User:North Atlanticist Usonian/Archive 4

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parenting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recreational drug use, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depressed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

1 revert rule on the template infobox
You reverted Hpunxkd at 11:22 and you reverted me just now at 20:06. Please self-revert. Sopher99 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In defense of accuracy
Syrian Resistance had been added to the sub-group section of the article, as a sub-group of Shabiha. When I created this page I designed it with the intention that the Main Conflict section would not include sub-groups. There simply isn't room. Please remove Syrian Resistance or make an argument on the talk page that either all 150 sub-groups should be included in the Main Conflict section, or that Syrian Resistance is not a sub-group of Shabiha (I did not make the edit that added Syrian Resistance to Shabiha), but I am trying to make the article accurate and consistent and it was necessary for that reason to remove Syrian Resistance from the main section. DylanLacey (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hamza Tzortzis


A tag has been placed on Hamza Tzortzis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:FGM victims
Category:FGM victims, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Anti-FGM activists
Category:Anti-FGM activists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Defense of legitimate editors
I see you have a barnstar on this subject. I am just getting started on it, would appreciate your opinion/comment/advice. Details in my user page. Thanks Yama Plos   talk  04:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yes to human cloning


The article Yes to human cloning has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article offers no reliable sources to verify notability. This appears to be little more than a book from a religious group without notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JodyBtalk 16:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583830617 your edit] to Mataano may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2013

Speedy deletion nomination of Mohamud Mumin


A tag has been placed on Mohamud Mumin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Contest
Should i contest this? Pass a Method  talk  14:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me this? Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured you might have good experience on this and i was looking for a second opinion. Pass a Method   talk  14:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. What do your instincts tell you? Middayexpress (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He has 14,000 hits on google so it seems okayish, so roughly 70% of my instinct says keep/contest. But since i'm not that good with biographies and you appear more experienced on that i figured I'd ask your opinion. Pass a Method   talk  15:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There actually appears to be only 4,970 hits on him; most either allude to one exhibition in 2012 or are mirrors or blogs/tumblrs. He's self-taught and that exhibition was also his first, so he's been at it professionally for a few months. Not sure whether that passes the WP:ONEEVENT notability threshold. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pass a Method   talk  17:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in community notice
Dear

As a Wikipedian interested in African subjects and specifically Uganda, we thought you might be interested in the following opportunity.

WikiAfrica is looking for a Wikipedian in Community from Uganda to play a pivotal role in its Kumusha Takes Wiki project. This might be a position that you would consider. Or it could be the perfect opportunity for someone you know from this country, please spread the word! For more details, please look at this page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/call_for_wir_en/

If you have any questions about the above, please contact isla on isla [at] wikiafrica [dot] net : Isla Haddow (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Amaal Nuux
Hello Pass a Method,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Amaal Nuux for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Tco03displays (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines
This is the second time i've seen you moving a page by copy-pasting its content. The WP:MOVE page states in bold letters; Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content. Don't do it again please. Consider this a warning. Pass a Method  talk  19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Pass a Method. Actually, the real issue is your continuous naming of pages away from their WP:COMMONNAME. Prior examples including at Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud and Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed. The A'maal Nuux page is only the latest example since "A'maal Nuux" is at least twice as common a name for her as "Amaal Nuux". This was explained in detail here as well. Per the commonname policy, that's therefore where the page should have been to begin with. In future, please try and adhere to website policy. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the page move. I merely disagree with the method you chose to move the page. When something is bolded out on a guidelines, it is usually to add emphasis because of its importance. Pass a Method   talk  19:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I must disagree with you about some page moves, "createdness of the Quran" and "Quranic createdness" are two entirely different concepts. Does "accuracy of mathematics" and "mathematical accuracy" have similar meanings?Kiatdd (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They are probably interchangeable, but the first title had a misspelling with a missplaced comma. Pass a Method   talk  19:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Law enforcement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rehabilitating (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Carlton alumni
Thanks. But there's nothing on Sulekha Ali's wiki article to indicate she attended Carlton. Richard Apple (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Format
5000 m on Mo's personal best table is badly formatted. Maybe you can fix it please? Thanks Pass a Method   talk  13:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Parameter
Hi Pass a Method. Please note that per Template:Infobox ethnic group, the related parameter is reserved for a "list of other ethnic groups related to the group", not for the same ethnic group geographically distributed elsewhere. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Zeila & Lughaya State
Hi Pass a Method. May I ask why you reverted here? You do realize that the only proof of the existence of such an entity is a dead website, right? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you did not mention that in the edit summary Pass a Method   talk  17:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wrote "re-direct project to main". If you didn't understand what that meant, all you had to do was ask. Your rationale that "they are not the same thing" is also inaccurate, btw. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Why move Nuclear program of Iran to Nuclear power in Iran
You recently changed the name of this article in a way that I think is misleading. Iran's nuclear program is much broader than nuclear power, and one of the still unanswered questions is whether it is genuinely intended for peaceful nuclear power purposes. This name change was discussed months ago and the consensus was against. I'm not aware that there was a recent discussion. Please explain. NPguy (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585241336 your edit] to Mo Farah may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * as Mo Farah coach Alberto Salazar agrees to help Britains middle and long distance runners retrieved 9 December, The Telegraph
 * 500-most-influential-muslims-234033281.html Influencing Muslims: The 500 Most Influential Muslims retrieved 4 December 2013

WP:SYNTHESIS
But I wasn't combining multiple sources. I was citing just one source. EkoGraf (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, then it would count as WP:OR Pass a Method  talk  16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * o.O? How is it OR if the guy cited in the source says 12-20 fighters (which is very specific) die each month since he was there which is April. EkoGraf (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but thats not what you added to the article. You added a total number. You decided for yourself that we should count from April onwards. Thats clear original research. Pass a Method   talk  17:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it that way. I wrote in my own words (which Wikipedia requests from us) what in essence that guy said. He said 12-20 of their fighters die each month and that they have been involved since at least April. His sentence by all intents and purposes equals (12-20 times 8 months which is 96-160). You got editors writing in these many different war articles on different incidents. And when they write about a day in a conflict where the one source says, for example, 7 soldiers died in one incident and another 3 died in another incident during the same day, editors sum it up and say 10 died during the day. Its simple logic. Yes, it would be OR if we combined multiple different sources or statements from different individuals for one conclusion and that's something I too don't approve of. But, we are using here one statement, from one individual, from one news source. No multiple statements, no multiple individuals, no multiple news sources. EkoGraf (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell me this, if you were writing an article about a two-day battle, and you got a source, a same source, that says that during the battle 40 people died the first day and 50 died during the second day, wouldn't you put in the battle's infobox that 90 died during the battle? EkoGraf (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First, the article does not state all were Iraqi. Second, the source does not make any calculations. No body counts. No hospital records. Its a figure that he came up with in the middle of a conversation. If thats not bad enough, you use that figure, and make add up how many months he was there and get a total? Give me a fucking break. Pass a Method   talk  19:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First, reply to your number 1 assertion. You are incorrect. The guy clearly states they were all Iraqi. Quoting the source for you. He reckons between 12 and 20 Iraqi volunteers are being killed in Syria every month. So, you must have missed that part. Second, an estimate of 12-20 dead per month is a body count in itself. Third, why would we need hospital records? Do we request hospital records for victims of an earthquake, or do we simply cite the figure that is given in a source? Fourth, since you cited No original research for me, I will cite something else for you. No original research. Quoting: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Fifth, please refrain from harsh language per Civility. EkoGraf (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I have just one question now for you...Is 96-160 an obvious, correct and meaningful reflection of 12-20 dead per month for eight months? EkoGraf (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are forming a conclusion out of minimum words. Its possible that In May most volunteers were non-Iraqi. Its also possible that more people were dieing from June onwards compared to the previous months. Its also possible that he's giving the highest estimates from during the fiercest fighting and ignoring death toll figures from during the stalemate. its very vague language. Such arbitraqry numbers of "per month" are obviously contrary from facts on the ground which show a huge variation in fighting each month. Pass a Method   talk  19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the amount of fighting has ranged from heavy to zero at Zaynab sayyida, so a month by month calculus makes no sense in the first place Pass a Method   talk  19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Old age request
I am writing you because you made recent edits to Old age. Please be so kind as to review my draft of extensive editing at User:Vejlefjord/Old age - draft and my explanation on its Talk Page. What do you think about its possible use? I am a novice in Wikipedia procedures. Thanks. Vejlefjord (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems fine. Although i've only edited that page a couple of times. Pass a Method   talk  00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and encouragement. What should I now do? Replace the present Old age article with the User:Vejlefjord/Old age - draft revision? Please advise. Vejlefjord (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Its better to manually make the changes without all-out replacement. You can do it one by one if you feel thats best. Pass a Method   talk  17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Quranic timeline) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Quranic timeline, Pass a Method!

Wikipedia editor Jennie Matthews 97 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nice start, but I hope you're going to maintain and expand the article! Note the wikilinking and punctuation I added."

To reply, leave a comment on Jennie Matthews 97's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Islamic terrorism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Surah


 * Mo Farah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Middayexpress (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Euthanasia, Foreign policy, Froome
Hello, I'm AstroChemist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. EzPz (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Guitar
Do not, do not identify PEOPLE by gender unless you are writing an article in which gender is a significant issue.


 * Human biology
 * Anatomy
 * Rape
 * Costume
 * Competitive sport
 * Hairstyles
 * Circumcision
 * Marriage

In these instances, you may need to draw distinction between male and female.

But do not label a picture FEMALE guitarist in an article about Guitars.

I do not know who you are or where you come from, but I do know that your sexist attitudes are forty years behind the times.

I do not believe that if it had been Eric Clapton playing that guitar, you would have captioned it MALE guitarist.

The female has a name. Her name is on the file. It is Sinéad O’Connor.

This type of sexist labelling, as if a female needs to be identified as such, should be a thing of the past. Would you write "Black man playing a guitar"? "Homosexual playing a guitar"? "Amputee playing a guitar"? "Geriatric playing a guitar"? "Motor mechanic playing a guitar"? Tax agent playing a guitar"?  "Female" is just as irrelevant!  A guitarist is a guitarist.

Amandajm (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Amanda, I'm not sure it is really meant that way or even intended to be even slightly offensive. On youtube for instance it's common to see "female guitarist", as it's typically a male-dominated instrument. A lot of girls/women even upload videos of themselves and label it "female guitarist". Even Guthrie Govan has said "let's face it, we tend to be men don't we" when asked who attends his clinics. It is quite rare to see a professional female guitarist in comparison to something like a pianist or violinist and I don't mean just a girl who sings and happens to strum a guitar in a band. You wouldn't get "female pianist" on the otherhand. So I can at least understand the thinking behind labeling it as such. For somebody as famous as Sinead though it does seem a strange choice to label her a "female guitarist" as if she's some unknown amateur musician. Personally I'd rather add a photo of a famous accomplished female professional guitarist like Ana Vidovic who is utterly beautiful in looks and playing and label it "Ana Vidovic" rather than Sinead who is more a singer accompanying her singing with some chords on a guitar or some amateur female player.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I accept that it wasn't intended to be offensive.
 * I comprehend the points that you are making. But the fact that the industry is male-dominated, (or even the fact that males might in general be better suited for a particular profession) is not a good enough reason. That excuse is used for labelling "female politician", "female doctor", "female bishop", "female police officer" and conversely "male nurse".


 * It is simply typical of the deplorable lack of awareness of common social issues and social ignorance that affects an increasing number of individuals at the present time.
 * Gender equality is a concept that is losing ground, rather than gaining it.
 * From about 1975-2000 few intelligent, thinking, men (in the Western world)  would have labelled a person as "female" unless the context was gender relevant. It simply wasn't acceptable.  It was not "politically correct".
 * What we have now is a distressing lack of social awareness.
 * And with that lack of social awareness, we have a spiralling degree of social hostility, also affecting issues other than gender.  In Britain it ranges from children tormenting other children to death at school, to the serious underrepresentation of women in Parliament. In Australia, the largest Anglican diocese in the world still teaches women that they are subject to their husbands and may not teach males over the age of 18, and nobody is even bothering to fight it anymore.


 * If my statement on this issue alerts yet another individual to the problems of gender stereotyping, then something has been achieved.
 * Why are females in such a minority on Wikipedia, do you think? Why do they so often chose names that disguise their identities?
 * I identify as Amanda. J. M.
 * I am one of the 50% (or so) of the world's population who suffer gender discrimination just for being female, and I don't like it.
 * Labelling a particular guitarist as "female" is not offensive to the majority of Wikipedia writers. It is personally offensive to those female individuals who have sufficient what-it-takes to remain here.


 * Dr. Blofeld, I agree with the point that you make about the choice of the individual represented. The article calls for images of the world's greatest guitarists (regardless of gender).
 * It is an interesting point that the historic illustration, the Vermeer, shows a woman playing a guitar. Small guitars were seen as a suitable instrument for women.
 * Guitars became a very popular choice of instrument for fashionable women in London in the 18th century, to the detriment of the harpsichord manufacturers. This was combatted by the harpsichord manufacturers getting a shipment of cheap guitars from Spain and handing them out to the street-sellers at Covent Garden.  When the flower sellers and fish sellers were all playing guitars, they rapidly ceased to be "fashionable" and women went back to their keyboards.
 * Anyway, I think I'll play Eric Clapton loud enough to get my son out of bed, (since it's nearly midday) and maybe that will sooth my ruffled feelings.
 * Amandajm (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Two of the very best and inspiring guitarists are female, Ana Vidovic and Mimi Fox who is an incredible jazz guitarist and educator who I've learned much from. If you ask most people to name a female guitarist though I bet they'd be hard pushed to think of one and would probably saw something like Katie Melua, Susanna Hoffs or Courtney Love and none of them are really lead guitarists as such in the Clapton sense of the word... What stood out more here though was that Sinead o Connor was being labelled a "female guitarist" rather than by her name Sinead o Connor which probably stood out more than if it had been an anon unknown! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Dec. 13
Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. EzPz (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Pass a method, you regularly add content to pages from fringe sources or no sources. Please seriously consider taking a second look at your edits prior to making them, thank you. EzPz (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He is stalking me too
You know exactly who i mean. Funny, right? -- Kendrick7talk 06:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This means that 3 people have accused him of stalking in the space of 3 days. And no, its not funny; if I catch him stalking me one more time i'm gonna do a backflip, maintain a handstand and punch myself in the belly to the point where i'm bruised.  Pass a Method   talk  10:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. Eventually cliques of editors who are just about stirring up anti-intellectualism won't last due to our fundamental tenant of WP:5P. There would otherwise be no explanation as to why I am still here. :-)

I don't know anything about your editing, and I guess you managed to get yourself topic banned for 6 months about theology. When you come back I will forgive you and welcome you with open arms! -- Kendrick7talk 22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob Ford
Hi, just a point about writing lead sections of articles. Do not add the info about the 2006 council opponent in the lead section. The lead section is a summary of the article, so we don't put in details. I've added the info about the 2006 election vs. Cadigia Ali in the political career section. Cheers! Alaney2k (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ba'ath Brigade


A tag has been placed on Ba'ath Brigade, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dark Sun (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Ba'ath Brigade


A tag has been placed on Talk:Ba'ath Brigade, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dark Sun (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Christianity
An editor has asked for full edit protection for this article, in response to the recent back-and-forth between yourself and User:StAnselm. I am inclined to protect the page accordingly, but would prefer that the two of you agree not to edit the page for a time, and instead work out your differences on the talk page, in a draft, or through an RfC. Are you willing to do this? bd2412 T 20:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably file an RfC Pass a Method   talk  20:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable course of action. Please note that the article is now at the state that it was before the dispute began, and should stay that way until it is settled. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Resurrecting old edit wars
I have no idea why you are resurrecting old edit wars at Tree of life (biblical), Lot (biblical person), etc. I do wish you'd discuss things on the talk page first. And there is no reason to get into a move war either - why don't you follow Requested moves? StAnselm (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - this has gone too far. I'm not taking sides, just trying to stop this. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

We haven't crossed paths in a long while, so I thought I would drop by and say hello. I see you have made some new friends. You might want to check out the essay WP:POV railroad. Cheers! Ignocrates (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome back to wikipedia. I admit it has been a long time. Thank you for remembering me! Pass a Method   talk  18:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban
I have closed the ANI discussion as supporting a topic ban against you for 6 months in all religious articles. If you have any questions about what constitutes a religious article, or a religious section of a non-religious article, you can ask myself or another uninvolved administrator.--v/r - TP 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A new article for you!
I have boldly created a new article: Tree of life (Quran). Edit and change it as much as you want - I don't plan to do so. I would also encourage you to create an "Islam" section in the main article, Tree of life. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fyi
There are many other diaspora pages with red links. Pass a Method  talk  19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know. By the way, thanks here. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Pass a Method   talk  19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph
"Wir sind immer noch nicht gut organisiert, und unsere rund tausend Mitglieder haben noch kaum militärisches Training erhalten" In english "We are not yet good enough organized, and our thousand members did not get enough military training" http://www.20min.ch/ausland/news/story/19238957 Elvis214 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pass a Method   talk  10:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Redl
Hi. Please see WP:RED and WP:NLIST. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that the section is for folks that are part of the media world, not random people featured in the media. Also, per WP:NLIST ("entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)"). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Extent of topic ban
I can see that there is enough doubt about whether an article about a film relating to a religion counts as a "religious article" for there to be room for wikilawyering. However, it was made perfectly clear to you that if there was any doubt you should consult a non-involved admin. The articles Muhammad: The Last Prophet and Mohammad, Messenger of God are articles that deal with religious topics, and you must have been aware of that fact. I cannot know what you had in mind when you edited those articles, but it looks remarkably like deliberate skirting round the edge of your topic ban to test how much you could get away with. If I see any editing like that again, I may block you from editing for violation of your topic ban. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I was somewhat unsure of the scope of wikiprojects in topic bans, but i will try to avoid such edits in the future. Thanks. Pass a Method   talk  14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Inbreeders
Category:Inbreeders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Keira Knightley. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * StAnselm, your editing in this matter has been needlessly hostile and disrespectful. You could have avoided all of this by politely removing the content as too trivial for inclusion as presented. Other editors had no problem doing that and as far as I can tell have no issue trying to be collegial. Perhaps a different approach would be less disruptive in the future. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are seriously misunderstanding Wikipedia's policy regarding BLPs. Unreferenced controversial information must be removed immediately. If Pass a Method continues to add such material, and edit war in doing so, I will certainly report him. StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And you are showing incredibly poor judgement. Please elaborate how referencing someone's best friend on their biography is now considered "controversial information." Shouldn't we save the apoplectic response for actual controversial material? I think we should. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sportfan5000, see for an example of how this kind of info is manipulated. -- Neil N   talk to me  04:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a long history of pr reps using the site but I feel good content will be kept in the long run. I don't dispute the the information could be trivial in some cases. I found removing it on the basis alone that it was unsourced was disrespectful when the content was easily source-able. I appreciate how you handled the situation. If others want to delve into how the relationships impacted the subjects then so be it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's controversial. If it isn't to be found in reliable sources, then it's controversial. Controversial information is anything that is likely to be untrue, or just someone's opinion. The key policy is Biographies of living persons: "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis original). And that's what I did. Notice those words carefully - whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. StAnselm (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll have to disagree on what is or is not controversial at this point. I think I've heard your opinion on this matter. I choose to follow reliable sources, and try to work with other editors. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was about to post a comment about another policy to StAnselm, but since everything i tell him goes in one ear and out the other i might as well just forget it. Pass a Method   talk  04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Tyrese Update
You added that Tyrese was a member of Phi Beta Sigma. That is false. Where did you find that. I am a National officer with access to membership records and he is not a member.

Occasio (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've mistaken me with someone else. Pass a Method   talk  04:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

thoughts on Abrahamic religions
a recent editor is making fairly significant changes on consensus balances. I want to avoid an edit war but think the changes are out of balance and sometimes misleading. Care to contribute? --Smkolins (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See here Pass a Method   talk  04:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I see some other arguments raged. Apologies if it caused discomfort to bring the general topic up in another context. --Smkolins (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Currency, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rand, Rial and Riyal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Anti-FGM activists
Category:Anti-FGM activists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)