User talk:Cloonmore

Bill Thompson
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITS AND DELETIONS AS YOU DID TO Bill Thompson (New York)! Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.148.82 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

July 28 Edits
Please stop trying to hide the fact that Bill Thompson is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for New York City mayor by placing this information, the most important information of Thompson's political career at the end of the first paragraph when it should be placed in the first sentence and before the Working Families Party endorsement. If you switch this again it will be regarded as vandalism. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.148.82 (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Harlowraman 10:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image:InteriorShiShi.jpg
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Sfan00 IMG 12:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

LP side formatting
Hi there. Please note the guidelines for how to list LP sides at WP:ALBUM. In short, you should use  not. Have a nice day. --PEJL 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PEJL! I've gathered from your reformats of my edits.;)Cloonmore 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note the difference in capitalization, per WP:MOSHEAD. --PEJL 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed that. Wiki guidelines are pretty anal, but I get it. Thx! Cloonmore 16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Van Morrison songs
Hi, you left a question on the talk pages of some Van Morrison songs about their notability. "Stranded" was featured in the Van Morrison albums Still on Top - The Greatest Hits and The Best of Van Morrison Volume 3. This was noted on the page but was quite unclear, so I made the section "Appearence on other albums". "Back on Top" was also featured on both these compilation albums, this surely makes them notable as they're his greatest hits? For the other Van Morrison songs I'll try and find references to back them up. Kitchen roll (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "Behind the Ritual" is also notable from the info in "Critical Reception". Kitchen roll (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Stranded (Van Morrison song) was a single, but info on Van singles after 2003 is quite hard to find, (because there aren't any reliable discographys written after that time). I'll try and find some reviews to see if they have any relevant info on the song. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find any info on it at the moment. I'll have to ask Agadant about it. Have you seen some of the Bob Dylan song articles? I think someone should sort some of them out - the amount of fans he has! I'll try and find as much info on VM songs as possible, I really think songs like "Domino (Van Morrison song)" and "Wild Night" deserve to be expanded as well, I've been meaning to do them for ages. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the same sort of thing on Highway 61 Revisited. I thought that would be a good idea, but info on Van songs is much harder to come by. Probably the only Van albums you could do that on would be Moondance, Astral Weeks or maybe Saint Dominic's Preview. I've been trying to improve His Band and the Street Choir and the info is really hard to find. The problem is everyone's written biographies for Dylan, and there are only a few slightly unhelpful ones for Van. Most of the Dylan songs aren't referenced and don't seem relevent, they just list about 50 covers. A lot of his song articles are stubs, which to me it makes seem unworthy. Oh, by the way sorry about putting the extra links to instruments back on Tupelo Honey, I hadn't realized that they'd been taken off recently. Kitchen roll (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose putting the songs into the album articles wouldn't be a bad idea. I think we have to talk this through with Agadant, as she wrote most of the articles in question and might have a strong view either way. I think singles that have cover art should stay, because this is the only site where it's easy to find the art together. Kitchen roll (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

T.B. Sheets (song)
Just wanted to say I removed the quotation by Michael Ochs from the article about Van watching the girl he lived with dying of T.B. because this is just one of the many stories concerning this tragic sounding song. None have any basis for fact according to the biographies and his known life circumstances up to that time. He's never spoken about where he got the idea for the song as far as I have seen (except to say it was total fiction} but it was to some extent influenced by old blues songs about T.B. Agadant (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Take another crack at revising? What do you mean? I really don't believe in putting speculation and hearsay into an article for the sake of the story. Do you know what I mean?   I think it should be removed.  Just as you said you didn't like the story that was put in Astral Weeks and I agreed with you, well I think this story is just sensation for the sake of it and nothing will ever be proven so why bother discussing who said what and who denied it.  Useless in my estimation.   Sorry, I just don't see the point. Agadant (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

T.B. Sheets E.P.
If you want to make an article for all of the various albums associated with Bangs Van Morrison sessions, that's fine. But they have nothing to do with him. He didn't authorize, never received royalties etc. This T.B. Sheets EP was one of many that have been released from recordings during the short period of time Van Morrison spent with Bang. The only one he was associated with was Blowin' Your Mind! There have been many releases since then. His discography would be 96,000 bytes if they were all listed on it. Agadant (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You should quit
Your POV is showing. This is irrational. The path to you doing this is there for all to see. It's kin to vandalism. Agadant (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Now I'll try to talk reason to you. Everyone of those songs had references from 3rd parties, etc.. They are as notable as almost any songs with song articles by other major singer-song-writers as example; Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Neil Young and so on.  The articles are much more complete than many others. This is a complete waste of our time as editors and is destructive to Wikipedia.  We could all be working on articles as I have been doing: Le Mobile and as Kitchen roll has been doing also on Bobby Tench.  I suggest you take a cool down period.  Agadant (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This criteria has been met on the song articles :[The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject] —There is not a valid reason for you to be putting the citation tag on them. Please stop!!!! Agadant (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you turning into a vandalism editor? It's Christmastime, what is the matter with you stirring up trouble like this? These songs are perfectly fine and there is no and I repeat no good reason why you should now object to their notability.  I did not answer you before because I knew you would cause havoc...PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!  Agadant (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was just perusing the recent changes and noted this edit war. What is the notability issue here? Happy Holidays, SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cloonmore please stop what you're doing you are wasting your time and more importantly the time of others, who actually want to do something with themselves on wikipedia. I feel offended by you and those like you.Kitchen roll (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I'm sorry if it appeared as though I lashed out at you - I was worked up and was meaning to do other things instead. I have changed my mind from before, I've been meaning to write song sections in some of the song sections on the album articles, as well as expanding the song ones, because if they have their own articles they're more specific. I hadn't understood what you meant by not notable, and I'm not sure Agadant did - I suppose you could have been a bit clearer on that, but it doesn't matter if your intentions were good. I've removed my thoughtless comment on talk:Van Morrison discography, as I hadn't found out all the facts before I wrote it. I just want everyone to get along on wiki, and not being able to tell what people's motives are doesn't help people do that. I'll try and improve the song articles under question - although most Bob Dylan album and song articles don't cite many, or any sources either, and you said they were OK, why is that? Have a happy christmas anyway. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All a misunderstanding then. I've started to do what you suggested for the Van albums His Band and the Street Choir and Moondance and referenced the info.. But some Dylan song articles really need rethinking compared to Morrison's, maybe someone should start improving or deleting them as well - songs articles like "All the Tired Horses", seem to have been left alone for a year or two. Thanks again. I'll look for more info. on the songs Kitchen roll (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

All the Tired Horses
Just a thought, but instead of putting all these tags on articles, wouldn't the work get done more quickly, and much better, if you improved the article yourself? You have biographies on Dylan and Morrison don't you, so wouldn't it be easier to help write these articles, instead of wasting time getting into an edit war? As I say, just a thought. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I'm sure you could still contribute to some of the Van songs in question. Your edit on TB Sheets: shows you have the John Collis biography. There's quite a lot of info. on some Van songs in that book (or maybe in others that you might own) and you could help me and user:Agadant (or user:Agadant and I. I can never remember which one to use) improve some of the articles you questioned. I can improve some of Van's song articles much more now, after I got the Van biography Van Morrison: The Mystic's Music for Christmas. I didn't even know that one existed until yesterday - there's some really good stuff in there. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (This was written before I read your second comment) Kitchen roll (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How did you get hold of the information from that book then, if you don't own it? Can you please make a list, on my talk page, of all the Van songs you don't think are notable at the moment and then I can see what I can do to improve them? You questioned the notability of "Behind the Ritual", a song article that I believe is written well, with info. that makes it notable. Why do you think it isn't? (just out of curiosity) Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, these are the articles you questioned the notability of:

Notability of Van songs
These are some of the Van song articles that you questioned the notability of. I've also added a few that I think aren't that notable. If you think they are notable now, can you remove them from the list, so I know which ones need a lot of improvement.

Songs I improved recently. Are they notable now?

 * "In the Garden (Van Morrison song)" section classing it as a significant song in Morrison's eighties career.
 * "Orangefield (song)" section comparing the song to songs off Astral Weeks
 * "Enlightenment (Van Morrison song)"
 * "The Healing Game (song)" Added chart number the single achieved.

Songs that I think are already notable, with reason why

 * "Choppin' Wood" The paragraph about Van's dad shows the significance of the song.
 * "Back on Top (song)" charted at #63. Reviewer compared the song to "Moondance"
 * "Why Must I Always Explain?" One of the best written Van song articles in my opinion. I think the song meaning and critical analysis sections make it notable.

Articles that I think need improvement
Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Streets of Arklow"
 * "Did Ye Get Healed?"
 * "Stranded (Van Morrison song)"
 * "Perfect Fit (song)"
 * "These Are the Days (song)"

Kudos
Good work on Cardinal O'Conner's article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was such a shabby piece for so long, and such a figure as he deserves a better write-up. Still needs work, though! Cloonmore (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns
I agree with you that it was unfair to leave those remarks but I didn't know whether to remove the complete discussion. So I left the charges against me (as the editor who reverted him) and my defense of myself. I originally, as usual was only minding my own business and trying to follow the rules of Wikipedia and not allow editors to make unsourced edits to an article that is pretty clean and might soon be put up for a GA article rating. Thanks for your concern. I think removal of all is the best course. Therefore no one is left to look bad. Agadant (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

HBATSC
Could you be a cook by profession perhaps, Cloonmore? As I notice how much you like to "stir the pot" Just a little humor for a change. I was thinking some of your editing was a nice touch; hopefully you won't take a compliment too seriously. Agadant (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC) be
 * If the vandals weren't controlled it could all disappear tomorrow. I'll never understand their mindset...I was hoping because of the Bruce Springsteen article being vandalized during the Super Bowl that there would be a policy change on who can edit unchecked but I guess not. (I think we may all take Wikipedia so seriously because it's our personal and unpaid free time we use up when we edit.) Agadant (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

VM
So here we go again. Why should you revert my edit when the Bob Dylan reference is out of place and contributes nothing to the sentence? Am I wrongfully assuming that you want me to revert you and then you can cause an edit war again? The BD referral means absolutely nothing here but someone's attempt to plug Bob Dylan on this article. And it is unreferenced. Agadant (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal O'Connor
The part about Cardinal O'Connor and his relationship with activists from the gay community is a bit too long, it seems. It should perhaps be trimmed down so that it doesn't become a screed or an attack article. I suggested putting some of the material in homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, but you did not agree with this. I also transfered the part about AIDS into a new article called religion and AIDS, which I am currently working on. ADM (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal John Joseph O'Connor adhered to the traditional Catholic teaching that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law, intrinsically immoral and therefore never permissible, while homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered but not in themselves sinful. He resisted attempts within the Church to modify that traditional understanding and was frequently at odds with New York's gay community during his tenure as Archbishop. O'Connor]] actively opposed Executive Order 50, a mayoral order issued in 1980 by Mayor Ed Koch, which required all City contractors, including religious entities, to provide services on a non-discriminatory basis with respect to race, creed, age, sex, handicap, as well as "sexual orientation or affectational preference". After the Salvation Army received a warning from the City that its contracts for child care services would be canceled for refusing to comply with the executive order's provisions regarding sexual orientation, the Archdiocese of New York and Agudath Israel, an Orthodox Jewish organization, threatened to cancel their contracts with the City if forced to comply. O"Connor maintained that the executive order would cause the Church to appear to condone homosexual practices and lifestyle. Writing in Catholic New York in January 1985, O'Connor characterized the order as "an exceedingly dangerous precedent [that would] invite unacceptable governmental intrusion into and excessive entanglement with the Church's conducting of its own internal affairs." Drawing the traditional Catholic distinction between homosexual "inclinations" and "behavior", he stated that "we do not believe that homosexual behavior ... should be elevated to a protected category." "We do not believe that religious agencies should be required to employ those engaging in or advocating homosexual behavior. We are willing to consider on a case-by-case basis the employment of individuals who have engaged in or may at some future time engage in homosexual behavior. We approach those who have engaged in or may engage in what the Church considers illicit heterosexual behavior the same way.... We believe, however, that only a religious agency itself can properly determine the requirements of any particular job within that agency, and whether or not a particular individual meets or is reasonably likely to meet such requirements." Subsequently, the Salvation Army, the Archdiocese and Agudath Israel, together with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, brought suit against the City of New York to overturn the executive order on the grounds that the Mayor had exceeded his executive authority in issuing it. In September 1984, the New York Supreme Court agreed with the religious entities and struck down that part of the executive order that prohibited discrimination based upon "sexual orientation or affectational preference" on the grounds that the Mayor had exceeded his authority. In June 1985, New York's highest court upheld the lower court's decision striking down the executive order.

O'Connor vigorously and actively opposed City and State legislation guaranteeing the civil rights of homosexual persons, including legislation (supported by then-Mayors Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani) prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation in housing, public accommodations and employment.

O'Connor also supported the decision by the Ancient Order of Hibernians to exclude the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization from marching as such under its own banner in New York's St. Patrick's Day parade. The Hibernians argued that their decision as to which organizations may march in the parade, which honors St. Patrick, a Catholic saint, was protected by the First Amendment and that they could not be compelled to admit a group whose beliefs conflicted with theirs. In 1992, in a decision criticized by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the City of New York ordered the Hibernians to admit the gay organization to march in the pararde. The City subsequently denied the Hibernians a permit for the parade until, in 1993, a federal judge in New York held that the City's permit denial was "patently unconstitutional" because the parade was private, not public, and constituted "a pristine form of speech" as to which the parade sponsor had a right to control the content and tone. O'Connor also prohibited a pro-homosexual group from meeting in New York parishes. O'Connor celebrated Mass with members of Courage, a Catholic ministry to homosexual men and women that seeks to encourage them to abstain from sexual relations and live chastely in accordance with Church teachings.

Feminists for Life
Please stop re-arranging the FFL article to suit your conception that corralling criticism into one section is better. Best reader comprehension calls for integration of criticism with the things that are being criticized. At WP:CRITS, they make it plain that "that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article" and that criticism sections "are a symptom of bad writing." You appear to be making the article less well written.

As well, we are still in discussion about the article at Talk:Feminists for Life. Taking off by yourself and refactoring the article without discussion is not good faith. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Two new topics have been initiated by me about your edit warring and about the subject of the quote: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Content noticeboard. Please take part in discussions at these two locations. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony List
I just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up the article. BS24 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just Us
The group meets WP:MUSIC on its own for having charted a hit single - as it happens, the single was big enough to reach the Top 40. Chubbles (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Anthony abortion
This edit of yours goes directly against the guideline at WP:LEAD where we are enjoined to write the lead section as a summary of the article contents. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And again. The relevant portion of WP:LEAD is headed "Relative emphasis" which says "This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text."
 * The reason I bring it up here is because it does not pertain to the Ann Dexter Gordon article, it applies to all of Wikidom. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling me a vandal
In this reversion you call my removal of a general topic template "vandalism". It is not that at all—my only desire is to improve the article. Do you wish to reconsider the label "vandalism" for my edit? Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Dennett
I'm not a very experienced editor, so I would appreciate it if you could explain why gf.org is a bad source for whether he was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship. I went there, typed his name into the search box, and was rewarded with confirmation from what I believe is the most official source possible. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FirstThings.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FirstThings.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seven Year Ache
It can't have been that much harder to add this very easily found source to confirm that Seven Year Ache was a #1 album. Did you just not have the extra two seconds it would've taken to look on Allmusic? Is your time really that precious? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Your recent edit cut a sentence that had nearly a dozen citations. There is absolutely no justification for this, so you're going to have to revert that change. Please do so immediately and we can avoid any ugliness. Dylan Flaherty  03:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Point of order
You recently inserted a POV tag in Crisis Pregnancy Center. As a point of order, you must start a new section in Talk after inserting such a tag, otherwise it's invalid. See WP:NPOVD, which states: "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies."

There's no question that there was a POV dispute sometime last month, but there are no active conversations in which the allegation of POV remains. You are free to start one, after which a POV tag will be allowed. Dylan Flaherty  13:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know, the discussion is ongoing and not dormant. Your removal of the tag was improper. Cloonmore (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As we all know, that's simply not the case. There will always be discussions so long as that article is actively being edited, but the controversies of the past are not the controversies of the present. Really, this is a simple formality: all you need to do is create a new section, explaining what is currently in the article that you find objectionable. Your refusal to do this is inexplicable. Dylan Flaherty  22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dylan Flaherty, let's not go overboard, okay? Cloonmore, I'm new to this article and wouldn't mind seeing a Talk section summarizing potential POV issues.  Would you please add one?  Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll be glad to know that I even created a section to hold these objections. Dylan Flaherty  22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:HumanLifeReview.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:HumanLifeReview.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrably not true
Why would you revert from a cited fact back to an uncited one? Marty Dannenfelser has changed positions, and I thought the article would benefit from an update. I don't see what your reversion accomplished. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't the prior version; it's your changes. You should acquaint yourself with WP:PRIMARY, not to mention WP:BLP. Further, he's not even the subject of the article, and you can't even prove that the person identified in the raw data you cite is who you say he is. Cloonmore (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a long look at what was there before I put in a cited fact. Notice that there were no cites surrounding Martin J. Dannenfelser Jr holding down his job. None at all. What did I do that was so heinous? I edited the article to put his new job down, with a cite.
 * How many Martin J. Dannenfelser Jrs do you think there are on Capitol Hill? Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At WP:PRIMARY, the edits I made are supported. It says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." I did not analyze anything or make extrapolations. I simply said his job is currently such and such, as shown by the primary source. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it to Talk. Cloonmore (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have had I thought any others were involved, or had I thought it was of general interest. The problem was your unthinking revert. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

1RR
You probably noticed, as you edited, that Catholics for Choice is subject to general sanctions including a 1RR restriction, which you have violated by making two reverts in the last ~2 hours. It would probably be beneficial all round if you would self-revert, but either way, please do not violate this rule in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What 2 reverts? Cloonmore (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where you reverted previous removal of information, and where you reverted previous addition of information. I assume it was an accident, but everyone editing this article has to watch their reverts, and you are no exception. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2nd one's not a revert, but thx for the reminder. Cloonmore (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The information had been removed, then restored, and you removed it again. 3RR (which is in all respects the same as 1RR except for the number) states that partial reverts are still reverts. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagging
Hi Cloonmore! I noticed you sometimes edit conservatism-related articles. Can you do me a favor and add our banner WikiProject Conservatism on the talk page if you don't see one? Any questions just ask me, any member of the project, or post at the talk page WT:RIGHT. Thanks!!! – Lionel (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Cloonmore (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ros
Hope you don't mind me butting in, but FYI now that she has banned you from her talk page your venues for redress are WQA, RfCU and ANI.– Lionel (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Cloonmore (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We've been down this road a few times before. Keep your chin up. - Haymaker (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FirstThings.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FirstThings.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Massive Personal Attacks?
Apparently Binksternet's been indulging in a fave pastime and filed me to the Wikiquette board for "personal attacks". I figure he'll be coming after you too, but his chances of getting anywhere look slim (judging from earlier decisions on the board and from what I've seen of much heavier and more directly personal attacks here). The article is a pet project of his, but he's not fooling anyone.Strausszek (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL – Lionel (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Eclipse
Nice work at Eclipse! I just uploaded the DVD cover and it advertises "Award Winning," which doesn't come as any surprise to me, but do you know what awards it won? They would be a great addition... – Lionel (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Volume, Contrast, Brilliance..., has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2014
Your recent editing history at Susan B. Anthony shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=598496615 your edit] to Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the same old Enlightenment tropes that didn’t work all that well the first time around." "The God Meme", ''[[The New Atlantis (

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States pro-life movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert George. 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, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who else should I notify of the sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:ApseWindowsSacredHeartGuangzhou.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ApseWindowsSacredHeartGuangzhou.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)