User talk:MisterRandomized

Fetal Tissue Transplantation
Hello, although it looks similar to Fetal tissue implant, Fetal Tissue Transplantation is totally written with a different concept with reviews of more clinical cases done for the first time in some parts of the world and their short time and long term clinical outcomes with a detailed history, present and future. So,in no way it is similar to the topic Fetal Tissue Implant which in medical term is absolutely different from Transplantation as the previous topic Fetal tissue implant doesn't involve the intricacies of the scientific and biomedical aspects of the use of such tissues including the ethical views.Please read and compare. Also, the ethical section in the fetal tissue implant confused it with embryonic stem cell research which is absolutely different from fetal tissue research. Fetal tissue ethics is absolutely different from embryonal stem cell ethics requiring more strict and restricted areas of research. In more technical or medical terms a fetus is rather an individual or a life that is present in the mother's womb after the layout of organogenesis, morphogenesis and the beating of the heart that starts after 6 weeks and can be felt post 7 weeks on an average. The age of a fetus is approx.9 weeks whereas the age of the embryo is 4 to 5 days or 32 blastomeres, a primitive stage also known as the morula stage. So Fetal Tissue Transplantation topic is absolutely different, more technical and written with previous experience in the related field. However, I do really appreciate your help and support, I just thought of clarifying it in details as it would be good to clear some confusions as I have also noticed that some technical writings related to certain aspects of clinical applications of stem cell and cell therapies are normally with less referencing and data's. Thank you very much for your opinion. Bajechele (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Bajechele. Certainly, even as a non-expert in the subject matter, I can tell there is a great deal of new material in what you have written. It is very well-referenced, and the content is not the same as that found in Fetal tissue implant. I am out of my depth in this topic, so I will let more experienced editors make a judgment on this issue. That is why I immediately removed the template I placed. MisterRandomized (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bajechele, in the spirit of collaboration, I am going to have editors at WP:WikiProject Medicine examine the two articles and discuss what to do about making sure the article conforms to community content and style guidelines. This is no way intended as a slight against you, by the way. Happy editing! MisterRandomized (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

POV
Nobody believes you have a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.117.178 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I will have to take that into account. MisterRandomized (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dalton Rapattoni
Dalton had a half sister Tabitha Lavender211 (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, User:Lavender211. I don't doubt you, but according to the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people BLP, you have to have a reliable source -- like a newspaper or magazine profile, in print or on the internet -- for the statement. This is to prevent false and potentially harmful information from being included in articles about living people. I would suggest either finding a source and then citing it when you add the information, or leaving a comment at Talk:Dalton Rapattoni to see if someone else knows of a source. Thanks. MisterRandomized (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to message my step mother Kiva off my Father Fran Lavender211 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Libertarianism
Classical liberalism was an expansion of business/property through government in the new world, it has nothing to do with libertarianism in any historical sense. Please explain to me how slavery (property) in the New World, genocide of the natives, women as property, stealing land & resources, etc. has anything to do with libertarianism/anarchism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1918081 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * C1918081, You raise a valid point. Your edit was made in good faith and with a perfectly adequate justification, I was too hasty with the revert button, and I personally have no objection to the removal of that section. Please accept my apology. You are advised to seek consensus on the talk page, though. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Tashmandriving
A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:Tashmandriving, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. D Eaketts (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Twinkle warned me, but Tashmandriving added the promotional content. I just warned the user. MisterRandomized (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for letting me know.D Eaketts (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No subject
You are a criminal trying to murder me in India and nothing else. Marijuana is from Marichavana and its my discovery. I fathered the WWW browser revolution and i created Unique ip worth several billion dollars. You are part of the replusive criminal team stealing my subscriber help and claiming i am a disabled. I object to you removing my edits. You have no right to publish wikipedia if you cannot add my two line change


 * User Pradeepkumarxplorer1 was indefinitely blocked for block evasion. MisterRandomized (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

DWS
IF YOU DON'T THINK DWS RIGS ELECTIONS THEN YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT BERNIE BEAT HILARY BY 15% IN WYOMING BUT HILLARY RECEIVED MORE DELEGATES. OR THAT DWS DENIED SERVER ACCESS TO BOTH BERNIE AND TIM CANOVA SHE RIGS, EVERYONE KNOWS SO ITS NEUTRAL FACT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwesar (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Listen, I'm no Debbie Wasserman Schultz fanboy. But this is an encyclopedia. This needs to be covered in a "Controversy" section including the fact that Sanders and his camp really, really don't like her, that Sanders endorsed her opponent, and her statements that deny any such maneuvering (in more measured language_. It might be that you or I believe there was a concerted effort from the party establishment to make it hard for Sanders to win, but that is not encyclopedic and until reliable sources say that there was such an effort – i.e. somebody leaks some emails and it's all over the news – all we can do is report that both sides made charges against the other, because that is what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. Now, don't add that line to the article again. We will get consensus on getting the allegations and both sides' accusations in the article; these are well-covered. MisterRandomized (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Aitken College (Greenvale, Victoria)
4 times vandalised.Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Account reported to WP:AIV (not by me) -- thanks for your vigilance. MisterRandomized (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong about the Magyar word "paprika", and it is totally misleading.

I'm Magyar (you call us as Hungarian in English), so believe me, what you write is not about "paprika".

"Paprika" is just the name of all of the pepper plants (Capsicum) in Magyar (Hungarian) language. It doesn't mean the grounded peppers as spice, just the name for the plant (and the fruit of it). The pepper as a spice is called "fűszerpaprika". ("Fűszer" means spice in Magyar.)

In our language we heave several prefixes (followed by the word "paprika") for every kind of peppers, depending how sweet and/or hot are they, or what are they used for.

So the change that I made is correct, "paprika" must be point to "Capsicum".

You have to rename your title to "Fűszerpaprika" because what you write is about the pepper as a spice.

There is already an article in Magyar (Hungarian) about the peppers as spice. Here it is: Fűszerpaprika-őrlemény

You have to translate  that page into English. I hope you speak Magyar, and able to correctly translate it into English. But if you are not speaking Magyar, please stop writing about things that you didn't know correctly!

It's not helpful to anyone, it misleading and just spread wrong knowledge.

Thanks.

Paprika
You are wrong about the Magyar word "paprika", and it is totally misleading.

I'm Magyar (you call us as Hungarian in English), so believe me, what you write is not about "paprika".

"Paprika" is just the name of all of the pepper plants (Capsicum) in Magyar (Hungarian) language. It doesn't mean the grounded peppers as spice, just the name for the plant (and the fruit of it). The pepper as a spice is called "fűszerpaprika". ("Fűszer" means spice in Magyar.)

In our language we heave several prefixes (followed by the word "paprika") for every kind of peppers, depending how sweet and/or hot are they, or what are they used for.

So the change that I made is correct, "paprika" must be point to "Capsicum".

You have to rename your title to "Fűszerpaprika" because what you write is about the pepper as a spice.

There is already an article in Magyar (Hungarian) about the peppers as spice. Here it is: Fűszerpaprika-őrlemény

You have to translate  that page into English. I hope you speak Magyar, and able to correctly translate it into English. But if you are not speaking Magyar, please stop writing about things that you didn't know correctly!

It's not helpful to anyone, it misleading and just spread wrong knowledge.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paprikaisjustpeppernotthespice (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

addition of Donald Trump commentary on Loser_(hand_gesture)
The addition of commentary on Donald Trump does not reflect a biased opinion, but it is rather the exact opposite. The commentary simply states the politician has widely used the word 'loser', and this is supported by a newspaper article. The popularity of the word has increased over the last few years, and his usage of the word is thus relevant to the article (see google trends: loser).

I suggest the reverting of this change itself is a form of bias in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4649:BA3F:0:5BC:98C5:9036:5C72 (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?
Hi MisterRandomized! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a very active Twinkle user (top 25, actually!). The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle User. Include the following information:
 * Username
 * Email where we can reach you
 * Your city or time zone
 * Best time to talk to you
 * Your primary use of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)