User talk:StAnselm/2012b

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

A shame
that you don't see the difference between more information and original research.


 * (bana), which is the Hebrew common and ubiquitous verb meaning to build, but which seems to be closely related to the noun (ben), meaning son.

In no way does that say that 'Benaiah' means son. It clearly states 'Bana' is closely related to the word son. Not sure if its clear, but 'Benaiah' and 'Bana' are not the same word. You are being overzealous in your removal of information. -- Avanu (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Revelation
Thanks for the rewrite! Oct13 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

h-index
I saw you mention an h-index at an AfD. Could you tell me what Peter Proctor comes out as and how you think that # relates to the subjects level of notability. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great information. I believe that will put some article concerns to rest. Jesanj (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alex Fevola.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Alex Fevola.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
 * I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PCV Crest.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:PCV Crest.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Strict Baptist churches
Hi StAnselm, My reason for contacting you is the following:

I've made a (complete) list of Strict Baptist churches, maybe it's interesting for you! But the list has been removed by Novaseminary. Could you have a look? Thanks in advance for your trouble! Ouddorp (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up – you're missing sources for: Elleray 1981;  Ford & Gabe 1981; Kirkham 2000;  Chambers 1953;  Homan 1997. I dunno if that's why Novaseminary takes issue with your list, but you should fix those anyhow. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Puritan Sabbatarianism
Hello! Your submission of Puritan Sabbatarianism at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

SPSs
Hi, in this edit summary you refer to SPS which I imagine is because it is a blog. Just FYI, while in most cases blogs are inappropriate, in the case of an expert in a relevant field who has been previously published by reliable sources there is an exception. See WP:BLOGS for exception criteria. Disregard if you had another reason to refer to SPS. S Æ don talk 23:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
S Æ don talk 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Let me know if you're watching my talk and I won't leave more tb's  S Æ don talk  00:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Very rude"
I also consider blatant dishonesty to be "very rude" -- and far more corrosive to civility than the occasional template. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Declaration (book)
I have declined your A7 speedy deletion request of Declaration (book). A7 only applies to people, individual animals, organizations, and web content. As this is a book (even though it's an electronic book), it is not eligible for A7, which is intentionally left to only specific types of subjects. If you wish, you may still propose it for deletion in either PROD or AfD for notability concerns.--Slon02 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

R B Thieme
Thank You so much for fixing the ambiguity on R. B. Thieme's page, I was trying to and got quite frustrated with it. It seemed every time I tried to fix something someone would go in and change it. Most appreciated, Dan Hawk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowbronco (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Declaration (book)
I have removed the prod tag from Declaration (book), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! – hysteria18 (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Newfrontiers and spiritual abuse
Hello. I see you have removed the paragraph mentioning spiritual abuse from the Newfrontiers article.

I don't want this to become an edit war. I would like to see more balance in an article that reads for the most part like an advert and I am hoping a compromise can be achieved.

I really don't see how the deleted text is any more 'unsourced editorialising' than this text: "suggesting their personality type also has significant strengths", which you have not deleted.

My suggestion is that the sub-title "Analysis of Newfrontiers elders" is deleted along with everything after the first quote from the Journal of Beliefs and Values. This leaves a properly sourced quote to support the "Criticism" section.EutychusFr (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy actionEutychusFr (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Heresies in Catholicism
Template:Heresies in Catholicism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stating "Please don't edit war" whilst engaged in edit-warring is ludicrously WP:POT. No, it is not a "controversial edit", it is supported by WP:LEDE, WP:FRINGE and ARBCOMM rulings on pseudoscience. Further, unless and until you can come up with (i) other editors who agree with you and/or a better argument than simple argument by assertion that it's "controversial". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
I apprecite very much your looking in at Pope John Paul II (1984 film). Be well,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Puffery
Hello. I saw that you restored Template:Puffery from an earlier version. You apparently overlooked at least two pages that were dependent on this template -- Template:Puffery/doc and Category:Articles with wikipuffery (what a horrible title...) -- so I restored those to the corresponding earlier versions as well. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sisera's mother
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lida Hensley
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lida Hensley. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Puritan Sabbatarianism
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

List
And you are going to reward Ouddorp's behavior in refusing to discuss? I tried to engage him rather than his ”revert!” edit summary. What a shame. Novaseminary (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk Back
Thank you for information about Black Book of Arda deletion. No, I have no desire to make any further efforts to make English unit of Wiki any informative due to arrogant and silly policy of a bunch of editors. Any efforts to dig up some rare info concerning to some fact or event are totally useless. As for BBA, similar articles are still exist in Russian or, say Portugese units of wiki. Despite of "lack of notability". :-)))) Besides, those idiots should also propose for deletion an article dedicated to Superrock KYOI radio station. The short-wave station of 80ies was known in Far Eastern region only. Regards, Sea diver (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mac.Robertson Girls' High School logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Mac.Robertson Girls' High School logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't engage in a move war
Hello.

Please don't engage in a move war over this article. You seem to already have a warning for edit warring. If you strongly believe that it should only be "hockey", place a move request on WP:RM, and see if you can get consensus.

Thank you.

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

HandsomeFella (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pages
Hi, As of June 2012 I will be semi-retiring from Wikipedia. I will still watch a few pages every day or two, but not watch many pages every day as before.

Could I ask you to occasionally watch a few more pages that have good referenced content and should really be saved from vandalism, fringe views, sudden mergers, etc.? I think you already watch a few of these, but here is a list in any case:


 * Jesus has been stable for a year and is fully referenced. I even took out referenced based on suggestions, but it is stable "because it has so many references". The last big debate was about calling Jesus Palestinian or Jewish, etc. But that is over now once it was pointed out that it was a political issue more than anything else. The magnet for debate there is the regularly scheduled talk page comment that Jesus did not really exist. That has been discussed on talk many, many times and it usually ends with the demand: "per WP:RS/AC, please provide a WP:RS source that says 'most historians hold that Jesus did not exist' instead of arguing about it here". The debate always stops after that.


 * Crucifixion of Jesus: Again, pretty stable. And as above, the recurring talk page comment is that he was not crucified. And again there are clear WP:RS sources that say that 'most historians hold that Baptism and Crucifixion are beyond doubt'. And there are no WP:RS sources that say that most scholars hold the opposite. But the key issue here is not to mix these two events with other biblical episodes, for there are many historians who argue Marriage at Cana was not historical, etc. So the only two certain events that are subject to agreement are those two.


 * Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ as well as Annals (Tacitus). These are three historically important pages. All three are fully referenced but frequently get large scale vandalism. They do need watching. Josephus on Jesus was the subject of a really long discussion and every possible aspect of it is now covered in the talk page archives. It has been researched in great detail and as questions come up the talk page archives almost always handle that.


 * There is also Nativity of Jesus, Virgin birth of Jesus and Chronology of Jesus and I think you know New Testament places associated with Jesus.

Your help in watching these as your time allows will be greatly appreciated. And thank you for all the good interactions we have had in the past years. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. History2007 (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fred Luter photograph
Thanks for the photo of Fred Luter. Now that is cool. I have a brightened version of the photo if you would like to see it. How can I show it to you? Rammer (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Primary Topic Discussion
If you believe that the Protestant Reformation should be the primary topic, discuss it on the Talk Page instead of edit warring with other users. Thank you. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Crusader Union of Australia
Thank you for fixing my disambiguations on this article - maybe you should join the discussion at Articles for deletion/The Crusader Union of Australia. Castlemate (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflicts
Hi StAnselm,

I thought you had made it in error so I didnt explain. It is a 5th century conflict, no? If you feel strongly about it, you can remove it if you like.

Best, ClarkSui (talk)

Hi again, Yeah I understand its repetitive, just trying to maximize exposure. Delete it if you must. Best, ClarkSui (talk)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Theological Interpretation
Hi, this is not really my field, so I don't really know where to look, but you know this well: perhaps you can find out whether the journal is listed in selective reputable databases, so that we can establish notability according to WP:NJOURNALS (I know it's only an essay, but it would be a start). That would provide some independent sources so that we can get rid of the tags and would also strengthen your arguments in the related AfD. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Eternal life (Christianity)‎
Hi, Would you like to give a quick WP:3O on Eternal life (Christianity)‎? In fact, given that I am becoming less active, if you would like to inherit that article, that would be great. You know that topic better than myself, and most other people anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pretty nice fixes by you. I added a couple of links and a ref. Let us hope it stays that way with no disturbance till almost eternity... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pune cricketers
Category:Pune cricketers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Anselm. I am Mihaela of Croatia. Are you a theologian?--Miha (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack Thomson - I give up.
Hi,

Im new to wikipedia and was just trying to put an article up for Jack Thomson was was the longest serving Town Clerk (which if you are in the USA is the same as a Major of a City) but the article get deleted and I cannot amend it to the criteria being asked. I guess if the same approach was taken then all the pages listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_New_York_City should be deleted too. I admit the City of Doncaster and Templestowe has nothing like the population of new york city....but it would be 100 times larger in land area.

All the best, I guess Wikipedia is perhaps culturally selective.

Jacqueline777777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqueline7777777 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not write on my talk page.
Please do not write on my talk page because I could care less what you have to write. Also please do not leave false warnings on my page, because clearly my edit was not vandalism. Next time you do decide to put a false warning on my talk page I will report you. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  01:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Intoronto1125. That is not vandalism.Shankar2001 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marita Cheng


A tag has been placed on Marita Cheng requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  13:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Genesis 1:1
So... is the new layout for Genesis 1:1 to your liking? &mdash; Jasonasosa  09:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
thanks, I'm well aware of that. However, absent any specifics, I prefer not to have tags on an article. IMO the 'pedia is too full of tags anyway; articles can be improved without them and they look like crap. I realize there is dispute about tags such as this, but there is no general dispute about this article, there is one editor whose complaint is that an article on an organization he thinks poorly of, which is generally highly regarded by news sources, the FBI, etc, does not have "enough criticism" seems a bit pointy to me. Your opinion may vary. KillerChihuahua ?!? 10:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Presbyterian Church naming
Hi StAnselm, I would just like to ask why you are reverting untrue statements that I have changed relating to the expression Wee Frees. This is a term that journalists have never grasped the concept or origin of and continually use when referring to ANY branch of the Presbyterian church in Scotland, therefore citing poorly researched articles by the same journalists cannot be justified. Also the term "WEE WEE FREES" does not exist outside the mind of certain journalists, and is a phrase I have never heard uttered in the Western Isles. Regards SachtlerSachtler (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dana Milbank
Not sure if you are aware of it, but Dana Milbank from the Washington Post just wrote something recently about the FRC/SPLC hate group designation and questioned the appropriateness of the labeling. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

RfCs
Regarding a comment of yours I saw elsewhere... I recommend thinking carefully before starting any new RfCs on SPLC hate group listings. They don't tend to attract a genuine cross section of the community and the outcome is pretty much pre-determined as a result.  Belch fire - TALK 04:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Your recent editing history at Family Research Council shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The RFC.
I hope you realize that the RFC is against the WikiProject, not you. You're mentioned once by name, as an example of tag-team reverting by WikiProject members. The mention is factual and contains no uncivil remarks or personal attacks. The incident is also too stale for WP:3RRN to consider blocking anyone for (and, in fact, the reaction was to protect the page, not block individuals).

As such, I believe that you are overreacting by taking it personally. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * May I ask, is StAnselm even a member of the project? Because if he isn't, he probably shouldn't even be mentioned.  The IP added all this information in good faith, but I made an effort to focus only on project-related incidents involving project members, without mentioning names, but letting the diffs show the names. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit
It's all there in the body of the article - please have a look. --Scientiom (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Response
In response to your question: More precisely I should have said WP:CIVIL rather than WP:AGF, except I think AGF is a better rule to live by. A lot of the time, breaches of CIVIL are implicit breaches of AGF anyways, because (essentially by definition) an uncivil statement is out of proportion to whatever perceived problem there may be.

About his statement, it was definitely ad hominem, although I would probably have just ignored it rather than template him. Was it a personal attack (a separate issue)? That's a loaded term so I wouldn't bother to use it; if it's not affecting article quality, and we've established that it's not relevant, then if there is a problem that's the job of an admin to decide. I'm not trying to equivocate, it's just a bit of my philosophy. I think it's on the milder side of what could be considered a personal attack, especially since you made a statement that could be reasonably interpreted as advocating "capital punishment for gays." And there are plenty of people who would react with complete moral outrage at that. To some extent I would as well, except that I think anger is generally unproductive.

For your last question, it seems to me (especially given your post to my talk page) that you're "fishing for diffs." If you are, I don't really want to be part of that, but let me take the statement just above your question: "This message is false twice. First, I didn't say anything uncivil. Second, you didn't remove anything. This is a waste of my time." The actual content of the statement is "I didn't say anything uncivil, and you didn't remove anything." The content is the only important part of the response, and once you've written that content and removed everything else, there's no room left for incivility anyways. But I will also suggest that almost everyone is doing this to some degree right now - e.g. you might check out your "on the other side of the coin" post that Still was responding to. But if you really want to improve yourself, I suggest Editor review (without following the recommendation that you post a notice on your talk page, because you want neutral feedback from people who don't already know you; or you could request that nobody respond who already knows you in any way).

You know, I would actually (semi-seriously) suggest that the best thing to do during an election might be to temporarily topic-ban all users who live in the country in question. That would include myself even though I'm not an American citizen, but I think the articles would benefit. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Still's comment appeared to be in reference to the quote provided in this comment: . That he made this comment as a response to Anselm is probably more about not wanting to repeat the information, but insuring that anyone reading the first oppose comment is aware of evidence being provided later on in the discussion.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hay!
Dear StAnselm! The Bible is really a monument to the history of mankind. Blessed are you if you know that! I am going on a Wikibreak for a while, but I coud not resist you. So, farewel! to thee!--Miha (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPG violation on my talk page.
Please don't do things like this. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 St. Patrick's Day beating
Hi! I reviewed this edit.

The source that the statement was cited to had already established the relevance. See the quote "Bealefeld, the white police commissioner in majority-black Baltimore, warned against "fear-mongering.""

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Failure to follow procedure
When you brought up my talk page on ANI, you failed to follow the clear directions at the top of the page, which read: I'm going to WP:AGF and say you just forgot. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Illinois Family Institute. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Illinois Family Institute BLP
Can you please address your BLP concerns at the article's talk page and the BLP noticeboard if necessary? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't revert without giving a reason
You are reverting editors at Illinois_Family_Institute without giving an actual reason. Saying there isn't consensus yet or citing WP:BRD isn't enough. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

3RRN
I have reported you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Feel free to comment there. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion
Does this edit make sense to you? – Confession0791 talk 02:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No opinion? – Confession0791 talk 01:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have an opinion, and I was going to work on the article today. No, the change to the first paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and probably should be reverted. BUT a lot more work needs to be done to the Dispensationalism section. The edits made to that section probably represent a very slight improvement. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Agent Strawberry Fields.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Agent Strawberry Fields.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA
Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of child from its parent
You have removed Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage from on of its parents Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights and your last edit summary was "Actually, Bash Back! is a LGBT-rights organization that opposes same-sex marriage."

Could please you help me understand what that means and why you believe these categories should not have a logical parent-child relationship?

Many thanks – MrX

Disruptive editing
I would appreciate it if you would not delete large portions of well-sourced content as you did here:, followed by tagging the article with unwarranted WP:COATRACK tags.

This a good-faith effort to stop what I believe is pattern of disruptive editing, which I first mentioned here:Talk:Chalcedon_Foundation. You have contributed almost nothing to expanding this article, but incessantly remove content that you do not agree with, against consensus. You also browbeat other editors on the talk page, against consensus, in stead of working collaboratively to build the article. I have also noticed this disruptive behavior on other articles. Please stop this disruptive behavior or you may be blocked from editing. Thank you – MrX 21:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I second this and additionally request that you revert the damage you caused. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would add that this the second time in three days that you have crossed the 3RR bright-line. The first was Talk:Family_Research_Council. I have not reported it and would prefer to work with you more productively, but I reserve that option to take it to AN3 if this situation doesn't change. – MrX 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Agent Strawberry Fields.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Agent Strawberry Fields.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Congestive heart failure does not equal Cardiovascular disease
Hi StAnselm - First, thank you for your article help on the recent additions of academics. It's encouraging to see someone helping bring these articles up to a reasonable level of completeness. Full disclosure: my goal and plan is to establish an article for every member of several important groups of Christian scholars & theologians - translators of major versions of the English Bible (NASB, for starters), past presidents of the ETS, authors of The Fundamentals, winners of ECPA Christian Book Awards, seminary presidents and other notable professors from some of the more significant U.S. seminaries, and others who are already cited in a number of Wikipedia articles. This is why, for instance, I left a couple of redlinks in the articles I've created. My second question is what brings me to your page. I noticed that you added the categories noted above to the Paul Feinberg article. In the sources listed, "cardiovascular disease" is not listed as the cause of death. In fact, it mentions that it was congestive heart failure secondary to a broken hip. Congestive heart failure can have a number of causes, including infection or just plain old age, so it is not a given that just because his heart failed that he had cardiovascular disease. Agreed? Ἀλήθεια 00:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thoughts for replacing a page
Hello again. I would like your input on replacing the contents of this page:List of members of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada with this: User:Ἀλήθεια/seminaries Ἀλήθεια 15:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to take a look at the recent reformat and tell me if you think it's ready to introduce into the main namespace? Even if it still needs some tweaking, I think it's far more helpful than the current list. Ἀλήθεια 14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

IFI
Do you have anything to add at the discussion over at IFI? Frankly I'm sick of the tag teaming to insert POV edits. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:CANVAS. If StAnsalm shows up and tag-teams with you, I'm sure I will. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)