User talk:Weaponbb7/Archive 1

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Maw.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Maw.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks
For letting me know that it's a Brehm IP. Do you attend school there?  Enigma  msg! 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly Bryan
Geez Bryan, I'd think you'd have quicker reaction to me calling you a fag than this, lol. DID YOU NOT HEAR ME? I said your sister is VERY hot. Oh and Texas isn't a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leninlover (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Change
Hey man. My article on Yellow deli had two legitimate well established sources. One was a major news publication from Sydney, Australia and the other was the Chattanoogan, a well established and well respected news source in Chattanooga. Both news sources even appear in Google News. I reverted the changes. If you believe the criticisms are unwarranted, post a new section elaborating on how Yellow Deli has responded to these claims (a response to criticism section) and be sure to cite your sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumdog (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I again reverted your deletion of an entire sourced section. Please post a suggestion and try and reach a consensus on the discussion of the deli page.  I actually might mostly agree with you here.  Most of the criticism here is not specific to the deli but to the owners of it.  The section about long working hours is relevant though.  The criticism you would see in other restaurant articles (which is what I focus on and just stumbled on this dispute) would be about the quality or prices of the food or how the service is.  Nothing along those lines appears in this article though.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Maw.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Maw.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks
For letting me know that it's a Brehm IP. Do you attend school there?  Enigma  msg! 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

hey
It's zak from brehm! wassup, man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakariya bin Dana (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Talk page guidelines. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Completion of Yellow Deli/Twelve Tribes Merger
Yeah I can merge Yellow Deli into the 12 Tribes this weekend. What do I do with the Yellow Deli article though? Do I just make it a redirect to the section in 12 Tribes and leave the discussion page in place or is there some other process with merging articles?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Your edits to New England Institute of Religious Research are not supported by the cited source. Please engage in discussion at the article's talk page, instead of reverting with no edit summary. Please also use edit summaries when you edit articles. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please bring discussion to the article's talk page, before editing the article again? Because I checked the cited source, and your changes are not supported by that source. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest with Twelve Tribes (New religious movement)


Do you have a possible conflict of interest with regard to the group Twelve Tribes (New religious movement)? If so, it may be best to refrain from editing the articles on the topic itself, and instead be wiser to limit yourself to talk page discussion and recommendations there. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to The Raw Story. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your note on my Twelve Tribes (NRM) edits
Thanks for your note. I am not sure what "NAshablam" and "Ex-yathed" mean. Unless I am confused about how Wikipedia works (which could be the case) it seems you are calling me "David Pike" (which is not, and has never been, my name) and say that I have a conflict of interest "in with Factnet." I am thinking that perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? I am not ex-TT (if HAshablam is a Hebrew name, perhaps you are thinking that I was a former member?). I guess I should create a Wikipedia account to "authenticate" myself more. Anyway, I will go back into the history and retrieve my edits, and then work on adding footnotes for the statements. I am not sure what you mean when you refer to Disney. 70.94.36.136 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay...
Thank you for your follow-up note and for clearing up the confusion. I know my IP is dynamic. Thanks for the head's up on the linking. I would like to add information on their doctrine of Three Eternal Destinies, such as:

The Idea of the Unsaved Righteous Suffering for Their Sins (somewhat similar to the Catholic concept of purgatory): “Destiny” Freepaper, page 14  /  "Alien Ant” Freepaper, page 53  /  “Three Eternal Destinies” Freepaper, page 18

The idea of everyone being born as "Righteous" (difference from traditional/orthodox Christianity): “Three Eternal Destinies” Freepaper, page 17.

Any thoughts/concerns/suggestions?

70.94.36.136 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Account
Thanks for your edits & help. I now have an account...

Gentoo-Michael (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

New England Institute of Religious Research
The source you added did not support the changes you made. Please be more careful in the future to observe WP:V, WP:RS, and specifically WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacing secondary sourced info with OR
Please do not remove info cited to secondary sources and replace it with info violating WP:NOR, as you did here. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar. I'm glad I could help.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 15:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New England Institute of Religious Research
I'll take a look at it, though I am definitely not familiar with the subject. Peter Deer (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh
You added information that was already on his article under "Personal life". I deleted the repetition. Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sybil Morrison
Why did you insert "Unreferenced" to this page? There are six references.Roundtheworld (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. When you identify articles that may qualify for speedy deletion, it is strongly recommended that you leave a message on the original author's User talk page to notify them. Most of the speedy deletion templates include a template message that you can easily copy and paste onto the User talk page. If you don't do this, the user will not understand why "their" article has disappeared and may be more likely to try to create it again, just creating more needless work for everyone. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion IFrancoPhone
I removed the speedy deletion tag db-nonsense that you added to IFrancoPhone. That tag is only for a page "that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc." See Criteria for speedy deletion. When someone submits an article that is not in English (part of this article was in French), an editor may be able to move it to the other language's Wikipedia (the French Wikipedia can be found at http://fr.wikipedia.org ) or someone may be able to translate it into English. In this case, the article may be deleted for not being notable, but that's another matter. - Eastmain (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The speedy for non-English is only when the article already exists on the other language's wiki. Otherwise, use Not English, which will flag the article as needing translation, but which is not a speedy tag. If you read a second or third language, you may enjoy reading that language's Wikipedia and using information from one language's Wikipedia to improve the other. Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Weaponbb7, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Weaponbb7/SandboxWorkshop. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Yeah thats my name, and a kid here keeps on editing the page and putting my name in there. Creation7689 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I just wanted to say, no worries about the length of that report, it's fine to summarize all the important points, but now we need to hear from others. I also wanted to say that even though we disagree on this interpretation of policy, you argue your points both eloquently and civilly which I appreciate. Happy editing, Doc  Tropics  20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The ip you reported to AIV
Dude, the ip has two warnings dated late 2006 on their page - it is possible that the current individual editing from that account may not be aware of them. A bit tardy on their part, but that is how the cookie crumbles... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
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 19:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page
Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To clear things up...
Hi Weaponbb7, this is Michelle cannon, one of the "accused" sock puppets of Bischof-ralph. There has been a HUGE mix up and confusion with my "connection to templeknight and also with bischof-ralph. Everyone seems to have jumped to conclusions and were quick in accusing rather then asking thus forcing me to have to defend myself against them. But.. this is how things really are.... About a month ago I was looking  at catholic links and reading many articles. I noticed some errors on this bishop alfred page and noticed that the information kept changing. I created an account and started editing  to fix things only to find that there was a huge feud going on between the other editors of this ralph guy and sock puppets and papphase etc. So I stopped editing until everything calmed down. I waited a week or two and noticed that the article was still incorrect. I went to the wikipedia project page and I asked many other users to help me edit it. Only one person offered to help me ,...templeknight. I looked aat his page and noticed he was working on many articles and also read his text on his page about genesis creation myth. Genesis is one of my favorite books in the bible, along with the book of psalms and songs of solomon. I love these bible stories but to call them a myth was a little disturbing. So I added a couple of comments about the title creation genesis myth vs creation according to genesis. Then because templeknight offered to help and started editing on the alfred sewiert page I put templeknights page on my watch list to keep up with the work he was doing and to follow his talk page regarding the genesis page. I noticed that there was a new comment on his page today and it was from someone asking for peoples input about the genesis page. Since this is one of my favorite books in the bible I thought that maybe my contribution might count for something. But it seems that no matter what I do on wikipedia.... no matter if its a good deed or not I accused of having an alterior motive and automatically get attacked. I am very sad and very hurt by all these allegations. I dont deserve this bad treatment. I came here to make friends and to be a part of something important. like fixing articles about the bible that have been discredited. But obviously my contributions are not wanted and regardless if wikipedia bans me or not I dont think I will be editing on any more articles. And now probably not even on talk pages either.Im completly disgusted with the way ive been treated.Anyways, Im sure you noticed I didnt leave much of a comment in the accused parties section, defending myself is useless... People have their POV about me and no matter how wrong they are about accusing me it wont really matter. They made their judgement, and they wont change their minds and it rather sucks. anyways, I dont know why Im coming to you, I guess I am hoping that maybe someone will believe that I am a good honest and kind hearted person. Goodnight. --Michelle cannon (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

replying to your reply
I apprciate your kindness. thankyou. I know I am not a sockpuppet. the editing might seem familiar BECAUSE i used a previous version of the article that someone else had written. It had good sources in it but whoever wrote that must not have known how to write in English very well. There was alot of run on sentences, sentence fragments, and typos plus mis information. I didnt change anything in the article. I only fixed the version that was poorly written and after i corrected it I re posted it. I did ask for people to help me with the page and only one person offered to help, who happens to be templeknight. Peridon and tim song and wine guy could have offered to help me write it rather then try to ban me and accuse me of being someone else. Anyways, thanks again for your kind words. --Michelle cannon (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC) ps yes of course i am hurt, have you read the gossip about me? its very hard to read the thoughts of what others think about you publicly. and its rather embarrassing too that ANYONE can read it and make their judgement about me based on other peoples ideas. :( --Michelle cannon (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)--Michelle cannon (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who the heck is Ban Yoo???
I didn't see any Ban Yoo double teaming with Temple. I guess that was elsewhere. Geeze. I'm losing track of who's doing what.EGMichaels (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Review
Greetings! I have done a quick review per your request for an editor review. You can find it...where you left it! I hope it is helpful, and please let me know if you have any questions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  06:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On a scale of 1-10 when it comes to computer knowledge such as navigating and properly using the back stage of Wiki... I am a 3...
So WeaponBB7 please in the future contact me personally at nabashalam@yahoo.com. I would love to help bring the "Gods honest truth" LOL! back to the wikipedia page on the Twelve tribes...

as you can probably tell, they have the knowledge, time, resources and labor pool to build the page to their own liking...and actually using Wiki as a cult recruiting tool which drives me up the wall! I will help in anyway I can... just let me know whay you need...I can also get others "in the know" who could be of assistance. 76.233.147.15 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

E-mail is unfortunately unacceptable for wikipedia
this is "community collaboration" (i know not funny) private conspiring in back rooms of the internet will not work. lets be open If you have Reliable sources that can be added by all means add them but there are constaints just as you are concerned this being a Propganda tool for the TT it is also one for the Cult awarness/anticult movement. in aconadance with wikipedia policy i hope that we can come to a middle ground that is somewhat acceptable for both sides of this devicive topic. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
That was a poor shot in bad taste from Gabbe. Thanks for the heads up. I've commented there and will notify Deadtotruth. Hopefully he doesn't live in New York and this can be put to bed instantly.EGMichaels (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo
Who should I ask to find out if my ability to revert vandalism edits were blocked? Creation7689 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Brute
Thanks for dropping me a line. I, too, noticed that this appears to be a frequent concern about this editor. As far as what to do about it, I would just let him know, civilly, what you take issue with. It looks like he hasn't responded to most of the other people who have contacted him, so I predict that this will eventually lead to a "User Conduct" review. I wouldn't get involved in any edit wars, but you do have the right and ability to revert his edits (within Wikipedia's guidelines). If your individual conflicts with this user escalate, it would be helpful to show that you tried to work it out with him first. Best, GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cleanup Barnstar
Many thanks and appreciated...but does it come with a lapel pin I can sport at the next AN/I I'm cordially invited to attend? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Big smile right back at ya! :))
Thanks so much for the laughing award! Love your fine mind, and sense of humour. Very best to you! Alastair Haines (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming proposal
Thanks for doing that on the Genesis fiasco! It's long overdue, and you had the courage to do it. I appreciate that. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Ahh, I didn't know how to do that. Thanks. Creation7689 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And it seems that it still needs a little clean up. Creation7689 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop abusing WP
The circumstance that you adhere to a religion based on the Bible does not give you the right to remove my posts. As long as you cannot produce evidence for your god's existence an reliable sources that would prove just that, you should be cautious to manipulate WP articles to appear sympathetic to your beliefs. I can well distinguish between a meaningful discourse about the Judeochristian creation tale and religious propaganda. Wikipedia does not endorse any religion over others. If you cannot live with neutrality that is your problem. Stop abusing WP to propagate your beliefs without solid evidence. And stop attacking me. I bet any sum that I know a lot more about your faith than you do. · CUSH · 01:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

request
Could you point out to me (on my talk page if that's not too much trouble) where the past discussions have been about the title 'Genesis creation myth'? I find that sort of discussion very interesting. It strikes me as transparently obvious that this title is not NPOV and that any number of alternatives can easily be constructed. So I wonder what failure of process led to this being the title.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cush/Userbox/NoReligion
The result of the discussion was  Administrative early closure: speedy deletion per existing policies. The text of this userbox reads: "This user regards adherence to Abrahamic religious beliefs a flaw of character." This is a direct personal attack towards individuals and other Wikipedians, rather than being a userbox expressing of a point of view of the kind permitted by Wikipedia consensus. Speedy criteria WP:CSD, Pages that disparage or threaten their subject, is met in full here, as this userbox is definitely personally disparaging. Therefore, an MfD discussion is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive (in that an undesirable debate may ensue). I draw the attention of the userbox creator to WP:CSD and WP:NPA. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cush/Userbox/NoReligion
Thanx, I was unsure of the nature counted as a PA. If you dont mind please leave a comment here Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Weaponbb7: Thanks for your message. I should make the clarification that it is specifically where pages exist for no other purpose than to disparage their subject that pages become classed as attack pages under WP:ATP. Please remember that in this case, my decision was made only about the page in question in context, and should not be taken as proof that such phrasing is a personal attack under other circumstances. As for the RFC, I am sorry, but I don't wish to have any part whatsoever in the wider diaspora of dispute that this deletion concerns; I am simply an external administrator. I have no opinion as regards this matter other than on application of Wikipedia policy to deletion. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

another thing sorry to bother you
Text added to Cush's user page during deletion process "Not only am I an atheist, I am also an anti-theist. Especially the deity worshiped by the adherents of the abrahamic religions is, according to their "sacred texts", an arrogant, vile, and hateful deity, so that it is incomprehensible how an educated, enlightened, modern person can possibly follow such a figure as their role model. To quote Richard Dawkins (whom I only partially agree with but who puts it eloquently into words) I say "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully". Following such a deity is even worse than joining some Neo-Nazi party, and I consider that a severe flaw of character. There is simply no justification for adherence to YHWH (or whatever name is assigned Elohim/Allah/Jesus) that is not in violation of the very founding principles of western societies. YHWH and the religions built upon this concept of deity are the antithesis to human equality, individual freedom, and peaceful and environmentally compatible human co-existence. Over the last 30 years I have experienced all the religionist propaganda and the vain and empty "arguments" they come up with, so I will not descend into discussing all the same over and over again. Religion is the realm of private hunches with no respect for evidence. I have indeed no problem talking or writing articles about these religions and their history and the historical context out of which they developed, but I will not suffer anyone writing articles that express that the biblical deity is real or that require the base assumption that the biblical deity is real." Is this a violation? Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, in this case. We generally let users express their POV on their userpage. Creating userboxes disparaging adherents of a particular religion, and uploading an image of a crossed-out Star of David, is however something of a different matter (as is blanking administrative warnings). So long as it isn't posted to discussion, and is framed simply as a statement of opinion out of discussion and in his own userspace, it's something of a grey area. I don't actually know, to tell the truth. I think I'll have to post this to WP:AN/I and see what people think. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On review, I think the answer is no, comparing to the criteria in WP:ATP. Whether WP:NPA applies in this case, given it's a userpage and is narrative text, I don't honestly know. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It struck me a grey too so thats while i consulted you Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @NicholasTurnbull: I should be the one feeling attacked. After all, Weaponbb7 adheres to a deity that demands my death and eternal torture.
 * Aside from that I have every right to express the position that religion is bollocks as long as nobody comes up with solid evidence, and the position that adhering to a violent god does not exactly speak for one's character. You should not let your self be abused by Weaponbb7 as a means in his fight against dissent from his religious views. He seems to even exchange mails with other editors how to best bring me down. · CUSH · 20:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eyeroll* By the way comparing me too Fayez Banihammad is little extreme. I am merely pointing out your antagonistic and Uncivil behavior. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your aim? Obviously to silence me because you don't like my rejecetion of your faith. You have done that from the moment you came to the discussion. But you are not the first who seeks to make WP articles support religious positions. Why can't you just participate in writing NPOV articles? · CUSH · 21:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, i have no idea what you are talking about now, i did not realize i was trying to support any such "religious positions." you seem to define NPOV as your POV you antagonistic behavior is very counter productive. I have no problem handing out warnings where you cross the line. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, my personal PoVs are irrelevant. I would never introduce my own opinions, which are indeed rather strict, into articles. But I will watch that no article endorses a religious position either. As I have said, editors can write about religion, but not make WP promote a particular religion. You seem to have a problem with that. · CUSH · 22:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cush this is getting dull i have tried dialogue with you but instead it seems to esculate thingsWeaponbb7 (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What dialog? Filing the RfC ? · CUSH · 22:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cush i have tried from are first encounter for dialogue. Thus i am ending this conversation right here Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. And good night. · CUSH · 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronto
Now, that was pronto, wasn't it? ;-) - DVdm (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Decline of G10 speedy deletion
Hi Weaponbb7, I don't understand your edit, where you remove a source and then claim that it is missing; and what is the meaning of "unRS"? --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad move
By listing 54 parties to the RfM, you've all but guaranteed that the RfM will be rejected.

"All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected."

So if a single one of those 54 declines or just doesn't reply, there's no RfM. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Lisa. This is a great way to ensure every avenue of maintaining unity has been explored.
 * Meditators have no expertise regarding content, and no authority to decide conflicts in favour of either party.
 * There is no risk involved in participating, unless one is unwilling to answer for one's position.
 * What volunteer mediators should hopefully be skilled at is assisting others to address their differences reasonably.


 * "Creation myth" has been demonstrated, from reliable sources, to be a PoV term.
 * Instead of admitting that, some parties ignore it, and continue to abstain from achieving consensus.
 * Weapon is being a brave Wiki idealist: we should accept no lower standard than consensus.
 * Changing the title has the votes, but we also want the unity of consensus, not the division of a majority/minority split.
 * We don't want to enforce a change that even a few people don't like, if they have good reason.
 * Can we help them to understand the reasons for the change better?
 * Can we understand their objection better, and maybe be more accommodating of it?


 * When the time comes for closing the discussion at the Genesis article, we will have more information:
 * either it will become clear that people wanting "creation myth" are unwilling even to participate in mediation,
 * or, we will have additional information about extra issues of concern.


 * Mediation is great, because we get a volunteer willing not to take sides, moderating the discussion.
 * That changes the nature of the dialogue, and will give a closer more material to include in a final decision.
 * I'm off to sign up now. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good move
Weaponbb7, thank you for your considerable and difficult research in pulling together the RfM on GCM. I personally think it's a fine idea. What else was left? Only the Lord knows if it ends up the way he wants it, but that is my prayer. It is also amazing to me how many of the arrogant and outspoken mythists have backed off of their sarcasm and insults as this debate has gained wider and higher level visibility. Thank you for your persistence. I've lost count of the number of times I gave up in disgust and resignation, but I am very thankful for editors like you who hung in there in spite of all manner of insults. Again, thank you! ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of ApologeticsIndex.org as a reference
Weaponbb7, please stop any blanket removal of references which cite ApologeticsIndex.org. I should have mentioned this to you during our discussion of the William E. Riker article. Because in another article now, I find you have removed the citation by claiming it fails WP:RS. In both cases, this was untrue. If you check the referenced webpage (for example, in the two cites that you removed, here and here), the referenced source is provided at the bottom of the excerpt. A simple check of the actual books verified those excerpts. Rather than delete the Apologetics Website source, the source of the excerpt can be consulted and the citation changed to reflect that. However, your claim that references cited to ApologeticsIndex.org fail WP:RS appears to be wrong. — Cactus Writer |   needles  00:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC) what do you mean man? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The ApologeticsIndex.org is a clearinghouse for excerpts from valid WP:RS sources. If you check the this citation that you removed, you will notice on the bottom of the page it lists the actual source of the information -- even with a link to the actual source which can be searched to be certain that the info is valid. You will find this on every excerpt referenced to that website. That is why when you delete this reference for example, you are actually deleting a reference to a 1998 Boston Herald article as the reference states. Therefore, you are actually deleting valid RS sources. Rather than deleting the reference outright -- it can be changed to the original source. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is improper to link to cites which are in violation of copyright. (In some cases, if only a small excerpt froma book is used, there is no copyright infringement. It should be examined on a case-by-case basis.) However, once again, rather than simply delete the source (which can be seen as an attempt to suggest no source exists), simply change the reference to the original source. For example, as I did here. This allows the original reference to be checked. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, can you please give me a link to the RS discussion. It appears any resolution for blanket removal rather than correction of the original sourcing is in error. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * removal of Copy vio is Necessary however i will take you advice and add in the orgignal source where i can but if i cant verify whether anton hein Faithfully copied in the text i am gonna have to remove it and Place the  tagWeaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The best thing to do here is always add in the original source as listed at on the ApologeticsIndex.org. (The few sources I have checked so far were accurately excerpted.) If you are unable to check the original, than add the Template:verify source tag rather than a "citation needed" tag. Thanks for the link, I'll check out that discussion. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I read through the discussion you linked and there was no conclusion nor consensus that ApologeticsIndex.org was an unreliable or invalid source. It was stated that the possible connivance and copyright infringing links links should be avoided. (Most of the discussion concerned the invalidity of the other two sites.) However, the actual sourcing was not discussed. I think replacing the links with the original source and a "check" tag is the best plan of action. — Cactus Writer |   needles  01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the Boston Herald articles, see the note at the bottom of the page "This special report was published by the Boston Herald, and is posted here by permission. [..]" Unless there's a good reason to doubt that, it's not a copyvio. AndroidCat (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wow, this must be a really disappointing moment for you, BB. The request of a user to "hang on" appears to have been ignored or disapproved. What exactly is the Bot looking for? With such a large constituency, surely it's not a binary decision of all or nothing! However, even if the "hold on" request is honored, we still technically may have a symbolic logic problem.

Concerns with our MC
[NOTE: I have replaced this section with some updates. Rather than kluge your page with strikeouts, I've pasted this in. Of course, the replaced version still exists in your history. Sorry....]

Wow, this must be a really disappointing moment for you after all your hard work putting together the MC. The request by a user for the MC folks to "hang on" appears to have been ignored or disapproved. What exactly is the Bot looking for? With such a large constituency, surely it's not a binary decision of all or nothing! That would be downright stupid and contrary to any voting (or preferential reference) system I know of. However, even if the "hold on" request is honored, we still technically may have a symbolic logic problem. (I confess to having read several times the MC that you prepared, and am only now seeing some potential logic problems.

I haven't the time right now to research WP:MC so I really don't know whereof I speak. My suggestion may not be workable, but I'm hoping for appeal or reapplication. Here goes:


 * Concern with Issue 1. Whether it is "necessary and proper" to include Creation Myth in the Title of Genesis Creation Myth. From a legalistic perspective, the "and" will require an affirmative vote on both issues (necessity and propriety). To authorize the majority choices in our voting matrix, it will require a vote of PROPER but NOT NECESSARY; but I don't anticipate that happening─especially if a Bot is involved.

I'm wondering if Issue 1 needs to be asked or deleted. Don't we have fairly strong evidence that the answer to the propriety question is YES? It's the necessity issue that we need them to rule on. Suggestion: an amendment (or reapplication) that creates two issues:
 * Issue 1: [Given the existing Wiki policies that have been cited, plus the fact that to date no one has established the impropriety, only an alleged inappropriateness, of including "myth" in the title,] does a consensus of the editors of this article have the option of using a more neutral, quasi-synonymous, term such as account, narrative, [and list words from the matrix] in the title?
 * Issue 2: As a condition of avoiding the use of "myth, mythic, etc." in the title, the editors agree to include a statement in the second paragraph of the lead that this article's title is referred to in some academic and theological circles as a "creation myth," a completely neutral technical term that by definition takes no position on accuracy, credibility, or historicity of the reported events.


 * Concern with Additional issues to be mediated:
 * Whether it is appropriate to change the title of the article to Creation according to Genesis-> Genesis creation myth ->Biblical creation->Genesis creation narrative->Creation in Genesis OR Biblical creation myth.
 * Seems we are being unintentionally duplicitous by asking them to approve two choices that include the word "myth."
 * Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Rights Opposition developments
I am, writing you and everyone who was involved in this discussion to tell you where the discussion / election is taking place, not canvassing, just to let you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_12#Category:LGBT_rights_opposition

I hope you will read both sides of the issue and use your best and fair judgment to make a decision.

Doug--DCX (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Hutaree article
Hi WeaponBB7, I just reinserted the reference to the teachings of the Christian church in the Hutaree article. I think I reworded the reference a little more neutrally from the last reference. I was wondering if you could please review, and if possible, comment on my reversion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-reversion of Hutaree article
Hi Weaponbb7, I just reverted your deletion, and gave a number of reasons for doing so in the article's talk page. Would it be possible for you to comment on these in the article's talk page? Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OCB
Thank you for the barnstar, I appreciate it. It has definitely been a long process to get it to FA, and it still encounters quite a bit of vandalism (fortunately not as much as some of the more recent terrorism articles). Fortunately so many people were dedicated to working on improving the article through adding citations, contributing to the peer reviews, and pointing out issues at the GA/FA nomination pages. Hopefully it will be a helpful example for improving similar articles. Again, thank you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi,

an editor has started a thread at ANI regarding one of your userboxes. Since this editor hasn't informed you, I thought I'd give you a heads up.

Regards, Reyk YO!  11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Signature on AfD
You didnt sign this page, so I added it in. Just want to let you know so you can switch and restore the original date if you wish.  — Soap  —  00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete your page move request
The current page move request isn't showing up on the Requested moves page. Is that because your Mar. 25th one is still there? (way, way down at the bottom) Would you be willing to remove it? I don't know how that's done, but maybe just being bold and deleting it from the talk page will work? I assume this would be fine with you since you are supporting this new title change. I just want to see this move done and over with. SAE (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Sp 1406 Sorry.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sp 1406 Sorry.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. &#151; Mike 05:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Texas['][s] congressional districts
We need some consistency with other states ending in S. "Grammar" here is a matter of taste. This issue has been debated back-and-forth already.


 * Texas is the singular
 * Texases is the plural. It doesn't exist, right?
 * Texas's is the possessive singular of Texas
 * Texas' is the possessive plural of Texa (whatever that is)

That's how I see it. See MOS. —Markles 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please read Vandalism and refrain from calling edits "vandalism" when they are made by well-meaning editors. Anyone trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia is not guilty of vandalism, whether you agree with their edits or not. Justanothervisitor (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of fractional-reserve banking
Thanks for the positive third opinion. Funny, the editor who requested it hadn't even mentioned he had done so. Yworo (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Weaponbb7. You might be interested to know that the "identifiable entities" have been specifically identified for your convenience. BigK HeX (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor (film)
You apparently still don't get it. You can't just run roughshod over articles like you just did, especially since it had a under construction label. Canvassing for opinions when you did not contribute to the article but just wanted to get your own way is also reprehensible, especially considering the statements already made on the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Where is the consensus? I see one other editor's comments, are there more? The article is the process of massive rewrite; I would invite you to contribute rather than going through this editwar. FWiW, I have placed the sections in "invisible" for now but it does take time to rewrite a large article. Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs a major rewrite, most of the extensive listing of errors can be pared down or moved to a new daughter article, but there has only been a short amount of time that has transpired since the first challenge. Have you even looked at the article changes? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Look, I'm not going to edit war with you but you are doing nothing to improve the article other than wikilawyering with your view of what policy is involved. You actually reverted right in the midst of the sections being changed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientology
Wasn't L. Ron Hubbard an American and didn't he originate what became the religion of Scientology? For the record, I'm not a Scientologist and don't especially care about it one way or the other, I'm just curious as to why it's considered POV that the father of a belief system could also be considered the inventor? He wrote the books, right? Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Inventions aren't false :-O. Anyway, it's fine to remove it, no worries. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I responded at the East-West schism talkpage
And before I could get your take on it, Esoglou jumped right in there and tried to block the whole thing.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind?
Do you mind if I make a fresh request for a third opinion ("yes", "no", or "depends") on the question I proposed concerning editing of East–West Schism? Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And would you please get the protection of the article extended further. From my point of view, the present text is "the wrong version"; but if the situation is allowed to continue whereby LoveMonkey alone gets to edit the article, I suppose "the wrong version" will be replaced by an even worse version.  Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:East–West Schism
Hi! The current full protection for this article is due to end later today. Do you feel there's value in lengthening it (i.e. are the two parties in the dispute nearing agreement?) It looks to me like they're not really close to agreeing, so I'm minded to lengthen full protection, but as I tend to prefer as little protection as possible I'm hopeful you might have an alternative proposal or some good news ;-)

<b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 09:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment
I have tried another attempt at reaching a fair discussion on this issue. I appreciated your advice on asking for a RFC.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 06:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC process
Hi. Your RfC is not properly formatted, I'm afraid. You need to introduce it with a concise, neutral summary followed by your signature, in accordance with the instructions at Requests for comment. This is important because the RfC tag transcludes everything up to your signature in the RfC subpage. I have temporarily neutralized the RfC tag to avoid that transclusion; please feel free to restore it once your brief, neutral, signed summary is prepared. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

sock
I suggest you look further before you go to ani. I'm street legal. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

indeed a Grand Wikipedia trout moment apologies Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Jack Merridew/History. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It happens; no worries. I'll find that talk page, yet... Jack Merridew 23:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion on List of teams named after a sponsor
Just to let you know, I've filled in my viewpoint on this, but I'm not sure if you're going to get a quick response from O Fenian (the other editor) as he's just coming off a block. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replyed to your question on the Talk Page. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

July 2010
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Weaponbb7. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Cycl o pia talk  10:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * *eye roll* it solved the bickering over the venue. I have moved it back its more disputive to have it about my userpage as than to move it and have it like any other userbox Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your COI edit on the Faith Healing page
Hi,

I added "(sometimes at a Spiritualist Church)" to the Faith Healing page which you removed based on a Conflict Of Interest.

On the Spiritualists National Union website there's a page http://snu.org.uk/Healing/faq.htm which mentions "laying on of hands" or  "thoughts from a distance" which means that the people involved need to meet and a Spiritualist Church is a commonly-used location.

Please can you suggest an alternative phrase which wouldn't cause any problem?

Thank you,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you very much for the barnstar. I was glad to help. Finetooth (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So I deserve a "wet trout!?"
Delete this guy has been making these for months and jamming AFD with these. Might be time for a WP:TROUT

I dare you to even try such a juvenile act! I'm surprised that you're complaining about me out in the open only now! TMC1982 (talk) 10:05 p.m., 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by might statement, an absurd amount of these articles have been passing through AFD. The Trout is the nice way to handle such matters, they could always give you a block until you agree to stop making such artilces Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My usrpage MFD
Hi Weapon, I just responded to your vote change. Did you notice that User:Quantpole found the relevant policy that distinctly says, quotes ARE allowed on userpages, on the same copyright terms as on articles. The baseless asertion B was making, was where he said "Fair use doesn't apply to userpages" - that is only for images, not text. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Spoke too soon, never mind! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Weaponbb7
User:Weaponbb7, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Weaponbb7 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cycl o pia talk  00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Active disagreement page
I apologize if it was incorrect, it was my first time posting to that page. Sorry. SwisterTwister (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC for Media Matters for America at WP:RS
Hello there, Weaponbb7. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My first article for English Wikipedia
Hello to you. To whom it may concern

This was My first article for English Wikipedia.

'''I like explain more about The Esfahan Symposium on Fundamental and Applied Laser Physics but I can not ,why? because Engilsh.'''

I give you email and telefoon-number of professor Charles Hard Townes, who was in this symosium in Iran (Esfahan) 29 August–5 September 1971. He is alive. Charles Hard Townes is an American Nobel Prize-winning physicist and educator. Townes is known for his work on the theory and application of the maser, on which he got the fundamental patent, and other work in quantum electronics connected with both maser and laser devices. He shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 with Nikolay Basov and Alexander Prokhorov.

Ph.D., California Institute of Technology, 1939, Professor at Berkeley since 1967; member National Academy of Sciences; Nobel Prize in Physics, 1964. Charles H. Townes Professor In The Graduate School Research: Astrophysics

also you can see this book: '''Fundamental and applied laser physics; proceedings of the Esfahan (Isfahan) Symposium, August 29 to September 5, 1971. Edited by Michael S. Feld, Ali Javan [and] Norman A. Kurnit.''' PUBLISHED: New York, Wiley [1973] DESCRIPTION: xiii, 952 p. illus. 23 cm. A WileyInterscience publication. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN: 047125701X RELATED: Feld, Michael S., 1940 ed. Javan, Ali, 1926 ed. Kurnit, Norman A., 1939 ed .SUBJECTS: Quantum electronicsCongresses. LasersCongresses. Spectrum analysisCongresses. LOC CLASSIFICATION: QC680 .F86 DEWY DECIMAL #: 535.5/8 This copy located at the Library of Congress. 535.5/8

Best Wishes, respectfully:--همنشین بهار (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Esfahan Symposium on Laser Physics
An article that you have been involved in editing, Esfahan Symposium on Laser Physics, 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. andy (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Thanks for letting me know, I'll respond there. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 PBA Draft
Hi Weaponbb7. I have rejected your speedy deletion request regarding 2010 PBA Draft because it does not meet WP:CSD. That criterion applies only to those articles that make no claim of significance or importance, which is a lower standard than WP:Notability. As the article is on the rookie draft of a long-established national league, the claim of significance is implicit. You might want to make a group nomination at AFD&mdash;there are articles for every year going back to 1985&mdash;if you feel that the subject matter does not meet Wikipedia's standard for notability, although my feeling is that it probably does. Let me know if you have any questions. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Secret Service of the Imperial Court
I'm finding this thing has been released internationally under several different names to many non-English countries, and has had both television and DVD release under these different name... and I've located some reviews I've had to translate... French... Finish... Yikes. There is also some confusion in searches because the film appears to have been remade as 14 Blades which also shares the same name in many translations. Yikes again. However, further sourcing appears do-able.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)