User talk:FormerIP/Archive3

Speedy deletion declined: Germán Serrano Pinto

Hello FormerIP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Germán Serrano Pinto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Mastiksoul

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Mastiksoul. I disagree with the speedy deletion of Mastiksoulbecause page had previously been through afd, which concluded that there was notability. You should therefore not retag Mastiksoul for speedy deletion. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. DMacks (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Moshe Mordechai Eichenstein

Hello FormerIP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Moshe Mordechai Eichenstein, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 15:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Saad Albazei

Hello FormerIP. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Saad Albazei, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Nancy talk 15:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...For reverting that oh-so-clever bit of vandalism from my talk page; I really appreciate this! I look forward to editing with you again! Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

That is not what we are in dispute about. Marcus Qwertyus 22:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only changes that require consensus are changes that actually change the meaning of the policy not making simple grammar changes. Marcus Qwertyus 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy criteria

The speedy criterion is "no indication of importance or significance" If there is any plausible indication as with Mavrov Gennady Ivanivich, then its a question for prod or AfD, not speedy. As for his actual notability, it would depend on his publications or administrative position, according to WP:PROF, so his publication record would have to be found & examined. I'm not sure about how that will go, but it is not a speedy.

And, when you place a speedy tag on an article, you must say so explicitly in the edit summary-- an edit summary of tag is not sufficient. This also goes for proposed deletion or AfD--you must say so in the edit summary. (for that matter, when you tag for anything, it helps to say in the edit summary what the tag was--it facilitates work on the article).

I notice others have commented similarly above. In order to use the right procedure, and get articles deleted that ought to be deleted, and kept that ought to be kept, it might help to read carefully WP:CSD, andWP:Deletion policy DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Italy

Hello FormerIP. I've just read your message and I'd like to help you, but I don't understand how. Do you need the translation of a sentence from Italian into English ? Moreover I am not very keen on legale subjects ...--Alessandroga80 (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, FormerIP. You have new messages at [[User talk:McMarcoP (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)|User talk:McMarcoP (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

why the your sudden interest in adding a negative touch to Fred Hofheinz's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9hofhei (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why should i get blocked for editing inaccurate, misleading information? wikipedia was founded to promote free circulation of info, accurate info. Many sources available to support what I am saying...For example.... http://www.houstonpress.com/content/printVersion/223971/ Very strange that you should feel so strongly about this when all you have to do is google to see that the guilty plea was for failing to inform... Maybe you are the one who should be blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9hofhei (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made new shortcuts...

at wp:CRIME / wp:CRIMINAL (I had to redo those shortcuts so that they no longer redirected to the Criminal Wikiproject, making new shortcuts at wp:CRIMEPROJ / wp:CRIMINALPROJ to take their place)--and I'll wait to see if anybody complains!

I do think you should add whatever is in your guideline that is missing in the present one, though (subject, of course, to talkpage consensus; I'll try to put in my 2cents there when I've a load of free time online; perhaps in the next few days?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I though you wanted them there in the first site. I'm move them now. cheers Wombat24 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi FormerIP: If you ever nominate any articles connected with anything to do with Jews or Judaism, as you did with the Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Eichenstein [1] stub (someone else did it for you 5 days after [2] you placed the delete template on the page and no one had any idea about it), could you please also notify those Judaic editors who have a direct interest in such articles by please placing a notification at either Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of ppost

You appear to have removed one of my posts oon RSN why?Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could a pointer...

to wp:PERP (which is now also wp:CRIME, btw!... <smiles>) along with perhaps some text, be added to wp:CFORK, assuming their isn't the same there already?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest FA

Contrary to what you wrote, I direct your attention to Bob Dylan, which has remained an FA since the "brilliant prose" days of October 2003, and survived three FARs in the process. I believe that counts as our oldest FA. Australia may be our oldest article to have achieved and kept featured status, perhaps.

(I found this out researching one of my possible future presentation ideas, on the sustainability of Wikipedia as measured by the endurance of the FA star. I just haven't had the time to look through old FA logs and see how things have gone since then. But I have seen the star come and go on quite a few articles). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

Based on the recent shootings, i was under the impression that she passed away. I did thorough research and realized that it was not true and was on the verge to amending the edits. No big deal. user:SoAuthentic 01:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical manuscripts

Could you not see the cross link to the biblical manuscripts for the Book of Daniel? As it is now there is no source. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made a new claim though. It is possible that the earliest known manuscript was written in the languages already mentioned, and I suspect it is probably right, but we should have a source for this. Please don't be too offended - this would probably make a good improvement to the article if you are able to find a source that backs it up.
I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning the crosslink you included, but Wikipedia articles should not normally be based on Wikipedia articles. If there's a source over there for this info, then use the same source on the Book of Daniel page. --FormerIP (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what cross links are for. Exactly which manuscripts are covered at the biblical manuscripts page, specifically that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain the oldest manuscripts. And it was found to have Daniel in Hebrew and Aramaic. That's a long diversion from the paragraph edited. Anyone reading the edited sentence knows it was the manuscripts not the book that was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. It was edited to reflect this. Be nice and correct the situation. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to be nice, but I don't know what you mean by "correct the situation". Is there a reliable source that confirms the information, either over at the biblical manuscripts page or one that you know of? If you're able to provide it, then problem solved. --FormerIP (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Marcel Rosenberg

I'm a bit confused here. I recently did an essay on the Spanish Civil War and I did a bit about Rosenberg. I found an article about Rosenberg from metapedia (I'd never heard of it before) from google-ing his name. I just copied and pasted the content into Wikipedia from Metapedia as Wikipedia didn't have an article on him. I didn't know I was doing anything wrong at the time. Now that I have actually read what it has said, I can see that is rather POV. I'd just like to say sorry, I didn't have any fascist POV intentions. IJA (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate IJA (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q.s

See here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP, could you help me with the wording here?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Knox again

I don't know how to do the "talkback" thing, but I responded to your note on my page.LedRush (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let the editors know that the British National Party has a new logo yet the old logo is still shown in the current wikipedia article.92.25.150.186 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hey, i have just cleaned up the David Wood (Christian apologist) which you voted for deletion. Do you still maintain your original position? Someone65 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you operate,

So I'll just post here to tell you've I've replied. Different people like different places for messages, so I guess best plan leave a reply on both walls)). Alexandre8 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

Note that there is also an article called Fascism and ideology. I do not know if the articles overlap or should be combined, but they should be cross-referenced. TFD (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hauskalainen

I have reported Hauskalainen at the admin notice board. Here is the link [3]. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much

Thanks, FormerIP, for your discussion of the Eppley meta-analysis at RSN.[4] I was the one who added that material. I didn't know that that discussion was going on, even as we were simultaneously discussing it on the article's Talk page. Just as well, though, since your comments were well stated and to the point. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Eppley meta-analysis was removed from Wikipedia as the discussion was going on at RSN. I am going to attempt to restore it, and have tried to create a draft that reflects all of the feedback at RSN. What do you think?

A 1989 meta-analysis of over 100 studies found that relaxation techniques reduce trait anxiety and that Transcendental Meditation had a larger effect size than other relaxation techniques. The meta-analysis was criticized in a 2003 editorial by Peter Canter because it included studies with no control groups, while a 2009 textbook on research-based alternative medicine characterized it as thorough and well designed. A 2006 review by the Cochrane collaboration that only considered the most rigorous research (randomized controlled trials) and that only considered studies done on adults diagnosed with an anxiety disorder found that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders. The review found that, as of 2006, the one study on TM that met their criteria for consideration found that TM is equivalent to relaxation therapy in reducing anxiety.

Part of the challenge is that these two reviews looked at different populations. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So much for the RSN discussion. I put Eppley back in Wikipedia, and it was deleted by Doc James less than two hours later.[5] Again, I appreciate your comments at RSN. TimidGuy (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your work on pruning the BNP article. It looks a lot better. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I am thinking that perhaps an ANI may be needed over what looks like attmepts at indimidation by Hauskalainen . As you are involved in this I thought I would run it by you first.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello User:FormerIP! Could you please clarify your position at the last RfC? I've posted a comment there! Thanks! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello again, FormerIP. Following up Wikid's above notification, the thread in question is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:BruceFisher at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher - the context of the report relates to you. Regards, SuperMarioMan 08:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Meredith Kercher Article

My one sentence addition to the article attributed to a reliable source which suggests Nara C has hearing problems has yet again been deleted on incredibly flimsy grounds. I can't revert the edit because that would mean 3 reverts in one day which TMCK has warned me on my talk page will lead to a block. This is insane. It seems that a mob of people intent on obscuring the truth has complete control of this article.

I'm new to Wikipedia, can anything be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

Recent comments you made on Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher are not at all acceptable conduct for Wikipedia:

He admitted it, and actually was proud that he is an addict. Enough said.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
He actually was proud? I'm not surprised. That's homeless Italians for you. --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it has anything to do with being Italian.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Uh-huh. --FormerIP (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I happen to be Italian so that is not a remark that should be made Thank you kindly--Truth Mom (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Uh-huh. --FormerIP (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you meant what you were saying or were mocking what the other editor was saying and putting words into her mouth, but either way that kind of behavior does not meet appropriate standards for talk page conduct. There are also a number of other examples on that page of you just taking potshots at people and in no way trying to contribute to improving the encyclopedia. That needs to change, or you will run into problems. DreamGuy (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir. --FormerIP (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit [6] not only gets WP policy wrong, it attacks the integrity of everyone who disagrees with your position. Your continued attacks and incivility on the talk page is a major contributing factor to the, at times, toxic environment on that page.LedRush (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably report it then. --FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Pancras International - naming controversy

Hello, Since you took part in this before, you might like to know that there is a revived proposal under discussion at Talk:St Pancras railway station#Requested move. -- Alarics (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, FormerIP. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Come on. :) You may want to remove that last bit. Being petty is beneath you...and it is just gratuitous stick poking at him. Take the high road...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, this remark in particular. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as a criticism of the blog "Injustice in Perugia" rather than an individual editor, unless I've missed something here. pablo 08:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have missed that Bruce Fisher is a Wikipedia editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not supposed to comment on a user's choice of sources now?
On the general topic of civility, Jimbo, I'd ask you to remember that a number of weeks ago you made allegations of censorship and abuse of admin powers against me and other editors which caused three editors to resign and me to take offence. At that time, you indicated that you would investigate in order to substantiate your claims. But they remain unsubstantiated all these weeks later and you haven't acknowledged your error.
So, I promise to take seriously anything you have to say about civility once you've taken the stick out of your eye.
Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully stand by my remarks which have been fully substantiated by many people multiple times. Your engaging in personal attacks against other editors will no longer be tolerated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, Jimbo. It turned out that you didn't understand what could and couldn't be shown by checkuser, and you haven't ever provided any concrete examples of the "censorship" you imagine has been carried out on the article. Sorry, but I don't regard you, in relation to this article, as having the moral authority to make statements about what behaviour will and won't be tolerated. --FormerIP (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, no. Since the point being discussed was substantiated by multiple sources, there was absolutely no reason for you to snipe at a single author in the grouping with a cheap shot. I asked you politely to remove it (above), LedRush did remove it and Jimbo warned you about it. That is the opinion of three editors that it was uncalled for. Such sniping has been cause for the editing environment there to be unduly terse and cause problems. I would now recommend that you revise your statement above...it does not help you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help me? What, you think I'm on thin ice because of a disparaging comment about a book? It may not have been a highly relevant contribution to the immediate discussion, but I think a sense of proportion about it would be no bad thing. --FormerIP (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone has a sense of proportion here. You weren't blocked, after all, just warned.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing is three editors trying to make something out of nothing because they disagree with the POV of a fourth. Routine, I guess. --FormerIP (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you can't see why insulting someone is not ok and that POV has nothing to do with it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so. --FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting an old discussion

I am revisiting an old discussion. No offense, but the opinion you offered there was not supported by the revision histories of the two articles.

You wrote: "Merge to Tablighi Jamaat. Per Misarxist, there doesn't appear to be any good justification for this fork.

No offense, but your comment suggests you did not take the time to review the procedural {{afd}} that marked the very start of the article -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. I don't believe any fair minded person who read that discussion would ever suggest there was no good justification for a separate article. I started the new article, in December of 2006, after wasting dozens of hours having perfectly policy compliant material get vandalized in the original article, as I documented back then.

By 2011 the Tablighi Jamaat article had been brought up to today's standards of referencing. Nevertheless, the allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism remains an important topic, in and of itself, and I continue to feel two separate articles are appropriate.

You voiced a "merge" opinion. As in almost all cases, no effort was made to merge any of the material from the deleted article. Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer

Do you agree this edit by Liftarn is ungrammatical and wrongly formatted? Pass a Method talk 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Is the editor maybe not a native English speaker? --FormerIP (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quoted you

I quoted you here: Talk:Bobby Fischer. FYI. (Well put, thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey section

Hi former IP - could you please explain why you have removed all reference to Morrissey's large and important online fan base? Morrissey has worn t-shirts criticising fansites, has banned website owners from concerts and has written numerous times about certain websites, which you have dismissed as 'trivial' and also 'poorly sourced' when numerous items in the article have no citation whatsoever.

Please get back to me, let's resolve this amicably rather than confrontationally.

Friendlyfan4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyfan4 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied over on the article talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Morrissey "image and politics" section". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Littlejohn

Hi, please could you explain your reasoning for removing my edit on the Littlejohn article? My TinyMind (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no sourcing, and the material appeared to be out of place, since the article has a section dedicated to "Controversy and criticism". You also inadvertently added your signature in the middle of the article, BTW. --FormerIP (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably I did source the edit - I made explicit reference to the date of transmission and you cannot really dispute the validity of the BBC? I made the addition and correctly placed it within the TV section. Surely you are not suggesting this, public knowledge, is controversial? My TinyMind (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical point, the transmission details should be cited in a footnote, rather than included inline. That aside though, this is only a source for the contents of the broadcast. It isn't a source for what the median wage was in the early 70s, the statement that RL has not "widely publicised" his conviction, the statement that he has not explained how it is consistent with his opinion about birching or, indeed, the statement that he holds that opinion. --FormerIP (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Hi! Points were raised on the reliability of Patrin and Hammer to Nail in Korkoro's FAC. I started a thread on WP:RSN to get more eyes on them. Whats your say on this? morelMWilliam 06:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting comments

You have deleted one of my comments in ITN/candidates, here. Am I correct in assuming that this deletion was accidental? Deterence Talk 22:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it must have been. A million apologies. I'll go back and see to it if you haven't already. --FormerIP (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, already fixed. Such mistakes are easily done. :-) Deterence Talk 22:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second amendment revert

Just a heads up that I confirmed that what the IP added was actually from the Heller decision just before the material already quoted in the article. In other words, it was a prequel, if that's the right word here, to the existing quote. For that reason, I didn't revert it. Now, whether it belongs is another issue, which I was too tired to think about, but it was sourced already.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a request

Thank you for your help resolving the dispute between Aprock and me on the Ashkenazi intelligence article. It appears to be resolved at this point, but I do have one additional question. The topic of ethnicity and intelligence is a tricky one, and I've noticed that it's a challenging endeavor to find people who place improving the articles in line with policy above promoting their own viewpoints. I'm grateful that the person who responded to my 3O request was someone with a good handle on neutrality and adherence to policy. I'd like to ask: next time I'm in need of someone to mediate a dispute of this nature in this topic area, would you mind if I request your input directly instead of going through the 3O process again?Boothello (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CityOfSilver 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide a link to the discussion thread, which is Wikipedia:Ani#Propose community ban, and the editor is User:Noloop. TFD (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death panel

Thanks for the compliment about the research. I think I've definitely researched the topic well! I guess I'm just waiting for a specific example and argument as to why a part of the article is POV. Until then, it seems there's just this general felling of "Hey! You're not giving equal validity." O well. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really just about weight. Like I say, I agree with the POV but, for example, "false" or "falsely" occurs every other sentence in the first two paragraphs of the "prelude" subsection. I think the article has gone too far in hammering home the point that "death panel" is, all said and done, a bit of stupid sloganeering. That can be conveyed without taking such a severe tone, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe it would be good for discussion purposes to bring that up at NPOVN. Each time I've used the word false I think there's a good source that used it or an equivalent. I did ask for a copy-edit to the article recently. Maybe that would help. Jesanj (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Award

The Third Opinion Award The Third Opinion Award
For your opinion today at Talk:Alan Grayson. Very good. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback justification

All the Way to Reno (You're Gonna Be a Star) I rolled you back because Yellow River was written by Christie. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake. --FormerIP (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've broken 1RR at Fascism

Hello FormerIP. You've been reported at WP:AN3#User:FormerIP reported by User:Local Panel (Result: ). Please revert yourself at Fascism to avoid sanctions. See Talk:Fascism#The WP:1RR rule is still in effect. You must surely have seen the large editnotice about 1RR which pops up when you hit the 'Edit' button. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get the notice when you are using Twinkle. But thanks for the message. --FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Twinkle needs a new feature. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but it is worth keeping in mind if you are monitoring the article. If someone has "TW" in their edit summary, it may be an innocent and oblivious drive-by. --FormerIP (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


But it's the main point and should be cited. WP:COMMONSENSE. Lugnuts (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ER

Most of the anon's complaints are a bit beyond 3O on Elizabeth Rauscher, having been discussed extensively by multiple editors: Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher/Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rauscher (2nd nomination), (e.g. anon's #2 is addressed by consensus here. Then there's the infobox, which anon has gone from one extreme to the other, from adding everything but the kitchen sink to removing all but one element. Anyway, your input is very welcome in addition to what everyone else has been discussing over the past several months. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I'll try to take all that into account. I haven't looked into it enough yet to no what response I will give, but don't forget that it is non-binding. --FormerIP (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Jamie

Hi, yes I have just moved the page, because I was asked to (see here User:Brendandh#Would you change title?). If my bad, then apologies. Yet there is consensus for the move, and the discussion has gone on long over time. Brendandh (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will though only through gritted teeth. Although, there is consensus for the move, and as I have written above this discussion has gone on longer than normal. This name, numbering and country is a perennial issue with the above monarch, and as a result no consensus has been reached regarding the name, however much a small band of editors suggest that that is the case. The move here is impartial and does no particular 'interested' parties down on their ownership of the memory of the man. Brendandh (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Brendandh to move the page since I am not sure how to do it. It was a clear consensus that lasted twice as long as the suggested time and was a fair compromise as the page will clearly show. My apologizes to Brendandh for any discomfort I have caused her and apologizes to you for any confusion I have caused to you. Mugginsx (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not to worry. --FormerIP (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[7]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography

Howdy FormerIP. Thanks for commenting on my proposals & not attacking me. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albumcaps

I am requesting your further input here (or wherever the discussion may end up).—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roald Dahl task force!

Hello, FormerIP/Archive3, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can join!

Your comment on the Wikiproject Ireland page

I would strongly encourage you to do what you said regarding the rfc, you would get a lot of support from a lot of editors, myself included, especially if it will resolve most/all of the petty disputes that the usual suspects initiate or provoke in which articles would get disrupted in the process. Sheodred (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I just noticed you do much of the work on various election articles. You totally deserve this. Cheers Tachfin (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

If you'd care to check the discussion page, you'd see that this actually does have talk page support, and that a lot of work went into crafting this compromise proposal. For further enquiries, please check with User:Resolute, whose proposal this is. Cheers, --JN466 20:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somatotype and constitutional psychology

Enforcement action taken vs Editor75439 (talk · contribs) banning further editing of said article... I had kind of suspected this would be the eventual result (the admin who did the topic banning commented "It's rarely this straightforward"), but was trying to assume good faith. Thanks for your efforts! Allens (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks (re Somatotype and constitutional psychology) for doing your best - I don't think anyone could have done any better! Allens (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. --FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Yep, you work harder than many kittens. Alatari (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. What did I get it for? --FormerIP (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depictions of Muhammad and other original contributions that you tirelessly add. I find it to be a rare person who becomes an major contributor to the body of articles across many subjects and who writes in a concise NPOV voice. There are plenty of deletionists, one-sentence snipers, copy editors and talk page spectators but not enough main stay contributors. So I would like to reward these traits. Alatari (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Please see ANI thread. Cheers, --JN466 03:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Arbcom open the case there will be an evidence period lasting at least 10 days or so. You'll have time to make your statements. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's only if they open it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've entered into the looking glass on Muhammad issues, FormerIP. Even Jimmy Wales has had made his opinion known during the Everybody Draw Muhammad Day article creation because Pakistan and Indonesia were threatening to block all access to Wikipedia and Pakistan carried through. I would direct you to read the talk pages from there and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy talk pages. Alatari (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even Jimmy Wales? Wowzers! That must have been something... --FormerIP (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to come up with a template to warn people they are going to encounter images of Muhammad and how to turn off the images on their local computer. Something like this: Template:MuhammadEditNotice place in the Page Notice content of an article with the aforementioned method of turning off browser images on several browsers. Do you remember where that tutorial is? I thought it was on the Depictions of Muhammad talk page but no. This kind of page warning is used on some sex articles so there is a precedent. --Alatari (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, FormerIP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—nothing urgent, and nothing that needs an answer at half two in the morning; just FYI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Apologies if my comments at AN and ANI yesterday came off as insulting. You are correct—it's not as if there were plans for anything better. Although I'm supportive of the principle, I figured the short time frame would doom that proposal from the start. Regardless, the snarky comments 'exceedingly poor planning' were not warranted. Swarm X 03:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --FormerIP (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

WP:BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia; that includes article Talk: pages. I've redacted your BLP violation from Talk:Eurabia, but please don't do this kind of thing again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go back later and include the sourcing. --FormerIP (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer a couple simple questions?

Where was consensus reached? Was there an RfC or was anyone notified of the change? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep it on the talkpage. However, so as to give you an answer, the wording you are objecting to was added by Tryptofish as the result of the discussion in the section headed "compromise". I think you were too quick to revert, though. Tweak, or else explain and discuss. --FormerIP (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Western Sahara

Hello - As you contributed to the DR noticeboard thread, I think you'd be interested in participating in the RFC about the flag of Western Sahara; see Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara Thanks --Tachfin (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at some point - it's an RfC so I'm assuming I have time on my side. --FormerIP (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

msg

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

Use /Evidence

I think you should probably enter the mitigating circumstances and your promise not to repeat certain behaviors not only on Workshop page but on the Evidence page as well. You should probably give a link to the rather tame ANI thread on you. I think JN466 has omitted that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

User:ASCIIn2Bme/Mill You're welcome to contribute. I've also left a post that may interest you on Mathsci's talk page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good job with the list, by the way. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your sub-page, though. Is it to collect information about book covers? --FormerIP (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]