User talk:Simonm223/Archive 2

= Rosen Method == this has been discussed to death over the last few days. Verifiable sources I am adding keep getting removed. Etolpygo (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2014 (PDT) why is it me who's getting pinged for this as opposed to the person who keeps reverting my additions? Etolpygo (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it hasn't just been one person reverting your additions. You're the one edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration for Quantum Mysticism
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- ☯ Lightbound ☯   talk   21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit
Could you explain your edit? The source is a professor, and the material is attributed solely to him. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You removed content quite different from the content the other user removed. The content you removed was from a different book from a different author and was even attributed differently. Please explain how the other user's rationale applies to your revert. Mitsube (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you thought that I had reverted Lucky Louie and so reverted me by mistake, that's an honest mistake. If so could you please restore the information, possibly adjusting it so as to be neutral? I tried to do this but perhaps you could improve it. Mitsube (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet
It seems that the talk page concensus so far is that the side bars and fascist listing is inappropriate. Please do not reinsert this as it will be interpreted as disruptive. Please do not disrupt the project to make a point.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:CANVAS and see exactly how it was not violated. If you need me to explain it slowly for you, just ask. I would also be willing to upload a video to Youtube and make monkey motions. Just let me know. If you feel that there was a violation, please take it to ANI.Judging by your history, you have enough experience there to navigate it solo.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As were your bad faithed personal attack on mine and lack of WP:AGF on mine. I will assume that you did take the time to read the policy, and are now understand the inappropriateness of your first post. Please review WP:HOOSHBUG for the analogous claim of incivility when you yourself were first.Carry on.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To misinterpret my history purposely to make an inappropriate backdoor implication that I had canvassed was an attack and not civil. Please do not feel that you need to respond.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot help that my position was the correct one. Being right does not equal canvassing. It was transparent and neutrally worded. Some of those editors happen to work on fascism articles and seem to know what it is. You do not appear to know, or are being obtuse. I assume that most responded to the RfC. I assume you do not know the racist use of "call a spade a spade" and were not aware from my previous user page that I am of Black slave descent--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How could I possibly be aware of either of those things? I was citing a specific Wikipedia policy with regards to calling your actions canvassing.  I have absolutely no prior knowlege of your descent. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, WP:Spade is not a policy. A careful look at the page should reveal this. I assumed good faith that you did not understand these things. Now that you do, I hope we can put your unpleasantness behind us.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2
Since you participated in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

lede?
A small aside from discussion on Talk:Dunmanway Massacre; why is it 'lede' and not 'lead'? Jdorney (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I have commented on your overeagerness on your rational skeptic board. No offence intende but I think you jump to conclusions to often. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from David Michael Jacobs
Hello Simonm223, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to David Michael Jacobs has been removed. It was removed by Ocean33 with the following edit summary ' (Undid revision 318313669 by Simonm223 (talk)) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ocean33 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think it was an automated message that was sent. I have put a response on the discussion page of the article.  Thanks. Ocean33 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gnoming or annoying?
I just fixed a typo on your userpage, hope that that is alright by you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK lets discuss
I responded at Talk:Cult and am going to leave it alone till discussion is done. However, I went ahead and reverted at the NRM entry simply because all the material I brought here has to do with NRMs. I understand asking for an explanation for removing content but unless there is an objection to adding relevant content to another entry I think it should stay.PelleSmith (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright I will Bite
Why are you bothering me about a private conversation between me and the owner of that talk page? --Da&#39;oud Nkrumah (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright that is nice to know. Have a good day and please don't harass me any more.--Da&#39;oud Nkrumah (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Please see here. And don't edit war. Thanks, Master of Puppets  15:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit 1, which, albeit confusing, looks like warring. Edit 2, restoring contested information. Compare previous edits. Master of Puppets  16:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that you didn't notice the huff-puff business over that particular passage. As I said on the talk page, try to be careful about adding in material, even well-referenced, if people object to it before-hand. :) Master of Puppets  16:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch
You feel like cleaning out this list? You stated over at Swedenborgianism that they are not RS. There are a few dozen links to the site from articles, but I do not feel like sorting through that much religious DUE right now. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yowzers! I'll put it on my to-do list... religious WP:DUE issues is sort of my usual stomping ground.  But it'll take me a little while. Simonm223 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shawn Baldwin
Hi,. I have cleaned up / rewritten Shawn Baldwin. Could you revisit Articles for deletion/Shawn Baldwin? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian with a life
It seems some people (sock puppets?) have seemingly unlimited time to spend pushing a coup apologist/denier POV on the Honduran coup articles. Is there some way I can help without spending my whole life trying to stop them? Is there something we need to focus on?

There seem to be a couple of usernames that just focus on pushing a POV on these articles, editing just them.

Most Interested Persons on Wikipedia ruin everything. -- Rico  03:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

23 Enigma
Thank you for your message informing me of the proposed deletion of the 23 Enigma article. You are mistaken, however. I did not create that article. I apologise for tardyness in replying but I don't log in to wikipedia very often anymore, I've lapsed into a very occasional editor over the past few years. --wayland (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

 * I want to ask you to reconsider your RS/N judgement on the Ian Plimer issue. Please read the relevant section on the page here and comment again on the noticeboard whether you feel the encyclopedia should link to the rebiuttals by the attacked party. Note: their site does not attack Plimer, only points out his errors. This is not libellous, BLP-sensitive stuff. I hope you can see the other side of this. ► RATEL ◄ 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here. Thanks again. [[Image:Face-smile.svg|25px]] ► RATEL ◄ 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You redirected Electronic water conditioning to Magnetic water treatment when the two are not the same
Hi Simon,

I'm wondering what prompted you to do this redirect and how much you know about the two technologies? Magnetic water treatment is a relatively old technology involving the use of expensive permanent magnets that fit on pipes and continuously generated only one frequency of magnetic field. These are effective only under a certain speed of water flow. Electronic water conditioning, on the other hand, involves the use of a coil which, when wrapped around a pipe, generates a variable electromagnetic field that changes 1000x/second, covering the entire range of frequencies. By redirecting the page I initially created to Magnetic water treatment, you inaccurately lumped the two together.

It is true that I work for a company that sells electronic water conditioning devices, and so have an interest in educating the public about this technology and how it differs from others with similar aims and claims. However, I in no way mean to disregard Wikipedia's neutrality principle. That's precisely why I am honest about my employment. I am not trying to hide anything. I am new to Wikipedia, and so I am very much at the beginning of learning how to write neutrally, find appropriate sources and cite them, etc etc. I could use some help with this. If you wish to help me research the differences between these two technologies and help clarify the separate pages, rather than doing a misleading redirect, I'd greatly appreciate it. Otherwise, if you don't want to take the time to learn about how they are different, then please do not interfere with my efforts to publish accurate information.

SFWinn (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)SFWinn

Back Off
MARDYKS here. I'm not blocked, so back off and stop "censoring" my posts. Find something more constructive to do, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.20.2 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reported the IP to WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I haven't broken a single Wikipedia policy and get two angry posts on my talk page from people who want to bend Wikipedia to their non-encyclopedic purpose I feel like I'm doing something right. :D Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

See RfC on int'l reaction talk page
Rico 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

LLoC backed off?
Where did you see that? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Kerry and Berman want it changed or dumped because of the headaches its giving the administration. They are going to meet with the Law Librarian of Congress, the head honcho, instead of just the specialist who originally wrote it.  So we shall see what comes of that.  But as of now, they have not backed off it.  Read more if you'd like. Moogwrench (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Human mess
Could you notify everyone involved at the last AfD (neutral, keep, and deletes) - I have to go. Thanks, Verbal chat  22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A post at FTN would probably be useful too. Verbal chat  22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The LLoC report reliability
If you have the chance, could you take a look at the wording on my most recent edit in International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup and see if it looks like something that could support the removal of the reliable sources tag on the clause? I just kinda wanted to get your opinion since you had mentioned concerns about attributing to the LLoC what rightly should be attributed to Norma Gutierrez. I could use all the constructive criticism that I can get. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway
Hi, is there any chance you can come back and moderate here (moved unilaterally to Dunmanway killings)? If we don't have a mod there is absolutely no way of reaching consensus or of maintaining changes without edit wars. I am NOT asking you to side with me by the way, and will abide by any judgements you make. Your help would be much appreciated. Jdorney (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit recreated as Human disguise
This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat  21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Incognito edit to Mad scientist
It seems I recently made an addition to the see also section on this page. Funny, I don't have any particular interest in or knowledge of the addition, and don't recall making the edit. Could it be you were staying in my apartment for a few days, and maybe making edits to Wikipedia on my computer without checking which one of us was logged in? I'd say it's either that or the cats are about to take over. Anyway I neither approve of nor disagree with my (your) edit, and don't know if an appropriate procedure exists to have an edit by me (you) as me (me) replaced with an edit by you (you) as you (not me), so I haven't done anything. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, we covered this in real life. Beforehand I thought you may have made the edit as me unintentionally, and meant only to call your attention to it, in case you wanted to watch the page.  Ivanvector (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You called it. It took 2-1/2 months but somebody reverted my/your edit a couple days ago. It's all yours if you want to follow up.Ivanvector (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Human disguise
The problem is that right now too few hands (at the moment only mine, with too little time) are working on a slowly-slowly-developing userfied copy, while before, some positively hostile hands were deleting worthwhile things in order to justify deleting the whole public article. I can only hope that last would die down once the deletion drive itself is over. Having the extra hands a public copy draws (without the threat of imminent deletion) would really really help. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver
Dear Simonm223 - we are experiencing some problems at Medical uses of silver in agreeing on due weighting in the lead section for the various aspects of the topic. One editor has now resorted to repeated mass reverts to protect her preferred wording. As you have participated in discussions here before, please could you assist to mediate a balance. Thanking you. Wdford (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oahspe: A New Bible
An article that you have been involved in editing, Oahspe: A New Bible, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 05:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy.


 * Can you call WP:DUCK if the account in question is neither blocked nor currently active? - 2/0 (cont.) 07:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Oh look, more annonymously posted form-warnings that make no sense from the Roger Nelson fan club. Takes real guts to send somebody a form letter. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting to random revisions
Hi Simon, please refrain from reverting to random revisions that you like, like you did here. If you feel there is a way to improve the article, please do it in chunks that are clearly understandable. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I requested a topic ban against you. See here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Harassment
You have revealed my personal name by using a now defunct and deleted account name in the talk page of Global Consciousness Project. I changed this to Gonefishingforgood in good faith and according to Wikipedia username policy to avoid exactly the sort of WP:Harassment you are now indulging in. I am interpreting the fact that you have been digging around to gain information about me as threatening and tantamount to stalking. Would you please revert that edit as I believe you are indulging in harassment. Would you also arrange for that version of the talk page to be removed from the database so that your comment cannot be viewed by other users. In the meantime I will be taking this matter up with Wikipedia policy enforcement. Gonefishingforgood (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed my name in good faith some time ago as I was unhappy that my username contained my personal name and could be misused. It had nothing to do with GCP and the previous changes made with L*****d are now attributed to Gonefishingforgood in the history, so there is no question of subterfuge or any form of sock puppetry. So your accusation of dishonesty is groundless and actually exacerbates the harassment. I did at one point wish to exercise my right to vanish as I have become so disillusioned with bad behaviour by editors on Wikipedia - but I then reconsidered as I thought that, maybe, I could make some improvements. How wrong I was.Gonefishingforgood (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reversing an anti-GCP bias is not the same as introducing a pro-GCP bias. Your attitudes to NPOV are clear to see in your list of user contributions. Gonefishingforgood (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Zepar
Hi, I have bundled a few similar pages in an identical state to this AFD as yours was the only contribution at the time. I think it's highly likely this preserves your intent but apologies in advance if you need to qualify your statement.—Ash (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fireworks
Thank you for the prompt attention to my edit; I'm a bit of a N00B. :) I'm sorry of the language was misleading, but I did not submit any orginal or synthesized information. I did not state that the display was intentional; only that the rocket provided the show. I think that it might be a little biased to omit the image. Would you suggest a more neutral caption, and replace the picture? Diff. Heyzeuss (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

help needed
Hi. You have been helpful in getting an article in better shape recently that I got involved in, (The Falun Gong article), so I was wondering if you can you please take a look to help with an issue that is ongoing right now with another article? I think more editors would be helpful to reach a consensus about what is the right thing to do to make the article the best it can be. The article in question is Mao The Unknown Story. Thanks.76.14.42.191 (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Central Guoshu Institute
I had forgotten you are a Chinese martial arts expert. Perhaps you can help me with this article? I find lots of references to their 1928 tournament, I found one reference saying there was another tournament in 1933, but I found nothing about what happened then. Does this institute still exists? Or did the communists shut it down after 1949? --dab (𒁳) 21:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Falun Gong 1R/week restriction
Simonm223, this is to inform you that you are subject to a one revert per week restriction for six months with respect to pages and content related to Falun Gong, as described at the arbitration enforcement thread. This sanction may be appealed as described at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Civilization hatnote
Hello, regarding this edit, the reason I removed the hatnote is that there is no ambiguity as to what "People's Republic of China" is. In other words, if a user arrives on that page, that's because they are specifically looking for information about the state, not about the civilization. Some may claim that "China" is ambiguous but People's Republic of China is definitely not (see WP:NAMB for the relevant guideline). So that's why I think the hatnote should be removed. Laurent (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dean Radin
Whatever the other editor's reasons, the Radin bio would need independent reliable sources for any proposed coverage of his theories. And quotes by him in various news media may or may not qualify as "theories". - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Behe
Please go to the Michael Behe talk page and explain what was the problem with all the material that you are trying to remove. Please point to specific text and explain why you think that it falls into an objectionable category. I don't know what you mean when you say WP:DUE. I don't see anything from WP:DUE that is relevant here. Please point out the specific text and the reasoning.--Swood100 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

prodding
Just a reminder that it is required to say that you are prodding in the article summary, and it is considered highly appropriate to notify the principal author--don;t count on the bot to do it. . Personally, I think seclusion of girls at puberty is rescuable, & left some suggestions to the author. Let's see what he can do with it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cold spot
It strikes me that the use of templates to describe such things as phenomenon (an observable ocurrence) as well as factually stating they "may" be paranormal violates NPOV policies. I also think the subjects seek to gain legitimacy in pop culture by co-opting scientific terms. I think the templates are a widespread problem, but wonder if you think deletion is too harsh an option. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree that article could be stubbed to just RS. That same template (called variously "paranormal terminology", "paranormal terms", etc.) shows up on many articles, though. A quasi-scientific 'categorization scheme' where the reader is left to decide whether it's real science or fake science is just plain unencyclopedic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but
I don't see how it's a fork, maybe you should put it back before someone else does. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Someone else would have inevitably done it, I'm sure. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of
Please don't remove POV templates until the disputes are resolved, as you did on waterboarding.   S warm  ( Talk ) 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange, you (Simon) acted correctly at waterboarding. Verbal chat  21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to explain how removing a POV template while there is an ongoing dispute on the talk page is the "correct" thing to do, even though the template itself tells you not to do that?   S warm  ( Talk )
 * There isn't an ongoing dispute. It's over. Resolved. What we have is WP:IDHT from a very small number of editors. Verbal chat  21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Any legitimate debate over POV ended long ago. Consensus does not necessarily equal unanimity and consensus is clear at Waterboarding. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wuxia
Hi, I've added a bit of information from your article to the themes, plots and settings section. I think that that section is a bit disorganized and the flow isn't quite smooth. I find the transitions between the paragraphs abrupt and they don't seem to link quite well. Any thoughts on how to improve that? _LDS (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, but the fourth and fifth paragraphs still don't quite link to each other well. The latter seems like it's slotted in. _LDS (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job! Now it looks better. Thanks. _LDS (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Theory Ground Rules
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Swood100 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no indication of any such request for arbitration. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis
Hi, thanks for commenting on Venezuelanalysis at WP:RSN. I've actually started a new section to summarise and refocus: WP:RSN - perhaps you could comment there? (I'm asking everyone who participated in the old WP:TLDR thread.) Thanks. Rd232 talk 13:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Anti-communist mass killings
This article, which you participated in, is currently up for deletion, editors are welcome to share their opinion there. thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, someone responded to your !vote...Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 12:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Wuxia
Hi, it's me again. Are you interested in starting a WikiProject Wuxia, as a sub-project or task-force under WikiProject Martial Arts? Wuxia covers quite a large range of articles on Wikipedia, so I thought it might be good if we can group them under a single WikiProject, for convenience. Some editors have brought Wuxiapedia to my attention, but I've noticed that it has not been updated for a very long time. My junior Newfraferz87 also once suggested initiating the project with me, but it has been delayed until now. Well? _LDS (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've contacted my junior and asked him to join in the discussion, which I'll be hosting on my talk page. Please check back for my replies. _LDS (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, check out the project banner that I've created here. It's not quite nicely done. Maybe you can come up with something better? _LDS (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think I've filled in all the essential details on the test page. Please take a look and see if you can make any further improvements. It'll become the real thing soon. _LDS (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year
Sorry for the late greetings, but still, a happy Chinese New Year to you! Do help out on the test page, because I'm planning to realise it in maybe less than a week's time. Hope we'll continue working well together on WikiProject Wuxia! Cheers! _LDS (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Law Suit Threatened by DeGrazia
Today I received an email from Alfred de Grazia threatening a law suit against me and Wikipedia for using material from Ted Morgan's Literary Outlaw, whose defamatory content was subject of a libel suit against publisher Holt and author Morgan, which found in favor of plaintiff. Here's a passage from de Grazia's email: "Much of the material on these pages is false, malicious and grossly exaggerated, quite in keeping with the character of Burroughs and sympathetically depicted by Ted Morgan, the Author. It is typical of you to seize upon it and promote its publication even farther. I must inform you that materials on this page were matter for a lawsuit against Henry Holt and Ted Morgan, the Author, which ended in a legal settlement under which damages were paid to me by Henry Holt and the Author. They also signed and provided me with a statement that no copies of said book would be sold anywhere (such as in Great Britain, where the attitudes of the courts towards parties publishing and distributing defamatory matter, such as Yourself, the Author, Wikipedia, and Henry Holt, are notably stern)."

I was not able to determine today when and who originally used Morgan's book for a source. Do you recall who? Using the hardcover edition of 1988 from the St. Louis Public Library, I quoted the relevant passage in response to some editor's concern over just what was related. In America, a paperback edition came out in 1990 from Avon, but there is no local library holding this edition and I cannot readily compare the two versions. Would this initiative of de Grazia's be grounds for reconsidering the use of Morgan-based content in the DeGrazia entry? Any feedback would be appreciated. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Reincarnation research
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Reincarnation research. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP
Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of. --Asdfg12345 01:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor review
Hi, do you mind doing an editor review for me here? Thanks. _LDS (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi me fellow Wikipedian. After reading all the comments in the OOPArt Talk Page, I wrote a new heading structure for the various examples, wich I feel we absolutelly have to include. I saw you reverted long lists of examples in the past, and I wanted to know what do you think on the new outline. Regards. --Againme (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2
Hi, Simonm223. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Involvement in Deletion Discussion
Greetings,

would you be willing to review the article about Mokenge P. Malafa and contribute to the deletion discussion about this page? Few to no editors who work with either medicine topics or Florida topics have involved themselves in this discussion.

Thank you for considering, 72.184.149.224 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan Protests Talk Page
I would like to direct you to the talk page where this has been discussed already by more users that it may be used. I waited a few days to let things cool over with a user. It is a reliable source and has multiple sources included with it. The statement by the Harvard director was on his page which is why it is also included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Venezuelan_protests

--Zfigueroa (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumari Kandam
You deleted the section about this book but it's a University of California Press book, which although presented in thea article badly would be a good source. Searchable on Amazon and Google, it seems to refer to this alleged continent as simply Kumari, which is interesting. Thanks for your help here, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

3RR Warning for editor
You left a warning by mistake for new editor User talk:Fred Emil Katz who has only edited once at this time. Could you delete, thanks. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No mistake - check your talk page for details. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, I missed that Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging of Wing Chun styles
I closed the Wing Tsun to Wing Chun merge discussion and opened two new ones: Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu to William Cheung and Wing Tsun to Leung Ting. Usually I would leave merge discussions a little longer but they are not really being closed just shifted leaving time for further discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been over a week with consensus the same on both those articles. Do we just go forward with the merge consensus for both groupings then? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the idea. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is? Close the discussions with a result of merge and go forward with that? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion has been open pretty long now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussions (suppose we could have done that earlier) so now we just go ahead with the mergers.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rosen Method Bodywork. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Pre-Columbian etc
Just removed a lot of stuff from that IP. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Input needed
I have filed a complaint on the Wikipedia admin board. I would like your input. Thanks Goblin Face (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * if you want to warn me, then do it with the admins Tom Butler (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Check the link on my talkpage Goblin Face (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC) I am taking a break from Wikipedia very soon. When I come back after a few days I will see how all this turns out. I won't be further commenting on this issue I have had enough of this drama, once again thanks for your help. Goblin Face (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Butler
Tom Butler is being discussed at WP:AE. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:this
It wasn't a proposal to create articles. Space Western Space Frontier] Science Fiction Western already exist to my knowledge.

But they all have multiple issues and have been 'cross-used' if I may on multiple pages which is adding to confusion which is why I am asking them to be discussed and not used in that manner. I'm also asking for them to be verified and discussed instead of blatantly removed. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to discuss it and according to the references it's 'Frontier' sci-fi basically exploration of the unknown. According to some sources I came across I think frontier doesn't necessarily have to be space since there are shows like Voyage to the bottom of the Sea that fit this category. Perhaps renaming it could do for now.

But here's another serious problem the page on Space Western is also lacking sources and might contain wp:or but again I don't think it should be deleted. I think it should be discussed. These are all sci-fi genres listed on the sci-fi page that's why I brought em up on the sci-fi talkpage. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion needed if possible
See here. Thanks Goblin Face (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See the latest events on the parapsychology talk-page. Goblin Face (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI#Content manipulation on 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ANI. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Charles Honorton‎
Any chance you can watch over this article, a user is deleting references on the article. It's turning into an edit war that I don't want to get involved in. He's done the same on the ganzfeld experiment. Goblin Face (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Stephens (karateka)
You are invited to join the discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  Swarm   X 23:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Falun Gong & Organ Harvesting
Saw your comments in the Falun Gong wikipedia "discussion" section. Do you deny all allegations of organ harvesting, or limit the denial to the assertion that the Falun Gong are targetted in some way?Jonny Quick (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (talk page watcher) Hi Jonny. You may have read in that same section that Simonm223 has sworn off participating in the Falun Gong topic area because of deeply entrenched POV pushing. I would not expect a response from him here. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please watch Killed for Organs: China's Secret State Transplant Business (2012) YouTube video, 8 minutes and listen to what the medical professionals have to say.Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda Discretionary Sanctions
Hi Simonm223, the page is under discretionary sanctions. See this. You should wait while the discussion on the talk page settles down. There are at least four editors who opposed this edit earlier, and you have no participation in article talk page at all. For now you must should self-revert as per the discretionary sanctions in place and let the discussion conclude before inserting it. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 02:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, you probably saw my post on the talk page, but I thought I'd provide further clarification here. User:AmritasvaPutra was not "biting" you or subjecting you to sanctions. Their post was meant to warn you that the sanctions existed and that your edit violated them. You'll probably get the official template in a bit. Also, in case you didn't notice, your edit is also being discussed here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The situation at that article has got to such a state that if I had made the edit you made, there is little doubt I would have received a block. Just for making that edit, which is perfectly a reasonable edit. I am familiar with the draconian special sanctions and the page though. be careful. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)