User talk:Drcrazy102/Archive 4

Please comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

James (brother of Jesus)
Hi.. I notice your edit here. Perhaps I'm not good enough reasoning the clarification tag. I'm not a native English speaker but I'll try to explain it better: Thats why I said that contradiction exist, the second sentence doesn't match the first. I think both sentences should use the same her/his. I look forward to hear your comments, perhaps I miss something. Cheers, Ign christian (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The first sentence, "There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion." : indicating Mary's (her) sister.
 * The second sentence, "His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary." : indicating the Lord's (His) sister.
 * Actually this clarifies much of your clarification tag, and is well reasoned. The shortness of notes in articles often leads to confusions such as these but this does seem to be an issue of just who actually has a sister named Mary whom accompanied Jesus. I will put this up at the talk page as I am more of a copy editor than a researcher per se, but I will see what I can find over than next few days. There is the problem of the quote being direct from the source and changes made to our quoted version are argued as being OR unless specifically stated from somewhere else. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right and it was correctly quoted from the source, so I placed the clarification tag. Thanks for your help. :) Cheers, Ign christian (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Idolatry
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idolatry. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Akshardham Environmental Violation
Hello,

I wanted to thank you for your help so far in moderating the discussion. I got a little heated but seeing all proper resources stated helps a lot. I actually tried to use the WP:DR but I do not thing I used it correctly. I will pursue it in the future if I am ganged up on by article patrol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Akshardham_(Delhi)

Regards, Swamiblue (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, I have done the same thing myself on a couple of pages. It helps to just take a couple of days off and then come back with a clear head. I'm going to assume you mean WP:DRN since DR is a guideline-type article which would be the first problem of trying to use DRN/DR to settle disputes. All the best and I hope the current dispute is solved productively, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. There is a new user that is about to violate the 3R rule at the Akshardham page for reverting the article. Would you please take a look at that? I also really liked your syntax and grammer correction you did on the criticism section for the temple, so I would like to request if you have time to take a look the Swaminarayan article and adjust if needed the following and manifestation section. Let me know. Swamiblue (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't forget about WP:BOOMERANG. If you want help from someone about a user reverting, you should not be in a revert-war yourself. The talk-page is showing a general consensus to not have the discussed text put in the article, and per WP:BRD:

"Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring."
 * and WP:BRD (which repeats the same message but with further clarification), you should not be trying to push the content in until a consensus is reached for keeping it. I do not think either of you are in the "right" here and so I won't help with the reverts, but bear the "discussion" message in mind when editing please. For now, I am in agreeance with SacredSea's edit summary after reverting to the Status quo ante bellum version.
 * If you want to work on the Criticism section, try using your Sandbox, using this link here. Help:Sandbox tutorial will take you through the basics of using your sandbox to create, test, or trial various things. When you feel that the section is more acceptable, or if you want to gain feedback, you can use the Talk:Akshardham (Delhi) page and provide a link to your sandbox and ask for discussion. This way you won't be seen to be edit warring and will appear to other users to be more genuine in helping to improve the article.
 * As for the Swaminarayan article, I will see what I can do over the next few days or week. At the moment I am busy but I will certainly look into the article. All the best, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Drcrazy102 The only thing is that I wrote my section, properly cited it and made the edit and as expected, only a certain group of users got upset with me. One user went as far as to calling it demonstrably false even though we have over 40 pieces of information criticizing the building calling it illegal and a environmental violation. How am I suppose to work on things if the same group of users get upset every single time. Wouldn't the same users getting upset over certain topics signify a conflict of interest? Swamiblue (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Denali
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denali. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ESS DRN
I thank you for your offer to help me out on the Earth system science dispute. I don't need to turn the case over to an alternate moderator to deal with the arbitration case, in which I am a marginal party. What I could use is an additional volunteer opinion at the DRN page to try to encourage the editors that the RFC is the best way to go forward. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and I'll see what I can dredge up in terms of persuasive arguments for an RfC. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kansas River
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kansas River. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)