User talk:Ryn78

I think I'll be the first to leave myself a message.

Problems with upload of File:FurtherReading.png
Thanks for uploading File:FurtherReading.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Templates
Hi

Thanks for your contribution to templates.

There appear to be a couple of issues. Firstly, they don't seem to be working properly - see Talk:Joan_of_Arc. Secondly, before replacing such a common template on a featured article, or indeed any article, I feel you ought to try and get some sort of consensus. Maybe a discussion at the existing template talk page, or the WP:Village Pump? My personal opinion is that if we are going to have a graphical template it would need a much more professional looking icon than the square bitmap you've chosen - but also, I don't know if there's a need for it at all. That's my own opinion, though, and other editors will have their own - which is why discussion is preferable. There's also the minor licensing point above about that image. I hope you don't take my comments the wrong way - I realise you haven't edited regularly until recently, so I'm just trying to point out some issues for you. Begoon &#149; talk 00:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the template from the articles you had added it to. Thanks for such a quick response. I also wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trying to discourage your work in any way. Template work is an area that needs help, and looking at your work with timeline templates, you obviously have a talent in that area. The timeline template work you have done is outstanding. I posted only to prevent a situation where you might accidentally roll out a non working template to lots of articles. I hope you continue with the great work you have done. Begoon &#149; talk 12:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SockpuppetArrested
Template:SockpuppetArrested has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. - EdoDodo  talk 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This template is not appropriate for real sock-puppet cases. As potentially humorous material it has been moved to User:Ryn78/SockpuppetArrested as a result of the discussion at TfD. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FancyBottom
Template:FancyBottom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:FancyBottom


A tag has been placed on Template:FancyBottom, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

CSD G2 - template with no use whatsoever

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:RynTest


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  08:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To do lists, archives and other talkpages
Hey, man, please don't tag these for deletion; todo lists are included in the talkpage headers, and archives and whatnot, while appearing orphaned, aren't, not really. Their parents still exist, at least. That said, I'm not entirely sure I understand what Template:OrphanedTalkPage is supposed to be for, anyhow, as truly orphaned talkpages are general CSD material; adding another thing with which to tag them doesn't have seem to have much point. Am I missing something here? ~  Isarra  ( talk ) ( stalk ) 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Article
You and I have recently been going back and forth on the article for Joan of Arc about the Duchy of Bar. It was part of France later but part of the Holy Roman Empire at the time she was alive. If you click on the article about the Duchy of Bar it'll tell you that. The source must be referring to the Duchy after 1480 when it was annexed by France but it wasn't part of France when Joan of Arc was alive so it should be Domremy, Duchy of Bar, Holy Roman Empire because that was the case when Joan of Arc was alive. (LoneWolf1992) 22: 26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FurtherReading
Template:FurtherReading has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FurtherInformationLink
Template:FurtherInformationLink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Ryn78; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WND not an acceptable source
Please see any number of discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Longstanding consensus is that World Net Daily is not a reliable source for anything other than its own opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2014
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. This was not an improvement. Please be more careful. --John (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "test edit", although it looks like I did make a mistake by unwittingly changing more material than I had intended (I had intended to only reinsert one paragraph by adding it manually to the most recent version of the article, but apparently I mistakenly clicked "Save Page" on the older version that I had copied the paragraph from - I had two different windows open for that article, one containing an earlier version from which I was copying the paragraph I wanted to restore, and the other containing the current version that I was trying to edit, and I must have mistakenly clicked "Save Page" on the wrong window. My apologies. I guess I need some sleep). Ryn78 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, we all make mistakes. --John (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Inquisition
I'm not entirely sure David Plaisted's paper counts as a fringe theory. It is a compilation of many different historical records through history, and Plaisted has a degree in computer science, i.e. compiling and averaging different historical documents into a single document. Even if you disagree with the info Plaisted provides it is still notable enough to include as I've seen many quote these papers as fact. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mainstream historians put the estimate at closer to 5,000 than 50 million, a fantasy number that would be physically impossible given the small number of inquisitors (entire regions typically only had two at any given point, and many regions had none at all). The page you linked to cites "Protestant estimates", not mainstream secular historians; and it cites one Protestant who claims that "in the space of 40 years Rome has been the death of 30 millions of people". This has nothing in common with the consensus among secular historians, nor does it have any possible relation to how these courts actually worked, and in fact some of these numbers would exceed the total population of the regions these Protestant authors are talking about. Farther down, the author blames the Papacy for World War II and thereby justifies adding those deaths. This is silly. Even if the Papacy were actually responsible for all the deaths during World War II, it still would have nothing to do with inquisitorial courts which were no longer in existence during World War II. It is in fact the definition of a fringe theory, if not daffy nonsense, and Wikipedia has a rule against both. Ryn78 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course the WWII bit is silly. Do you know what else is silly? Bigfoot, geocentricity, lochness monster, flat-earth theories, moon landing hoax theories, etc. All of which have wikipedia articles because no matter how silly those are, there is enough advocates of those theories to make it notable. David Plaisted's paper is notable enough to at least warrant a mention, in my opinion. Surely you can't deny that. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We could add it in an "Alternative Views" section or something similar; but placing it alongside studies that have systematically examined the actual court records is problematic, because this estimate isn't based on an analysis of actual court records, nor is it a mainstream theory among professional historians. It would be "undue emphasis" to put it in that section, but we could put it in a different section.  Ryn78 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to edit and add more sources or whatever. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to provide a more understandable version of a hopelessly tangled sentence. I think my correction was worded in an NPOV manner. I assume you're fussing about the use of "involuntary" instead of "mandatory" ? Since a mandatory vaccination for students is in fact involuntary (both for the student and parents) by the very definition of what "mandatory" means (look it up), I have no idea why you think my wording was improper. 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talk archive navigationB
Template:Talk archive navigationB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy
Hello Ryn78. You've changed the categorisation of several religious figures at this list five times now; you've also been reverted five times, both by me and by Collin. We've also both explained to you at the talkpage, at the section Talk:List of people with epilepsy why this categorisation is being used. Nevertheless, you refuse to listen and keep pushing your POV. Please stop this. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in the military
Hi, the US-specific material you've been re-adding to the Women in the military article about women undertaking the US Army ranger course is already in the more relevant Women in the United States Army article, in similar levels of detail. I don't think that it needs to be in the international article as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A kindred spirit
It seems that you and I both get reverted / "warned" a lot for sensible good faith edits...  Deus vult!  Crusadestudent (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Crusadestudent : I've had my share of battles, and if I had time I would take part in more of them; but right now I've got my hands full working long hours to help some people. I see you've run into one or more stubborn POV-pushers. I would recommend either filing a mediation case or a Request for Comment. That may or may not help, depending on who responds to the request, but at least it might expand things beyond just a couple people who aren't likely to change their mind. Ryn78 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your Recent Edit on Spanish Inquisition
User:Ryn78, the edit deleted by you was rash, in that about 4 or 5 editors had earlier agreed to the edit after long deliberations one year ago. You see, the violence that took place in Jewish communities was a direct result of Spanish Inquisition, which can be defined as a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups which were investigated later include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Husites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Remember that Portugal and Spain in the late Middle Ages consisted largely of multicultural territories of Muslim and Jewish influence, reconquered from Islamic control, and the new Christian authorities could not assume that all their subjects would suddenly become and remain orthodox Roman Catholics. So the Inquisition in Iberia, in the lands of the Reconquista counties and kingdoms like Leon, Castile and Aragon, had a special socio-political basis as well as more fundamental religious motives. In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona. One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews.Davidbena (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that paragraph had been allowed after a consensus had been reached. But since Inquisitorial courts didn't even prosecute Jews unless they had converted to Christianity and then returned to Judaism (or any other religion for that matter), and since mob violence against Jews had occurred long before inquisitorial courts were first set up in the late 12th century, it's hard to see how there's a correlation. In any event, that paragraph goes into so much detail that it really belongs in an article dealing exclusively with violence against Jews. Ryn78 (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it's very easy to see the correlation between mob-violence and the inquisitorial courts that were set-up in the 12th century. In fact, Jewish history is clear enough as to the motives of the people when engaging in acts of violence toward these Jews. When Jews converted to Christianity they were spared the fate of their coreligionists. The paragraph is short and would fit WP standards for giving a brief, yet precise, coverage of important events. Davidbena (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mob violence against Jews didn't begin suddenly in the late 12th century, nor in fact did it begin with the rise of Christianity itself. Mobs often used religion as a pretext for harming minorities, just as other pretexts have been used. But there were Papal decrees against anti-Jewish violence, such as the decree by Pope Clement VI in the 14th century threatening to excommunicate anyone who attacked Jews or synagogues; so it isn't accurate to say that the medieval Catholic Church encouraged this type of thing. More to the point, the article is supposed to focus on Inquisitorial courts themselves rather than serving as a general dumping ground for everything that has ever been done in the name of Christianity. Right now, the article only gives a bare outline of issues such as the judicial procedures used by Inquisitorial courts, but you want an entire paragraph detailing individual acts of mob violence? As I said, it belongs in a different article, except for a brief summary as part of the general background in Spain at that time. But unless inquisitors were directly involved in these acts of mob violence, it doesn't belong in an article about that subject. Ryn78 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's totally irrelevant when mob-violence actually began. What is relevant is that it is related to the decrees of the Spanish court and members of the Catholic Church who viewed the Jewish religion as anathema. The article would be greatly enhanced by making note of these details, albeit in concise terms, just as there was a consensus to add the edit. Your view of making a dichotomous distinction between acts of violence and decisions made by the Inquisitorial courts is incorrect, insofar that the two are indisputably related. In fact, the article does indeed already mention, in passing, the same conclusion, yet, by your edit, wrongly expunges the vital details.Davidbena (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Concise information would mean a brief summary, not a blow-by-blow description of individual incidents. The paragraph we're discussing was part of a larger group of paragraphs on the same subject which someone added several months ago, and that's not "concise". Any link to the Spanish Inquisition is also indirect at best, for the reasons I already gave. Papal decrees actually forbade mob violence against Jews and Jewish property, and there were Jewish enclaves in most medieval cities which were allowed to remain unharmed without any conversion. Any decrees by the Spanish secular government should be dealt with in an article on the Spanish secular government. There are other articles which would benefit from this information, so I don't understand why you insist on putting it in this one. Ryn78 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you like for us to add the template "Request for Comment" on the Spanish Inquisition Talk-Page? BTW, I am not insisting on anything, but I do feel the material is appropriate on the WP article herein discussed (Spanish Inquisition) and, after all, it does briefly run-over some of the events that happened in Spain in the year 1391, events that eventually gave-rise to the Inquisition in later years, and we (the editors of WP) did deliberate on the issue one year ago on whether or not this edit should be inserted here, and it was agreed then to add it.Davidbena (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look over that discussion, since I don't remember seeing it. Ryn78 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can find it on the Talk-Page of Spanish Inquisition. Meanwhile, I'm restoring the original edit. If you wish to open a discussion about it on the Spanish Inquisition Talk-Page, feel free to do so. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not read the full thread, only the first comment. I would like to point out that about writes in unambiguously confirmatory way, for example, historian Hugh Trevor-Roper in his The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century here IIRC.  --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 June
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) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723421222 your edit] caused a cite 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%2F723421222%7CBill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations%5D%5D Ask for help])

Malleus Maleficarum
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Malleus Maleficarum. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. properly sourced:, properly sourced, including britannica;  - again britannica;  - tendentious,  - unjustified removal. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:FRINGE and WP:OWN. Article discussion permalink:  --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much for the barnstar. Ryn78 (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum complaint
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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.

Vami IV (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Gott mit Uns!

Re Vami IV
While I still think that both you and Asterixf2 need to calm down and settle this more reasonably (but have given up on that), I implore you to at least ask yourself this:

Remember, Vami IV's original complaint was about the word "misogyny," out of a paranoid delusion that the article was supposedly edited by the Feminism WikiProject (as if they aren't allowed to edit outside the kitchen or something).
 * If Asterixf2 180'd and said that the book is absolutely right about women but insisted on keeping the rest of his work, do you really believe that Vami IV would keep helping you? If you made it clear that the word "misogyny" belongs in the article, would Vami IV keep helping you?

You may want "allies" right now, but you really need to consider who you choose. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What happened to not attacking other editors? --Vami IV (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I pointed out your rather obvious intentions. I didn't call you names. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What happened to assume good faith? Believe me or don't, I'm not a neckbeard living in my mother's basement resentful at the fact that women don't talk to me. --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 03:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC) (Vami)
 * That you expect that of others while posting this is hypocritical. In light of that, it smells of nothing more than a too-little, too-late attempt at civil POV pushing.  I do assume good faith from the rest of your contributions.  However, that you:
 * cannot accept that a work that describes women as weak and evil is (by definition) misogynistic
 * assume that the editor who added that word (with over a half dozen sources) must have been part of the Feminism WikiProject
 * assume that being part of the Feminism WikiProject must be a bad thing
 * have made no real contributions to the discussion beyond 'quit calling a book that inspired the persecution of women misogynistic' and empty 'me-too'-isms whenever Ryn78 says something with actual content
 * -- all paint a pretty clear picture about what your priorities are. You have not addressed any of the issues that any of the other editors have brought up.  The only things you have an issue with are the word "misogynistic" being applied to a work that inspired mass femicide and imagined involvement by feminists.  Your agenda for this article could be seen by Stevie Wonder from the International Space Station while facing in the opposite direction.
 * You do appear to do good work in other areas, but in this one you are being worse than useless. You are encouraging two editors who need to learn to share the article and collaborate into further fighting just to push your own chauvinist historical revisionism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop bombarding him with accusations on MY talk page. Vami is absolutely right: you're blasting him with half-baked and extremely caustic accusations rather than looking at what he actually wrote. I would add that it's ironic that you're accusing him of not adding anything constructive to the discussion given that you yourself refused to help out with the article.   I only got involved with this ugly dispute after you had decided to post a criticism of Asterix on Oct 19th, so I thought I should support you by posting my own note. Then you left me to deal with him alone, then ironically accused me of "ownership" issues, remember?  Meanwhile, I have a lot of work in "real life" that isn't getting done, and I get very little sleep while trying to deal with this garbage (Asterix sits online all day pounding out a deluge of edits that I have to tediously wade through and respond to).   If you're not going to help, then at least leave me in peace and stop posting attacks against other people on my talk page.   Ryn78 (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All of my points contain links to where he has said what he said. How can you possibly interpret "This page has been the subject of over 230 edits by WikiProject Feminism, and is heavily biased in their favor." as anything but chauvinism?  Where has he argued any points of his own that didn't have anything to do with misogyny?
 * As I said before: I think that you and Asterixf2 need to learn to cooperate more, and that is why I decided it would be useless to try and mediate between you two. Sorry to see that you're so desperate for allies in this battle that you'll team up with a blatant POV-pusher who clearly only supports you as a means to an end.  I'll leave now (but if I see this come up on ANI again I am going to point out that Vami IV does not belong on that page). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about your assertions about me, but I see I can not convince you of it (kind of cowardly, I know). For the last time, I do not hate women, and I believe anyone, regardless of creed, can make Wikipedia a better place (I might not be the person to say this given my actions and dimwitted assumption). Realize that I think it's wrong to outright describe the book or its author misogynistic, but to describe the preceivement today of the item and creator as such. It is not our place to tell readers what is right and what is wrong, but to give them the material needed to form their own opinions.
 * I do not wish to be blocked while there are still 7189 articles missing the living parameter the "living" parameter on their talk page's WPBIO template and another 132,169 missing the listas parameter. If you wish to continue your belief that I'm some angry degenerate living under a rock, so be it. I am tired of fighting. --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 19:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ian Thomson: When you accuse Vami of "chauvinism" for his comments about Wikiproject:Feminism's involvement, do you realize that many professional historians (including WOMEN) have criticized the manner in which feminist writers have hijacked the subject of the Malleus for their own purposes - not because these historians are "male chauvinist pigs" (some of them are feminists themselves) but because the historical context is often quite a bit different than the politicized spin that certain activists try to place on it. That doesn't mean that the people at Wikiproject:Feminism should be forbidden from editing at all, of course, but nonetheless I think Vami's point was simply that an inherently political group is bound to introduce a certain amount of political bias.  If a large group of Traditionalist Catholics had heavily edited the article, you'd undoubtedly complain. Would that mean you're "bigoted" against Traditionalist Catholics, or is it because you're concerned they might introduce too much bias or unbalance the article?  Ryn78 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I though WikiProject Feminism was involved because their banner is on their talk page, prompting it to appear on their WikiProject Page. I have yet to see herds of unsavory individuals flouting "feminism" editing Wikipedia. Link. It didn't help that the word "misogyny" was applied as a blanket statement for the book's contents (which it doubtlessly may be, but its not our place to call it that) or its author (may or not be in line with policy to call him misogynist; I am not knowledgeable on Kramer). --Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 02:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Bodnariu case for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bodnariu case 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/Bodnariu case 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. Hanno (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice Comment
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Asterixf2 and Malleus Maleficarum. Thank you. Adam in MO Talk 23:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Nadia Murad
This source used(https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2016/September/human-trafficking-survivor-nadia-murad-named-unodc-goodwill-ambassador.html?ref=fs1) suggests she was 21. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All the sources I've seen say she was 19 when she was kidnapped. For example, here's a New York Times article: http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/09/15/isis-survivor-nadia-murad-turns-harrowing-personal-suffering-into-humanitarian-initiative/     Ryn78 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think that's accurate. But I can see why editors are likely to change the age if that's the only source they check. That's not the only inaccuracy floating around. Our article says she was released in Nov. 1914, but the campaign manager for this site told me by email "Nadia was held in captivity for approximately one month, so she was feed in September 2014 instead of November 2014." I told him to put it on his site but he didn't. Doug Weller  talk 12:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for thanking me - but don't forget to weigh in on the talk page! NPalgan2 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR block
Hi. You've been blocked from editing for 48 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 08:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On 2nd look, I misread the dates, so I unblocked you. Sorry about that. Still, that is some furious edit warring. I have therefore protected the page for a week. Sorry again. El_C 08:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Joan of Arc graphical timeline
Template:Joan of Arc graphical timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

File:FurtherReading.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FurtherReading.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:GetIP
Module:GetIP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Palatinate-Neuburg graphical timeline
Template:Palatinate-Neuburg graphical timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)