User talk:Dannyno

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay ·  Talk 19:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Boo
Are you dannyno from mono? Morwen - Talk 15:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. Handy tip - you can sign/date your comments with ~ .  and welcome. ;)  Morwen - Talk 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * or do I just reply here? I knew about the signing thing. Dannyno 15:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * you can reply either place. Morwen - Talk 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism & Malise Ruthven
Thanks for the lead: I've added the link to my sources page. I see your provided some context for the citation in the Neofascism and religion article: where did you find the citation? It's too old for LexisNexis: I'd like to check it, but I'm not sure how I should go about it. --- Charles Stewart 15:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It can't be too old for LexisNexis, since that's exactly where I found it!--Dannyno 15:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks, I must have been misusing the search terms. Looks definitive, good lead. --- Charles Stewart 18:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Secularism -- too many capitals
Hello. Please try to avoid gratuitously capitalized initial letters in section headings, as in your edits to secularism (I've fixed that one). See Manual of Style. Michael Hardy 02:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the tip, will do. --Dannyno 09:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Atheism
Great edits to the atheism article! Lockeownzj00 08:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! --Dannyno 08:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Atheism
I was going to revert the article to a much earlier version because it did not comply with WP:MOS, meaning that your many good contributions to the article would be lost in the revert and needed to the folded back in. After taking a swack at folding back in those lost additions, it's apparent that just going back to your last version and working on the intro to get it to comply with the MOS is the path of least effort here, so... I've reverted my revert and done just that by moving the historical background content into a subsection immediately following the intro, which brings it into alignment with the MOS. FeloniousMonk 18:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Unomi has indicated he is retiring from the present discussion --JimWae (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent "meal" deletion on Secularism
I'm not sure this warrants a comment on the talk page of Secularism, and I didn't want to just change your edit without explaining it. Your logic puts us in a quagmire. We would have to remove game playing and bathing as well because they "can be" religious activities just as much as eating a meal (as in there are plenty of religious rituals of purity that involve bathing, and the line between ritual and play, even in religious settings, is often non-existent. In fact if you extend the logic fully then any activity "could be" a religious activity--for instance in Zen Buddhism.  Even shopping.  The rest of the sentence reads "... because there is nothing inherently religious about them".  The key is that there is nothing "inherently" religious about them.  That includes meals, shopping, bathing, etc.  Sorry for the long explanation.PelleSmith 12:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That wasn't quite my point. I was quite happy with "meal" in the first place, but then it got changed to "fast food". Either that was done abusively (i.e. secular activities aren't as 'nourishing' as religious ones..), or because eating meals is something that is often done religiously. So, should it just get changed back to "meal", or should we change the example to escape the potential argument entirely?  I thought the latter was a clearer approach. Otherwise you could have "circumcision" as a secular activity because it's not inherently religious. We don't want to get bogged down in that kind of thing. --Dannyno 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

References for Spanish Revolution
Hi. Someone at Spanish Revolution is saying it doesn't have enough references for such an important topic. Would you know of any good ones to add? Marnanel 03:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Atheism
You seem to know what you're talking about. Can you suggest a rewrite for the first couple sentences of the lead section (unless you like the current version). Please leave a suggestion at Talk:Atheism. Thanks! &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-27 11:57Z

Dannyno, I manipulated the indentation of your comment because it was unclear who left the first paragraph. If the first paragraph was intended as an immediate response, then unindent the rest of it, but sign the first paragraph as well. Thanks. --Merzul 14:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

clinical
Hi, no one wants to call mckeith a "clinical nutritionist". Most people want to use the term "nutritionist", one person keeps reverting to "non clinical nutritionist". In the UK anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. A clinical nutritionist is someone who sees clients - they don't need any qualifications to do this. I'm trying to re-write the nutritionist article, to include information about the different types of nutritionist - ie: unqualified homeopaths all the way to qualified, registered "non-clinical nutrition scientists" (who'd work for food companies). Kind Regards, Dan Beale  23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel Shahak
I've never understood why Israel Shahak has to be treated so badly in his article. Articles I've seen for Muslims who've had problems with their faith are supportive eg Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's a proven lier, and I'd be surprised if any Muslim defends her. Why can Shahak not be allowed to say and do his thing? He's held in considerable esteem by some of the very religion he's attacked (eg Noam Chomsky). For "experts" on this religion to come along and insist that the theology of a dead man is wrong is POV and unfair. These are his views, this is his testimony, there's no reason he should not have an article that's "fair" to him. PalestineRemembered 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach
I'm interested in your comments on the Shmuley Boteach talk page concerning "circumstances in which Boteach left England". Are you talking about the "controversy" of him being a rabbi at Oxford? Or is there more? I'm interested, as I have done quite a bit of clean-up and self-promotional spam removal on that page. Proxy User (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See the material here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shmuley_Boteach&oldid=323014793: "In 2000, Boteach left Britain and returned to the United States, following disagreements with others in the Jewish community. David Zackon, of the orthodox Jewish youth movement Bnei Akiva, told The Times that Boteach "invigorated Judaism for a lot of students... But there was a lot of spin and razzmatazz. He was controversial for the sake of it, and though he was a great orator, he was not a great philosopher." The Times also cited the view of Rabbi Yitzhak Shochet of Mill Hill Synagogue that "Boteach distorted teachings to serve his own ends", while expressing sympathy with Boteach's "scathing attacks on what he sees as British Jewry's ghetto mentality." Boteach denied being driven out, but was quoted in The Times as saying, "It doesn't mean that I wasn't caused a lot of pain by these incessant attacks."  I think there may have been more at some point.  Seems to me that Boteach's move from the UK is significant in terms of his career, and that a general overview of the circumstances should be provided, without taking sides on any disagreements there may or may not have been. As it stands there is nothing in the article about this.  --Dannyno (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Atheism vs Anti Theism
I want to point out to you Dannyno, that you sometimes use master suppression techniques in your responses. You make forward an argument and then you proclaim this is the only rational position based on the established norm. It's dishonest, it's bad form and shouldn't be a fitting tactic for an editor. And I personally find it quite unprofessional. We have a valid discussion on the position of Atheism. I've suggested and I've put forward my sources and arguments for those suggestions. Your perfectly fine and able to push me to provide further sources for my position without using these techniques. But that is different from what you have done. You continuously claimed I was wrong by default because previous understanding contradicted it. Without showing or supplied any evidence of that fact. And when I've supplied evidence for my position you shifted the goalpost and proclaimed it bad evidence, without taking into account for the foundation you based the page definition on. You've based unequal weight of evidence for equal sources. And you put the blame on me for disrupting the pot. I don't respect that kind of tactic. I don't respond to it. So I suggest we stick to arguing the points of the dispute.

Thats kind of tactic is sometimes called domination techniques if your not familiar with the above terminology. -- Muthsera (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing you say here is correct. You are merely promoting your personal POV, which is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, and cannot be found in reliable sources. Given that, the rest is noise. --Dannyno (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dannyno - I would be pleased to hear more about the "challenges" to: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" of Michael Scriven, in "Primary Philosophy" if you could spare a few minutes - it sounds interesting - thanks in advance Yoga Mat (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sheffield article reference
Hi. We are trying to get the Sheffield article back to featured article status. One of the reviewers has asked for the page numbers for the reference to Alexander, Don (2001) Orreight Mi Ol': observations on dialect, humour and local lore of Sheffield & District that you added back in 2005. If you still have this book could you check the page number for us. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, ignore the above. I just found it in your original message. —Jeremy (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach
Shmuley Boteach noticed you had previously been active - added some details you had fought back on... can you come and support them and make an edit or so so it sticks ? 65.112.21.194 (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DRN notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Atheism". Thank you. --un☯mi 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi, This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam regarding a dispute between other editors, which briefly touches on some of your edits. Feel free to comment on the thread and provide your own perspective on events. bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Asking for a help
Hello Dear User,

I would like to ask you to do me a favor: it's keep going discussion in the talk page of Thomas Jefferson's article about including his words about Christianity in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Thomas_Jefferson.27s_words_about_Christianity. Unfortunatelly, some users turned it into the religious sermon. If you have time and want to help please give an attention to that issue. Thanks in advance. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=750469059 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F750469059%7CDialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man%5D%5D Ask for help])

Ways to improve Ethel Venton
Hi, I'm Devopam. Dannyno, thanks for creating Ethel Venton!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please don't confuse WP:BIO notability with real world notability. Kindly reference the article with verifiable WP:SECONDARY references and change the prose.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Devopam (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Brearey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Brearey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Peter Brearey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)