User talk:Mthoodhood

September 2011
Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand
Hi, noticed your work on the Leonard R. Brand page. The improvements on the reference and notes are appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn
Hello and welcome. Saw your recent comment on Hrafn at the John Hartnett (physicist) talk page. He tends to attack back when attacked. You might want to stay away from doing that, unless it is very very subtle. Wekn  reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ref format
I am not a big fan of this ref format. Currently working on a project to translate Wikipedia's top importance medical content into other languages and other wikis do not support it. We at WP:MED typically use the default created by the cite tool refToolbar 2.0. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited George Young (Presbyterian minister), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BAAS (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) 10:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Supernatural with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Cheers AKS  20:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
Hi. I'm afraid the Metaphysical naturalism article you wrote seems closely paraphrased from. This can be a problem under both our copyright policies and our guideline on plagiarism.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:
 * For better or worse, ‘naturalism’ is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as ‘non-naturalists’. This inevitably leads to a divergence in understanding the requirements of ‘naturalism’. Those philosophers with relatively weak naturalist commitments are inclined to understand ‘naturalism’ in a unrestrictive way, in order not to disqualify themselves as ‘naturalists’, while those who uphold stronger naturalist doctrines are happy to set the bar for ‘naturalism’ higher.

The article says:
 * Philosophers view naturalism as a positive term so few dare to announce themselves as non-naturalists. The religiously inclined philosophers tend to be indifferent toward metaphysical naturalism. Philosophers with such apathetic metaphysical naturalistic commitments prefer to understand naturalism in a nonrestrictive way, in order not to disqualify themselves as naturalists, endorsing methodological naturalism. Those who are keen on metaphysical naturalism doctrines are happy to set the bar for naturalism higher.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Chealer (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. but I doubt that I am solely responsible for the articles content.  I am willing to rewrite parts of the article.  However I expect stiff resistance to changes from some of the other editors.  We shall see.  Mthoodhood (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, you are clearly not solely responsible for the article's content. I'm sorry my message suggested that, that was unintentional. I would simply invite you to revise your own contributions to the article, address this issue and others if you find more, and to keep this issue in mind for your future contributions. Thank you --Chealer (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, regarding your modification to the problematic part, I'm afraid that is not [significantly] better. Basically, if you copy-paste a text, no matter how many synonyms you find or how many superficial modifications are made, the result is still going to be a more or less close paraphrase. Close_paraphrasing has some guidance to avoid close paraphrasing. In other words, no matter how stupid/inefficient that may sound, the solution is to rewrite from scratch. Yes, that's painful...
 * Let me know if you still have doubts. --Chealer (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This instance was solved by User:Machine Elf 1735 with . --Chealer (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Your addition to George Young (Presbyterian minister) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. with this edit:  Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and alternate accounts
Hi Mthoodhood. There's been recent discussion regarding a few of your edits, and general participation, at Pseudoscience and related articles. You've made a couple edits like this recently. It may help to briefly explain what you're trying to do on the article talk page. It appears, in that edit as an example, that you've changed a reference very slightly (and indicated as much in your edit summary), and then also made a rather large change to remove content about creationism. Without hearing discussion about this on the talk page, it appears there's a lack of transparency with these edits, which is common among editors who try to sneak controversial changes in "under the radar" by masking them with normal edit summaries. I assume that's not what you're trying to do! If you could pop onto the article talk page and discuss the matter with everyone, that might help to alleviate some editors' concerns.

On another note, could you comment here about your connection with User:SmittysmithIII and User:Sacramentosam? I know you occasionally edit as the former, do you also have any connection with the latter? I assume you are the only one editing on these accounts, and not sharing them with another person, is that correct? Have you read over the general policies on this issue? (It is fine to have multiple accounts for certain reasons). Thanks! &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)