User talk:J8079s

Welcome
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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion nomination of Rotary direct lift devices
A tag has been placed on Rotary direct lift devices requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  ttonyb (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New age Sabians


The article New age Sabians has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:OR

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Move of Geber to Jābir ibn Hayyān
Many thanks for your support of my requested move of Geber to Jābir ibn Hayyān. The move has now happened and I've done a bit of patching up of links and some of the content of the Jābir ibn Hayyān article. I'll not be able to do much more to it (or to the pseudo-Geber article) for a week or so, but I'll give it at least a decent wash and rinse when I can.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Preferences over the use of vn
I've noticed you've been adding vn to a lot of articles (absolutely correctly). Quite often this is where someone in particular has taken material from a source and added a priority claim; that is, the article only says that so-and-so did such-and-such but the wikipedia article adds the unfounded claim that they were the first to do so.

I have just been removing this sort of unwarranted extrapolation, mostly by simply deleting the priority claim. Do you think it is better to add vn to these articles instead? I've paused removing such claims for the moment, in case what you are doing is a better way of dealing with this.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)



Invitation to discussion
Hello, you are invited to take part in the following discussion on this topic. The discussion is about general ways to improve Wikipedia in terms of verfifiability of contents. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
Hi. Check out here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Jagged 85
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at    :Requests for comment/Jagged 85. -- Syncategoremata (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay but I've been meaning to thank you for signing the closing summary to this RfC/U. I'm glad that it is now behind us and I hope we never have to go through something like that again.
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have some concerns about your recent edit to the Sharia article
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank You
Hi,

Thank you for finding Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries. Sorry I dinged you the other day, I was totally in reactive mode. You helped me make my first "big" edit. I remember what you told me: be bold. Must have been a few months ago. Seems like a hundred years ago to me now.

Regards, Aquib (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

al-Khazini and gravity
I noticed you just tagged for verification the claims about al-Khazini and gravity in the Aristotelian physics article. The claims there are just as they are given in that article (including the silly comment about gravitational potential energy). What it does not bother to mention is that Aristotle also thought that the weight of a body varies depending on its distance from the centre of the Earth and that it was a commonplace of Hellenistic and later Greek philosophy: did the weight vary with distance? did it increase? did it decrease? does an object have any weight in its natural place? Of course, the cited article doesn't bother to mention this (and reads as if they aren't even aware of the past history of the question) but I think the claim should be either removed or thoroughly contextualised. There are some other problems with that particular source chapter (which I can't remember off the top of my head) and it's on my list to investigate. It's just not quite at the top of that list, yet. And, I'm glad to be able to say: welcome back. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Banu Musa
Hello. Yes, I think I´m going to fast. In an effort to revert the work of Jagged85 I started to delete all these supposed inventions. But I think you´re right. I´ll put them again saying that they were descriptions of earlier mechanical devices already known since antiquity. All the best--Knight1993 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Greco-Arabic, etc.
Hi,

I spoke too strongly. There are a few uses of the hyphenated terms you mention, but (checking Google scholar) academic usage overwhelming favors the non-hyphenated forms:


 * "greco-islamic science": Results 1 - 8 of 8
 * "greco-arabic science": Results 1 - 10 of about 45
 * "arabic science": Results 1 - 10 of about 2,000
 * "islamic science": Results 1 - 10 of about 3,490

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, there are some good sources that use the term and they'd slipped my mind (a senior moment). Nonetheless, it is a minority term and I'm a bit hypersensitive to what David Pingree called Hellenophilia in the history of science.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Jābir ibn Hayyān
My apologies for getting into an edit conflict with you at Jābir ibn Hayyān. For some reason I didn't notice that you had only just made your previous edit: I'll make sure to leave more time to elapse in future before editing. My attention was caught by the Vn tag you had added, which happened to be about an article I had been reading earlier this week. It's not a very good source for that claim and probably the claim should just be deleted or just moved to a new historical section in the Equivalent (chemistry) article, as it is so vague. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't wait for me. I am really slow. I think we need an outline and a to do list.J8079s (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jagged cleanup
I noticed your recent editing on an article I watch. Excellent work! However, I would like to suggest that you try to put a link to, say, the RFC talk page in at least one of your edit summaries when cleaning an article. Perhaps append "see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85" to your "failed verification" summary, so it would read "failed verification, see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85". That might help when editors look at the article history in a week, or in six months: they will see the background to this unusual case. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * will doJ8079s (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After a bit more thought, I have put a proposal at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this edit to Lens (optics): can you explain or give me a link to somewhere where the specific problem with this reference or Jagged's claims is discussed? My concern is that Alhazen is important enough that he probably needs to be mentioned, but I don't have enough information to construct a replacement for the text you deleted. In any event, your edit introduced a problem: Alhazen and his book are mentioned again further down in the section. Since you deleted the introduction of this material, the subsequent mention of them is unclear.--Srleffler (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion of unsourced claims seems appropriate to me; I've made editorial changes to clarify the mentions of Alhazen and his book of optics. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve I think we need a outline on whats wrong with "Alhazen" and the "book of Optics". The edit in question here is typical "Jagged", that is a good source misrepresented, and an original theory.J8079s (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on top of this, having only scanned the RFC comments and not the evidence, so I will simply point out this revert, and say that I quickly did a WP:CHECKUSER and I am pretty confident that it is just a random revert by an anon. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the summary I have put at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Update
I noticed your recent edits (good!), but you used braces in your edit summary instead of square brackets. Also, there is now a better shortcut to use. An edit summary should include " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 03:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment Talk Page
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. The topic of the Second Amendment is very complex as are most Bill of Rights issues and many words are sometimes required to explain an nuance. This might at first glance appear like we are discussing the Second Amendment, which is not the case, the discussion is explicitly about improving the article and about whether a particular viewpoint should be expressed in the article or not. I'll watch this page in case you need to respond.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As another note, there are several editors discussing quite a few court cases on the page as a discussion over what should be included in the page. This is normal, they are not debating the Second Amendment but rather trying to boil down whether the amendment "protects" a right or "concerns a right."  A lay analysis but an outside editor might surmise that they are discussing the second amendment only.  That is not the case, they are discussing and attempting to reach consensus on a particularly contentious point.  Please allow them to continue.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just came to write the same thing. We are debating what the sources say, so that we may change (or not) the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is about behavior not content. An edit that begins "Hi Username" belongs at Talk:Username. Stay on point. Do not respond to "stray remarks". I am well read on 2nd amendment/right to arms and have access to plenty of sources. I just want to help write a good article.J8079s (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To be Fair I sent this note to everyone. And a stronger note to Greek P. J8079s (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand why my discussion of possible sources on the talk page of the article, cites to court cases that can provide a more neutral presentation by showing an individual rights component in prior Supreme Court cases, is somehow considered blogging. Or, are you advocating only collective rights sources should be included in the article, based on your "well read on 2nd amendment/right to arms" claimed status? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's that you are responding to a disruptive user. User Greek Paradise is disrupting the talk page. responding just adds to the disruption. There is  a venue for him to brear down his WP:OR at the disput notice board The source you want to add is   also on line at  We cannot use our own reading of the cases. We can only repeat in our own words what reliable sources say about them. The "States rights" theory of a collective was never strong and not supported by disent in heller. Saying collective right is misleading. See my sand box for a partial bibliography  User:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd please help please read Deny. J8079s (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed you removed a large section of 2A talk page without proper explanation, so I reverted. Cheers Grahamboat (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I reverted again. How did the page go from 353,097 bytes to 340,408 bytes if you did not remove something? I believe maybe you’re mixing up copy&paste with cut&paste. What authorization are you using to unilaterally determine where the tread belongs? I think any possible resolution will happen on 2A talk page. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note on my reverts: you and I seem to agree on many of the arguments; perhaps where we disagree is where it should be resolved. I believe that the DRN was premature and discussion should continue on 2A, Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was expecting wide support for this as an anti-disruption tool. I assure you I did not remove anything. I deleted the note at the dispute boards that might explain,the I will check that everything got there. The thread is on the page at least three other places (with no support for the edit as written.) At least this time he phrased the question in a way that other editors could respond. The whole purpose of the board is to clear the talk page. I have given gp a warning per WP:Disrupt I have addressed the issue on his talk I realize this is a case of WP:Assume no clue or maybe he just likes to blog. This thread stopped any pretense of constructive several posts back Please support me in this. It was GP that opened the board and thats where he needs to defend it. Thank for your support. J8079s (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not fair to indiscriminately accuse everyone who has recently posted on the 2A talk page of inappropriate behavior. I have reverted your addition to my talk page. -—Kvng 04:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Insulting me will never resolve this. I have simply asked people to agree that authoritative relevant sources may be included in the article, verbatim if necessary. And I've been told that reliable sources may not be used if they show that any court upheld the militia theory, i.e. if some editors -- without a shred of evidence -- have a subjective belief that a case was wrongly decided. I am shocked to find that people believe their own vague recollections trump my sources. That's why I've gone to the noticeboard. I simply want a ruling that you cannot remove a reliable source from wikipedia without a valid reason.

"I don't like it" is not a valid reason. "I think there's another source that contradicts yours but I don't know it" is not a valid reason. "You are cherry picking but I haven't read your source so I can't tell you how you're cherry picking" is not a valid reason. "You're disrupting the page" is not a valid reason. And "I don't like what you said on the Talk Page so I'm going to censor your comment header" is definitely a wikipedia violation.

We all need to take a deep breath. Look at my original edits. If you don't believe they faithfully copied the sources, say so and be specific. If you do believe I'm faithful to the sources -- and they are relevant and authoritative -- the debate ends. Leave me to my facts and sources. And you can include yours. You can't exclude facts from wikipedia just because you don't like them or don't believe them to be true. If you could, wikipedia would become a blog and not an encyclopedia.GreekParadise (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The notice is about behavior not content the talk pages are not a chat room. As to content the states rights theory is dead,not surprising as it was never healthy. J8079s (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

2A
I think we are in 99% agreement. Can we focus on getting that 99% updated into the article, then discuss the 1% we disagree on? That would let us close out lots of other issues/discussions that make our consensus building much more complicated. If we can get the lede updated with what everyone agrees on, then we can focus on gaining consensus on just individual word/sentence edits that are much simpler, without the larger debates.

Again to be clear, I agree with you on a personal level. My reading of the sources is the same as yours. The problem is that it is our reading of the sources. It is easy enough to put together the founders quotes, declaration, constitution, etc, but the fact that we do have to put it together makes it WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The SCOTUS rulings, variious commentaries etc are all talking right around our points, but they do not directly make that point. Very few sources are going to be directly quotable/paraphrasable to show that 1%. It takes WP:SYNTH to put them together. The few secondary sourecs that do directly make that point are generally less reliable/notable, and there are equally reliable/notable sources making contrary arguments. I think those contrary arguments are wrong, but we cannot ignore their existence. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have access Questia piles of good stuff "scholarship" heavily favors the standard view. Google books is good too.  That there are equally reliable/notable sources making contrary arguments someone needs to find them. Losses for the standard view: the decisions are narrow and SV wanted incorporation via "privileges and immunities. Gun grabbers have turned to a limited right subject to restrictions and regulation. We are on very solid ground, I was just driving by but I know the wiki rules. J8079s (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi J8079s I think you left out citations in your last edit. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Put a by where you wat a cite like this J8079s (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * sustaining that heavy burden.14
 * codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19
 * Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of psychology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Timaeus and William of Auvergne (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) 11:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of medicine and medical technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nestorians (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) 23:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

a request
You removed a   from Talk:Rob Ford -- but ou didn't say why. I restored it. If you think it should be removed, could you explain why at Talk:Rob Ford...

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Priscian of Lydia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Timaeus and Phaedrus (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) 14:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again
Check this out and the 2A article. SMP0328. (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Firearm case law in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia supreme court (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) 10:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment article to dispute resolution
Just in case you were not notified GreekParadise filed a dr on this issue your participation there would be very much appreciated. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been out of town. I am looking at resuming editing soon J8079s (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

citations won't fetch
The "cite book" template won't fetch. I fill in the isbn or the url and click but nothing happens the wheel just spins. J8079s (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to work in "Safari" but doesn't work in "Crome" J8079s (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this has something to do with the big "https:// issue" that Wikipedia is currently experiencing. You can try turning off, logging out, doing a full cache clearing, logging back in, and try again.  If that fails, try removing the "s" from https:// in your URL addressbar (that should be at the top of the page) and see if that works.  Let us know what you find.  Happy editing! (I've got this page watched until there is a resolution of some sort for you). Technical 13 (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Appears to be working for me in IE (bleugh), Safari, Chrome and Firefox. Please put helpme if you need any more help. Mdann52 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Works fine in safari not in chrome I probably did some thing to chrome settings. J8079s (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Works now I still have no explanation thanx for the help. J8079s (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Herbalism restructure
Hi J8079,

From some of your contributions to pages we've both worked on, I gather that you are well informed on the history of medicine. I recently took a look at the Herbalism article, and in a current rename vote on the talk page, a few editors have more or less said that the current structure is a mess. The rename is incidental, but I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to restructure/ split off content - would a 'history of herbalism' make sense, or is there too much overlap with the existing history of medicine articles? Dialectric (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcmaeon (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) 08:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=615646957 your edit] to Timeline of mathematics 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) 02:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * * 240 BC 190 BC [Diocles (mathematician)]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of mathematics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simplicius. 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) 08:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Freeloading?
User:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd smacks strongly as a case of using Wikipedia as a free host. Will you please either: move it to mainspace soonest or move it right off Wikipedia and request its deletion from here. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I assure everything there is intended for improving Wikipedia articles. As a stand alone article it is incoherent although some sections may make it to mainspace on their own. I assume you are concerned with [] I think I am in compliance. If am misunderstanding your concern pleas let me know. J8079s (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

List_of_Muslim_scientists
The references are all in the subsequent pages!! The reason for the distinction of their origin is highly important to understand the abrupt end of the islamic golden age!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.129.159 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. !BSGT! (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. You have not been reported but I have mentioned you, therefore I am simply notifying you. --!BSGT! (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bartholomeus Anglicus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pliny and ISAAC. 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) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 March
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) 00:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Spherical geometry page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=653479645 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (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%2F653479645%7CSpherical geometry%5D%5D Ask for help])

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Schola Medica Salernitana
Greetings, regarding the content of the article was discussed throughout the talk page --151.46.75.231 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nazi and gun control listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nazi and gun control. Since you had some involvement with the Nazi and gun control redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Gun Control Theory is not "Troll Bait" or a "Revenge Page" or "Counterfactual History" or simply "Preposterous"
Please stop condoning and/or contributing to this neo-Nazi history revision and intellectual censorship. The establishment of a tyrannical empire is not possible without strict gun control policies that ensure total military domination on the part of the empire. The Nazis, like the Roman Imperialists whom they emulated, were both expert propagandists and experts at subjugating and enslaving the peoples they conquered and unjustifiably deprived of their liberty. What tends to bother people about the very idea of Nazi Gun Control Theory, the reason they find this theory so dangerous, is often because they realize that the same theory can be applied to similar policies in modern day Britain, Germany, the E.U., the U.S, or even their own country. That is the reason this form of censorship is so persistent and widespread. As it was in Nazi Germany, where it was first necessary to deprive the populace of their means of resistance before depriving them of their other freedoms, the same pattern is evident in the emergence of new empires. Be forewarned though, as it was with the fall of Rome, Egypt, and Nazi Germany, so shall it be again for all future empires that feel the need to rob humanity of their most basic rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC / User:J8079s/Sandbox
It appears that you are maintaining a page of evidence of purported violations by editors, including myself. Doing so goes against Wikipedia policy. See WP:POLEMIC. If you do not remove it on your own I will nominate it for deletion. Felsic2 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)