User talk:Immunize/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Immunize. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

CSD A10

Not sure you've read the WP:CSD#A10 instructions properly. It includes the remark "and where the title is not a plausible redirect." See also CSD R3. Rd232 ^talk 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rfa's

When you want to nominate someone for an RFA its customary to actually ask a person if they want it before you create the nomination. Also the general idea is that you write a nomination statement explaining why you think they would be a good candidate for adminship--Jac16888^Talk 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I did write a nomination statement. Immunize (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

More than one line. Look at the other RFA's--Jac16888^Talk 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Pdcook of the nomination, and he may accept or decline the nomination. Immunize (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you're supposed to ask first, then create it. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate someone else--Jac16888^Talk 16:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Should I withdraw the nomination? Immunize (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Its already been withdrawn from the main RFA page--Jac16888^Talk 21:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Immunize. I am humbled and honored you nominated me. Unfortunately, I must decline at this point. I am currently out of town, and I found out that there is some massive flooding back home (in Nashville), so now is really not the best time for me to go through the gauntlet. Perhaps we can revisit this issue in a month or so. Kind regards, P. D. Cook ^Talk to me! 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Immunize. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blurpeace.
Message added 04:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Airplaneman ✈ 04:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

PlainJain?

Nom-de-plume? B9 hummingbird hovering^(talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand what you mean. Immunize (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be fearless, not afraid. I do apologize. I must have got my wires crossed. Thank you very much for your contribution to Wikipedia. I have heard that pharmaceutical companies have paid editors to promote products on Wikipedia. Have you encountered such disreputable conduct?

B9 hummingbird hovering^(talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Such behavior would not be tolerated on Wikipedia, as it would be a blatant violation of the conflict of interest and Neutral point of view policies. 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

CVU discussion

Thanks for the feedback on the suggestion regarding handling shared IP addresses. I don't know if that suggestion will go anywhere or not. For what it's worth personally I have no particular interest in getting heavily involved in administration or policing. I occassionally make suggestions like this hoping that it might be helpful to those with a more direct interest (and might actually cut down on their workload).

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your message at Requests for feedback

	Hello Immunize. Replies have been posted to your message at Requests for feedback. Please acknowledge the feedback and ask for additional assistance if you need it. If you do not respond to the feedback, your message and the replies thereto will be archived in a few days. Thank you!  – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time - click on the [edit] link for this section and delete the {{feedbackreply}} template.

Template:Expand

When closing deletion discussions, a simple headcount won't do. One has to also evaluate the strength of the arguments (and I explained my evaluation on the discussion page). In this particular case, most of the support to keep that template was based on its value and usefulness for marking sections that were lacking, and that purpose is done just as well with {{expand section}}. Given that it's generally agreed that article templates are at best unsightly and only acceptable when necessary, and that {{expand}} is at best redundant when applied to a whole article, arguments to keep it because it was "harmless" (as opposed to useful or necessary).

An ordered transition away from that particular template seems to be the sane thing to do. — Coren ^(talk) 15:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am taking this deletion review. Although I understand a headcount will not due (see WP:NOTVOTE when so many votes were keep I feel that a deletion discussion should be closed as no consensus. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And I have now taken this to deletion review. Immunize (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Leukemia

I have put your GA nomination for Leukemia on hold for 7 days due to a number of issues that should be resolved before it warrants to become a Good Article. My suggestions can be found here. To insure the longevity of Leukemia's tenure as a Good Article on English Wikipedia, it is also probably a good idea to do a scan of it for any obvious grammatical or factual errors as well. This could either be done by yourself or with the assistance of The Guild of Copy Editors. Good luck!

Ojay123 ^(Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)(Respond on my talk page! 23:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your neglecting to see that this article is by no means unsourced. In fact, it has no less than 22 references. Additionally, the treatment section does have references, and the epidemiology section is well-referenced. So, I feel that this article is ready to be given good article status. Immunize (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I never claimed that the epidemiology section is unsourced; as you said, it is certainly very well referenced. However, the fact that it has so many sources does not, by any means, indicate that all of the information is referenced. In checking the few references that were in the treatment section, I discovered that they do not refer to the first few sections; as is the case with the signs and symptoms section. Also, you seem to be forgetting that there are a great deal of citation tags throughout the article, which if anything is an indicator that tthe article is by no means well-referenced. I would be happy to help with the references that need to be added, but it is not of Good Article-quality at the moment.

Ojay123 ^(Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)(Respond on my talk page! 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So should I withdraw the nomination? Immunize (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite yet. I think that it just has a few problems with it, problems that I am working on right now. As I said on the GA nomination page, the issues should hopefully be resolved within 7 days.

Ojay123 ^(Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)(Respond on my talk page! 18:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

Hello Immunize, I noticed that you had a bit of trouble with a {{multiple issues}} tag in this edit on 28 April. I'm not sure if you've already realised what the problem was, but if not: you need to put each issue with its date as eg. |orphaned=April 2010, rather than as |orphaned|date=April 2010 like the separate tags. Hope that makes sense, and just ignore this is you've already worked it out! Regards, --BelovedFreak 21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Thanks for your input at Abram Hoffer. I felt that the section had got quite out of control with the BLP issues and removed it entirely per WP:BLP and WP:TALK. I will restore your comment to the previous section. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, much thanks

Thanks for Reverting my Bio Page. I just discovered what occurred after a friend of mine told me I was lambasted on the No Agenda show for fixing the wikipedia. What they call ruining, I call "Bringing up to wikipedia quality standards" - and I kept my mouthyness to the Talk page. I won't deny I was a bit of a dick there, but I stand by my edits, and will note I followed the rules and acted in good faith. Funnily enough, many of my page edits are still there - I suppose at least my goal of improving the article was achieved, even if one must suffer a few personal attacks. Ah well, I've caught worse from family and friends joking about, these yahoos have all the bluster, but as much bite as a toothless Chihuahua. However, I digress mightily - Thank you again for the revert. Good to see someone has my back, when I'm too busy to watch my own. Churba (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Immunize. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 14:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Immunize. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk back

Best if you just point me to were you wish a comment. Or ask on my talk page. I do not see anything added on the WT:MED page since May 8th. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The message I wanted you to review was the new comment on the lists of causes of... articles section. Immunize (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BP Wikipedia Page

I moved the section on the current "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" the top of "Accidents" under BP because someone obviously tried to bury the story at the bottom.

They also tried to bury the story by giving it a title that most would not recognice "Horizons Deepwater Accident". When it's really an "Oil Disaster", not an "Accident" and the U.S. government has held BP as being primarily responsible.

Please be aware that BP Public Relations people are probably aggressively 'spinning' that Wikipedia article-- in order to bury / smokescreen anything that connects the current disaster to them in the article.

69.171.160.118 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Leukemia

Due to my recent realization that it may not be feasible to fix all of the problems in 7 days, I decided to remove the 7-day limit. I would say that improvements can continue to happen; there is a list of such improvements at the nomination page. So long as the article can be fixed up in a timely manner, I will continue to make changes to it. Ojay123 ^(Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)(Respond on my talk page! 20:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ex-vandals

About ex-vandals, I specifically had User:CycloneNimrod in mind, but there are other known examples, and probably hundreds of unknown instances. Most people don't remain immature teenagers.

I'm not posting this example by name to the VPP because there are still just a few editors who still believe that this one mistake (made in 2006) is more important than the ten thousand(!) good edits he's made since then, but I've personally been impressed with his work in the last couple of years, and wish that he had more time to devote to the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your correct, that user has made many good edits since that single vandal edit. However, I still feel we need to make it clear that most vandalism only accounts will be indefinitely blocked. Immunize (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Immunize (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help today!

Just want to thank you for your help today - for the good advice on reverting vandalism and for catching and reverting the vandalism to my userpage. I appreciate it!  :) Wikipelli ^Talk 02:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, always willing to help. Immunize (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Hi, Immunize. Thanks for your concern. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hippie

You missed a minor vandalism; I went a bit farther back, to the last sound edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. Were there multiple different vandals editing that article? That would seem to be the only reason for rollback to fail to revert all the vandal edits. Immunize (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup; both with similar nonsense ("devil movement", "worse than communists and jews", etc.). Ironically, there was also a good edit by an IP; I reverted to just after that good edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Copa del Rey 2010–11

I was trying to redirect it but I haven't got the hang of it. Can you please assist? Thank you in advance. La Fuzion (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for letting me know. Immunize (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... La Fuzion (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:REDIRECT thoroughly. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Awesome pic —Tommy2010 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You might also want {{User:Immunize/Willing to report}}. Regards. Immunize (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Tommy2010 20:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback archived

Hello A while ago, you requested some feedback for an article at Feedback forum. Because it has been up there a while, and you've received some at least useful responses, I have now archived the replies in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive/27. Please do not edit that page though; if you require further feedback, add a new request on WP:FEED.

I am trying to clear the backlogs; it would help us a lot if you could look at the requests from other users on WP:FEED and add any comments to help them out. Anyone can respond there, so please do take a look, and comment on the articles from other people.

If you want help with anything whilst using Wikipedia, you can either:

• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR

• Talk to other users who will be happy to help live, using this.

Chevymontecarlo 05:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA

I dropped another comment by, just FYI. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Immunize (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for adding the reference list to the Largest mammals page, how do I do it? Addug (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Use the {{reflist}} template. Immunize (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

Immunize - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

Hello, Immunize! I have reviewed you. I hope my observations are helpful. Any questions or comments for me can be left here, there, or on my talk page. Happy editing, PrincessofLlyr ^royal court 01:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Immunize (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

replied on my page. PrincessofLlyr ^royal court 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Leukemia GA nomination

I'm not sure if you are aware or not, but I have taken over the GAN for Leukemia per Ojay123's request. I have left some comments on how to improve the article to GA status. Please resolve those issues and I'll pass the articles as a GA. If you have any questions at all, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

Not sure if this is intended, but the first and last userboxes are exactly the same on your user page. Also, the bronze-coloured one that says "This user has been a Wikipedian since" doesn't have a date filled in. Happy editing, Brambleclawx 22:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not intended, and I would have fixed the duplicate userboxes, but I cannot, as they are formatted with a wikitable, and moving or removing the userboxes would disrupt the wikitable. Immunize (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for butting in (or stalking!), but you can remove and replace the boxes without disrupting the table. As long as you leave the | there and just remove the box you don't want, the table will be fine. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

editor review

Hi Immunize, I've commented at your RFA, but although I feel there's a lot to say, I didn't want to get too carried away there. So, I decided to use your editor review, where I've asked a couple of preliminary questions. If you'd like to answer them at some point, (no hurry at all), then I'd be happy to make some follow up comments on your editing. I don't intend to be over critical at all, just to point out a few things that may help you. I understand though that you may not feel too interested, depending on the outcome of your RFA! That wouldn't be a problem, but I'll make some comments if you want. Regards, --BelovedFreak 14:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

May I...

...Respectfully suggest you withdraw your RfA. Of course, you don't have to- you might like to gain more feedback- but it doesn't look like the experience is going to get any more pleasant. :( HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but that RfA wasn't pretty, so I closed it early since I'm afraid your chances of success are almost non-existent, unfortunately. By all means revert me if you wish to leave it open to gain more feedback, but otherwise, I'd like to see you back at RfA in 6-9 months. Anything you need, my talk page is open. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted, as I had not (as it was nighttime where I live) got a chance to answer all the questions, and I would like a bit more feedback. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. While adminship unfortunately seems an unlikely result, I hope you get some good feedback. Don't be put off- my first RfA tanked, but the community decided to put its trust in me eventually. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Immunize, this RfA has just hurt your chances for the future. It's been only two months since the last once--and you've been active for just over 6 months total. People may think that you are just trying to accumulate rights, true or not. Based on your crosswiki activity, you seem to easily get impatient or fed up with policies and guidelines which you are unfamiliar with--can't you just slow down for once? —fetch·comms 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to accumulate rights. I personally feel that I would make a good administrator, but if consensus is against this, then I will not run for at least another 6-9 months. Immunize (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not saying you are rights-hogging, just that some may view it as such, because this is so close to the other RfA. I'm sure you'd pass in the wintertime, but I'd withdraw this one first. —fetch·comms 16:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am considering withdrawing, depending on how things go the rest of this afternoon. Immunize (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination, as I do not think it could be more clear that this RfA will not succeed. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done the needful. Better luck next time. –xeno^talk 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

block v ban

Hi Immunize. You asked why and I wasn't "thrilled" with your response, but it closed before I could explain why. Your answer was not wrong, but it was not good enough for a sysop in my opinion.

• The real difference between a block and a ban is that a block is strictly a technical measure used to prevent damage to Wikipedia (temporarily or indefinite) while a ban is strictly a social measure to prevent any editing from banned users (from any IPs or accounts); and as such, any and all edits made by banned users may be reverted, regardless of their merit. A block may be used to enforce a ban but there are other means to also enforce the ban, such as checkuser and wp:duck. An indefinite block may be perceived as a "de facto" ban, but does not necessarily mean that the user is banned as the use of the unblock template may still be effectively used if a sysop determines that the user can edit again, therefore, a sysop cannot un-ban a user, but can for indef blocks.

I knew what you were trying to say in your answer, but as I said in your RfA, I just wasn't thrilled with it; all users are indeed welcome, except all banned users and only those temporarily blocked. An admin needs to understand the above exactly as such. Hope that helps Tommy2010 [message] 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Immunize. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 20:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

new section can you help me out on this thing :) thanks!

Hello there i am 98.177.155.42 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I want help creating the page User:98.177.155.42 so i can make my own sandbox. Can you help me out if you can? Thanks

I want that page created so i dont have to use the public sandboxes on wikipedia

Unfortunately, you need to create an account in order to create a userpage, even if only for testing/sandbox purposes. Please consider using the Wikipedia:Sandbox or creating an account if you do not already have one. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A nice cup of...

Caffieinebooost (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. Immunize (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of pages tagged for speedy deletion

Hi Immunize!

Just a note that when a page is tagged for speedy deletion, and the author blanks the page, it's normally better to just tag the empty page with {{db-blanked}}, rather than reverting - The idea being that the author has read and agreed to the reason for speedy deletion, and wants the content to be removed. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocked

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1968439 lifted or expired. Request handled by: –xeno^talk Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You might consider requesting WP:IPBE if this happens often. –xeno^talk 15:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This happens fairly often to me, probably because I edit from libraries. How to I obtain IP-block exemption? Immunize (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you ping a checkuser who will do some cursory checks before granting it. –xeno^talk 15:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I will consider. Immunize (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that, after I was unblocked and initially able to edit again, I am again unable to edit because of this autoblock? Immunize (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to post up the unblock-auto template again, I can't find it. –xeno^talk 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1968465 lifted or expired. Request handled by: –xeno^talk Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Topographic map

Recently you reverted a change to topographic map because of "unexplained removal of content". But user 75.69.101.208 had left an edit summary saying "Moved USGS detailed info to USGS pages - made more consistent with descriptions of other national mapping agencies" and that seems a good enough explanation to me. I have undone your change because I don't think we want all the information duplicated there and at United States Geological Survey. JonH (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your Abuse Report

Wikipedia:Abuse response/150.176.140.66 has been investigated and is now closed. Most likely the offenders will not reappear until after the end of US School Summer Vacation which is typically either at the end of August or the beginning of September. Regards, Phearson (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Abuse Response Team

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from IP. We wanted to let you know that the case for the report you filed for IP has been closed. Thank you again for filing and alerting us of this IP's abusive behavior.

Replied on your talk page.

led Zeppelin

• Thanks for having my Zep's back, [1] LoL Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Immunize the editor _{Contact me} 13:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Second account

Hi Immunize, you seem to have created another account User:Immunize the editor, am I right and if so, what is the reason for this? Graham Colm (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not create that account, I instead put those words into my signature. I created the redirect to avoid confusion. If you would like me to remove this from my signature, I would be happy to do so. Best wishes. Immunize the editor _{Contact me} 19:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A s an update I have removed the editor from my signature and have requested speedy deletion of the redirect to prevent confusion. Immunize _{Contact me} 19:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Immunize, no worries. You created the account by mistake when you were revamping your signature. I suspect you created a redlink in your preferences and then clicked and saved. I have deleted the page - these things happen and no harm has been done. Keep up the good work fighting those wretched vandals. Graham Colm (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're Too Fast!

Argh! You beat me to this. Keep up the good work! :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 308° 8' 15" NET 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Immunize _{Contact me} 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFA Thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated.

--White Shadows ^There goes another day 17:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do feel you might make a good admin at some point, just not immediately, with those recent blocks. Best wishes. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Perhaps RFA #2 will go better. :)--White Shadows ^There goes another day 22:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Your "warning" is unfair. All I did was add a section on the paper's political stance, something that was conspicuously absent from the article. The section contained two statements: first, that the paper had not endorsed a Republican for President since 1956. Second, that it had many liberal commentators.

Can you explain how this constitues vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.149.20 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history of your talk page, and I have not given you any warnings. Are you certain you have contacted the right user? Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 13:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

About the changes in "Erotic lactation"

Hi, my changes in the "Erotic lactation", were not with an intent of vandalism. I was correcting the info and that's why I provided a reference to prove my point. The information under the "Islamic Law" entry is completely misleading. In Islam, any woman who breastfeed a child who is less than two years old, then the child becomes her son (under quite a lot of conditions and regulations available in the reference I cited). This is a known Islamic law that all Muslims agree on without any doubt. The current entry is written in a very misleading way. It shows as if that the condition of "two-year-age" is marginal or disputed among the Muslim scholars, while in fact it is agreed upon among all Muslims. Also, the opinion mentioned about "adult" men who can breastfeed from women is adopted by very very few people who are not scholars or respected researchers, and thus you can't include this as an Islamic view. Yet the entry shows that as if it is welcomed in the Muslim community. Further more, the idea that if a man is breastfed by his wife then becomes her son is also not an islamic view, and having one or two people say that does not mean that it became an Islamic view!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.93.204 (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)