rejected without discussing it on the talk page. Furthermore, you are the one refusing to answer specifics on the talk page. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. I'm discussing everything on talk. Gamaliel (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabwah

I edited some of the facts on Rabwah article and you kep removing them i have also added references for those facts and you still edited them with citation needed ? would you please check the referenced articles for proof ! if you agree ill add some of those facts again i agree with the grammatical mistakes and some places where i may have been a bit biased but most of the text i added was true and factual ! --EhsanAhmad (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit ([1]) added no citations, while inserting many unverified statements. Also, please use the article talk page for talking about the article. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statements i added their references are linked below in the reference list if you cared to check them ! two are from the book that you have to read while all others are online linked articles that you can read yourself and make up your mind.

--EhsanAhmad (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements in articles need to be cited with <ref> tags. Nobody is going to read every related link, but if they want to find information on a particular fact they will look at the reference in the citation. Please see almost any other wiki page for how to do this. The links on your talk plage will also explain how.

I will no longer reply to you here on this issue. If you wish to discuss the Rabwah article, please do so on talk:Rabwah.

I also do not wish to be your Wikipedia tutor. If you can't figure out how to edit pages to community standards, please go to WP:HELP. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WhyDoIKeepForgetting
I have gone through the edits you have done and these edits are good in making the article less offensive to the Muslim.
The article can be made more neutral if the name of the city is changed to Chnabnager. This is the official and guzetted name of thee city. I wonder if you would call Mumbai as Bombay, Chanai as Madras or Varansi as Banaras. I hope i am not doing any vandalism Nonenone4000 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Schumer

YouTube is not a reliable source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even when the video in question is C-SPAN footage, uploaded by C-SPAN itself? No matter, I've added new sources. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're uploaded by the copyright holder, then yes, they would be reliable. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, C-SPAN is very permissive about the use of its video content. They have a very clear policy on the matter. -Pete (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP

I have removed material from Michael Levin that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omphalos

Hi there WhyDoIKeepForgetting. Just to say that I've put a comment on the talkpage of the omphalos hypothesis regarding the formal system section of this article. While I thought it was fascinating (and thanks for bringing it to my attention), I reckon that it doesn't belong here because the formal system states (which cannot have been evolved) are fundamentally different from the state described by the omphalos hypothesis (which could be evolved, but wasn't). I reckon linking between the articles might be justified, but including a special section is misplaced and potentially confusing for readers. Anyway, I've left the text in for now, but would be interested in your view. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 14:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the The Bell Curve"

I know it's been resolved now, but I meant to tell you earlier that I think the original wording "the Bell Curve" was okay. It's acceptable to delete initial "the" from proper nouns in some circumstances. To make an analogy, you would always say "the Beatles album", never "the The Beatles album". Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Gently Image

you're right, the discussion didn't happen at the talk page, although it should, my bad. anyway, please take a look in here: for deletion/2008 June 21. I don't mind taking the image down if we find something better; but at the moment that's all we've got Chnt (talk) 3 December 2008

It doesn't illustrate anything about Gently. That is, there is no information about Gently in the picture that is not in the article. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it illustrates his general look, spectacles, detectivating power, nicotine addiction and his dangerously red shirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.159.26 (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lott

I've removed the bit about Women's suffrage several times since it looked like OR and certainly made no sense in an encylopedic article the way it was written. I'm glad you found out it was just copied from a website. Of course, everytime I removed it as OR it was restored with a lame reason. dougweller (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Lott. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of "edit war" is not supported by the link in the above "warning". BTW, have you read WP:SELFPUB?

On.Quest

{{(diff) (hist) . . Mirza Ghulam Ahmad‎; 21:20 . . (-164) . . WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk | contribs) (this person is not notable)}}

You have deleted the para I have added. This is about a self-claimed prophet. I myself does not agree with his claim however, in term of whether there is a claim or not, it a fact. I have linked it to his website. His significance is because of his claim only. He claims to be the promised one, who shall bring all faiths - whole population of the world - to one faith only. Ahmadiyya faith believes that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Promised Messiah (second coming of Jesus) and this person claims that he is the Promised Son as prophesied by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Please undo your deletion or I have to dispute it. --On.quest (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order for a paragraph to be encyclopedic, it must not only be true, but also notable. There are many, many people who claim to be "the promised one". Most of them are insane, grifters, or both. ^{[citation needed]} We cannot include details on someone simply because he is bonkers or a con man; he must also have a large number of followers and coverage in reliable secondary sources. wp:Notability and wp:RS explain more. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are pretending as if you are wikipedia expert. Please refer to wp:Notability. This states These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. Your actions are falling in the category of Edit War. --On.quest (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretending no such thing, and reverting your bizarre promotions of a self-proclaimed prophet is not edit warring -- I explained the reasons I did so, I referred to Wikipedia policy, and I did not come close to violating the 3rr.

Even if I'm wrong about the scope of wp:Notability, wp:Verifiability, wp:linkspam, and wp:rs still apply.

This discussion does not belong on my user page. I will no longer reply to your comments here about this particular article. If you want to comment on the content of an article, use that article's talk page. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Steps taken by WhyDoIKeepForgetting have made the article more netral/Less offending for Muslims, but I insist that the official name of the city be Used.

Nonenone4000 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)NoneNonenone4000 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move from John Derbyshire/draft by the man himself to User:WhyDoIKeepForgetting/John Derbyshire

Hi, I have moved the draft you have been writing to your username space. In future please write all drafts in user space rather than main space, and then only move them once you are satisfied that they are no longer draft. Also please be aware of the potential conflict of interest issues when writing an article about yourself. Thank you. -- role^player 09:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Also, I am not John Derbyshire. I copied this article from a version of his article apparently written by him. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK. -- role^player 09:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moved here from User:WhyDoIKeepForgetting after making the red link WhyDoIKeepForgetting a blue link

unsolicited "rescue"

Whoever renamed User:WhyDoIKeepForgetting to User:WhyDoIKeepForgetting/JohnDerbyshire (or vice versa, don't know how that works) incorrectly removed the WhyDoIKeepForgetting user page in the mistaken belief that WhyDoIKeepForgetting was JohnDerbyshire writing about himself (WP:NO Autobiography) when WhyDoIKeepForgetting later stated WhyDoIKeepForgetting only posted the article on John Derbyshire by the man himself and WhyDoIKeepForgetting was not John Derbyshire. Whew. Got that? I am not repeating it.

This mistaken edit orphaned the Talk:WhyDoIKeepForgetting discussion page and perpetrates what WhyDoIKeepForgetting claimed was the false impression that WhyDoIKeepForgetting is JohnDerbyshire. WhyDoIEvenCare? IDoNotReallyKnow but IAmReallyBored and IHaveTooMuchTimeOnMyHands and am feeling really WP:BE BOLD right now. WhyDoIKeepForgetting, here is your user page back. John Derbyshire can get his own. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article User:WhyDoIKeepForgetting/John Derbyshire is still out there but is no longer User:WhyDoIKeepForgetting.

Nobody made the move you suggested was made. My user page was never created until you just did it. I had erroneously placed the JD article in mainspace, rather than in my userspace. Someone moved the article from mainspace to a subpage of my userspace. You didn't "recreate" my user page, you created it. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So roleplayer and naamanbrown both sit corrected. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Regarding [2] that's almost a direct paraphrase of the material on the last page. Am I missing something? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, please keep discussion of articles to their talk pages, unless there is a reason why your question is really only relevant to me. "the project risks alienating Conservative Christians from Conservapedia." is not verifiable. It is an opinion. "Joe Schmo, a conservative minister from Alabama, said that the project risks . . ." is verifiable. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Keaggy

Thanks for the clean-up on the article. I removed the {{NPOV}} because you didn't explain what needed to be cleaned-up on the talk page as the template suggests. Please add both back at your earliest convenience. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find citations for those things you reverted. They're very easy to find. I suggest you add your fact tags as {{fact|date=November 2009}}. While you're at it, might as well get fact tags on in Hubbard, Ohio and with nine brothers and sisters. I was also looking at The Beatles article, there's some uncited statements like they're English, I don't know if that's verifiable. And it says that they're a rock band, when they started as a skittle band. And did they really form in Liverpool in 1960? It's uncited. You're missing a lot of facts that have no citations. Keep up the good work. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep talk about articles on their article talk pages. Your edit comment suggested I look at his website. Before reverting, I looked for a couple of these facts in his bio page on his website, which does not mention McCartney or Nashville.

This seems to have made you very angry. I do not understand why. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talk page edits

Hi, I noticed your message at User talk:Khan197khan that asked the user to cease removing warnings from their talk page. Please be aware that per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages, "[u]sers may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Thanks. GlassCobra 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Good day, WhyDoIKeepForgetting. Although we were in agreement at the John Derbyshire article, I feel the latest edits could have been handled better. This edit was not vandalism, and you ought not to have twinkled it back as such; it was a good faith content dispute and the editor deserves an explanation for your revert. It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRBLOCK :) Skomorokh 17:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congratz on getting Extended Confirmed User Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]