![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi BlueMoonlet, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 03:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's what the rivalry should say, not "S.F. Giants vs. L.A. Dodgers". It should follow the informal "standard" used with these: Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry and White Sox-Cubs rivalry. I think some anon set it up that way. I will probably move it sometime in the next few days, if no one else does. d:) Wahkeenah 17:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Any objections to renaming the article? Wahkeenah 13:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Great work on the Dodgers article. Keep it up! -- Dysepsion 07:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find the wording confusing. Moses' plan was not "realized" until 1964, when Shea Stadium was opened. And the Mets themselves were not Moses' plan as such, just the ballpark... in conjunction with the 1964-65 World's Fair, whose plan was also Moses', as I recall, and of which Shea Stadium was a part, albeit on the other side of the tracks from it. Wahkeenah 18:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks good now. :) Wahkeenah 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't write that part. I saw it, and wondered what the point was. Scully's not an independent commentator. He's paid by the ball club. They hand him a script that talks about upcoming games, he's expected to read it. End of story. Anyone who didn't know about the impending strike was an "ignoranimous". And right up to the last day, people were at least hopeful it could be averted. So I think whoever wrote that either has something against Vin Scully or more likely wasn't around at the time and doesn't know that the strike was not necessarily a foregone conclusion. Wahkeenah 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear, but I meant to address the second part of that message to the user who had added that paragraph. I agree with your assessment, and would not mind if you wanted to remove it. -- BlueMoonlet 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I realized that later. It was late after a long working weekend. :) Regarding the Scully comments you beat me to it, and that's fine. And you improved the stuff I added about the ballparks and the nicknames. Good work.
Ithaca, NY. Don't they have a waterfall there, possibly right on campus? Wahkeenah 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
One down and twenty-nine to go. That user "FPAtl" took it upon himself to do that redundant entry on every one of the major league baseball sites. Wahkeenah 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I've never really been involved in any decency/censorship debate before; I just got drawn into this one accidentally because I have Talk:Main page on my watchlist and I pretty regularly check the main page for poorly-worded entries. I don't actually care that much about the issue, I just get annoyed by smug self-righteousness (which where decency/censorship is concerned can be found on both sides of the debate). If you want to start a policy discussion on Talk:Main page you can try; but I doubt you'll get anywhere. Cheers. Doops | talk 19:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good and I like it; do you have a source? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 21:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Think I've now blocked all the accounts involved (including, but not limited to, the ones you reported). Please do report any others you come across. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Petros471 10:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Try doing an edit here and look at the following:
*This line starts with an asterisk...
Enjoy! :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, BlueMoonlet!
I'm a Lloydie, and I've taken an interest in the article about the student hovses. I notice that you did the lion's share of the work when the present article was created by merging seven separate articles into one. So I have a few questions for you.
Please write back, either here or on my talk page. Thanks for your time, and have a great day! DavidCBryant 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to participate in
WikiProject Calvinism
The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
![]() |
-- Flex ( talk| contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Yarkovsky.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been itching to do that for a while, but I've been a little hyperfocused on getting United States to FA. Again, thanks. Here's the notes I was keeping about the merge:
There's still probably some good work to be done. Let me know if you need a hand. MrZaius talk 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out BlueMoonlet, you must have looked very carefully at the article to spot that. The source for that particular piece of text is translated and then reworded from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia; while other wikipedias are not allowed to be sourced, the note at the bottom allows people to know that some, techically unsourced information exists in the article. The corresponding German article was atypically verbose, and that part was something I found rather difficult to understand. Therefore, that particular piece of text which you see is my very best interpretation of the translation. However, since you dispute it, you should take a look at the German Wikipedia article about the subject. The link for the article can be found near the bottom, under the References section. I hope that you can perhaps understand it better than me, and maybe you will even be able to "translate" more of the article (parts I could not actually put into coherent English) to add to the en.Wikipedia. Thanks, and I hope I have adequately cleared the matter up. Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
mmmmm. I think Paliament doesn't look very favorably at such "holding court". HMQ can call herself by any name she wants providing she gets approval from Parliament. HMQ certainly doesn't get that approval by "holding court". The whole paragraph is a nonsense. In 1917 George V, changed his name and that of all his decendants to Windsor by Act of Parliament. No need for "holding court" - the law says that all decendants of George V are Windsor. The only way of changing that is through repeal and a new act. Please consider edits to Wikipedia pages very seriously. I know that this particular paragraph has been copied from wikipedia several times and is just plain bullshit. Mike33 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you forget to add that part? Mike33 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This About The House of Windsor
Geneologically yes such concerns stand but the house of windsor is simply a an instrument of parliament. It is not a royal house. it is an instrument of parliament which gives the children of George V the right to title themselves. dont get silly. they all have titles above and beyond house of windsor. but this is not the article to state honorifics Mike33 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
AS PER PARLIAMENT are u joking? 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa Belief overides knowledge. I must apologise ten times. You are quite right that there wasn't a parliamentary act. Although the "decree" and further "decrees" have no legal basis, they should be included. Forgive my use of bullshit and my insistance on parliament. Mike33 02:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me. It's been a rough week or so, and your comments on my discussion page have slipped my mind. As you've mentioned I would, I greatly disagree with you. The "official nicknames" as you call them, are known as that harkening back to the time when the teams were officially known as Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Chicago AL and names like Orioles, Reds, and Cubs were "nicknames" used by fans and the media. Nowadays, these aren't nicknames, they're just the names of the teams. The nicknames are names which are used by the fans, the media, and, in most cases, the team and it's broadcasters. You've already noted the circulation of "Bronx Bombers". "A's" is more frequently used than Athletics. "Blue Crew" is what the dodgers are referred to in the name of the team's organization-owned fan club. "Cubbies" is used not only by fans, but by the organization during the singing of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game".
These nicknames are information about the team, and should not be excluded. First of all, they are other names for the subject, and those go in the lead, more often than not in bold like the subject's standard or full name. The nicknames usually take up a small block of text in the lead, and are sometimes taken care of in one sentence or in a few words in a set of parenthesis. I think that, when you say "They are also known as" or something to that effect before mentioning the names, they're in enough context for people to figure out what they mean. The article isn't telling people to use them, but it does explain that they are other names for the team, and in many instances explains the meaning behind them. As for the infobox, that is one nickname, the most widely used one, that we put there. The only instances where the most widely used one is not the one displayed is when it comes to the Red Sox and the White Sox, where they share the nickname "The Sox". I have not added all the nicknames for these teams, and, in fact, I've been joined by other wikipedians who want these names to stay on their pages. The White Sox and Cubs pages have repeatedly tried to add more nicknames to the infobox, but more than one makes it too crowded. The Mets page's people have already reverted your changes, with no prompting by me. I've not added all the nicknames, and didn't even know of most of them until the good people of each page's own little community revealed them. In fact, I didn't even add them all to the infoboxes.
The nicknames have never been fought against (the only exception being the Braves), and have, in fact, been added to. The people have embraced them, changing them, if need be. They are not unsourced and unencyclopedic. No name has been added by me unless I had firsthand knowledge, or have researched the name and seen that it is used by the media or the fans. Most, if not all, are used by the organization at the stadium, on merchandize, by broadcasters, or in websites. I believe that's enough to be considered "official". These things are information about the team, and as such, should be included. -- Silent Wind of Doom 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to help me create a WikiProject for the Dodgers? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You might have heard this one: "In the Big Inning, God created the heaven and the earth..." Baseball Bugs 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In all technicality, I can challenge everything on the page since no specific source is provided for any of the information. If you want examples, please see Wikipedia:Good articles. Almost every page there provides a source after every fact. A good article doesn't wait until a fact is challenged to be cited; it provides the the citations before it even be challenged. Let's take a look at a few examples. Under Early Brooklyn baseball, it states "Eight of 16 participants in the first convention were from Brooklyn, including the Atlantic, Eckford and Excelsior clubs that combined to dominate play for most of the 1860s." If a curious reader decides to look up where that information is coming from, it can't be done. There are no references provided for that specific statement. The entire history section runs along the same line; no specific source is provided for any of the information. The article is not properly cited until specific references are attributed to each statement.
PS I choose to remain anonymous. That's the beauty of Wikipedia; anyone, and not just registered users, is allowed to make edits. I have a talk page should you choose to use it. 75.183.24.180 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How do I withdraw the AFD? -- RucasHost 09:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
High, Blue Moonlet You seem to be the only wikipedist interested in fever trees. Do you have an idea why instead of saying, as you do, that Acacia xanthophloea grows near swamps, several webpages (Worldweb, Definition.com;, and others) say that it "marks healthful regions"? That does not make much sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredr ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, if you get a moment or two, could you look over the page I created at RHEMA Bible Training Center? Any input would be valuable and appreciated. Thanks! -- profg 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For your excellent wording improvements suggested at WP:ERRORS. — TKD:: Talk 02:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your bang-up job of researching, improving, and continuing to improve Dominionism with those who differ. |
-- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
PS, I decided to give you this before I saw the barnstar you won above. See, everyone (well, almost) thinks you're doing good work!
Since you've taken it upon yourself to undo this chronically disruptive supposed "editor" 's community ban, myself and the others he wikistalked and harassed intend to hold you responsible for ensuring that he lives up to the specific terms of his parole: 1) 1RR, 2) zero tolerance for wikistalking, harassment and incivility. IOW, if he starts up with this nonsense again, you are expected to restore the block. He's your and User:B's responsibility now, accept it. Odd nature 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in the unblock. If it's not too much trouble, I would like to ask you to monitor all of my activities and interactions with others, especially with those who brought and fought for the charges resulting in the indef block, with the purpose of giving me warning, instruction, and (in general) mentoring me along the way here at Wikipedia. I admire your fairness in contributing to the WP project, and would appreciate your assistance here. -- profg Talk 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Your slur against ON on AN is totally out of line. Guettarda 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Reswobslc. I sympathize with your most recent comment on the DRV. "Anti-X" implies prejudice or persecution based on a person's beliefs (or other fundamental characteristics), and certainly there is plenty of real anti-Mormonism to be found in this world. But a reasoned critique of a belief system should not be included under that heading. "Protesting" in this context is anti-Mormon because it is speaking without listening; "proselytism" (at least at its best) is not. Thus I would not submit the people in the image as examples of how "anti-Mormonism" isn't always so bad; rather, they should not be in the article because they fundamentally were not engaging in anti-Mormon activity.
Anyway, I am not presently inclined to jump into this topic with both feet, but if an issue ever arises on which you would think it helpful for me to comment, please let me know. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I really do appreciate someone else caring about reliable sources. Turtlescrubber 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I got your email. Not all was as it seems there based on other emails I've received. I don't think I need more input for accurately describing that situation, but thanks for offering. GRBerry 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Dominionism. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. I'm not choosing to get into a fight with you about this, but you are at 3RR, and I know you know better. I don't traditionally slap a warning on experienced editors, but again, you should know better.
OrangeMarlin
Talk•
Contributions 04:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
At User talk:Jeepday#Muscovite99 you requested my input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muscovite99 which appears to have been resolved or settled since your request. I believe my participation is no longer required on the issue if there is something else please let me know. Jeepday ( talk) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Blue,
Thanks for the suggestion. I nominated Rings of Rhea at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 7, in case you want to chime in. — kwami ( talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those can be deleted, but it's kind of a pain -- it requires temporarily deleting each vandalized page and then restoring it without the vandal edits. We usually only do that if there's really nasty stuff in the edit summary. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice! Malinaccier ( talk) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
My original post on User talk:Akda18: Hi Akda18. I appreciate your thinking twice about reverting that edit a second time, and I also appreciate the good faith you showed by trying to improve the edit instead. However, it is not acceptable content to simply give your opinion on why Os Guinness may have ulterior motives. We need the opinion of a reliable source. I am happy to talk about this further with you. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'd read the book you would have seen letters from Frank's sisters which he included in the book with their permission (he had requested that they write something he could include in the book). Os' bias is obvious; like anyone else he seeks to defend his friends' integrity (who wouldn't?). Frank position is that he's just finally trying to come clean and make peace with his past. But you are right in that this isn't an appropriate argument for wikipedia...and I've left your last edit intact. On the other hand I believe it's appropriate to edit clear bias wherever it's found on wikipedia. As a religious person I am all too aware that individuals of faith have a tendency to express bias and shout down evidence to the contrary in an attempt to justify their faith to themselves. In truth, we are all human, and all humans have shortcomings. It seems to me to be either ignorance or cult-like denial to either ignore or deny the shortcomings of our leaders when faced with evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akda18 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV inputs to the articles 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation would be greatly appreciated. The 1831 polygamy revelation article in particular is receiving a lot of attention since its appearance on the DYK section of the main page, and many recent editors appear to be fixated on endowing it with a particular POV and deleting relevant cited information from reliable sources. If you are knowledgeable about this subject, please feel free to edit these articles yourself, or invite other editors to do so. Écrasez l'infâme ( talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the discussion at 1831 polygamy revelation and just thought you might consider not taking sides so blatantly. In the spirit of corroboration, lets try to avoid saying "he is right, and you are wrong" - speak to the issues and give your opinion on the content, not the editors. The topic is controversial enough, and already has escalated to nearly an edit war, and your comments I fear may escalate it further rather than diffuse the situation. Thanks for your consideration. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping on Aimee's page, I got my edits reverted two times on that page. Zolo6 —Preceding comment was added at 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Aimee really wants me to edit her page since I'm in Demolay. Zolo6- July 11 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok I get you don't worry and I read all the rules, it took me 20 minutes in total, but I know all the rules and editing rules too. -- Zolo6 ( talk) 03:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Crossposted to both user talkpages.
Y'all don't edit war now, ya hear? Talk this one over. GRBerry 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
My original post on User talk:Nergaal: Hi Nergaal. Would you please explain your reversion of my edits? Thanks, -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the wording a bit, and added a [transition] comment where it's more disjointed than I cared to fix. kwami ( talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Peace, Nergaal ( talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think your input is exactly what I am looking for. "Impartial" is difficult to pin down sometimes. Perhaps better than impartial, you can see the subject from more than one side and offer suggestions. Once a day is more than sufficient. Once a week would be plenty. My own objective is to move the editing process of the article forward so that it is eventually not divided between promotional and critical but integrates information in a realistic manner. Admittedly, I've chosen touchy subjects, but I think they are historically significant. Certainly, there is no lack of published material to warrant inclusion. Also, as this material is worked through, I hope this will tip the editing process in a more fruitful direction. Don Van Duyse ( talk) 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, BlueMoonlet, but it has become obvious to me that, when it comes to religion (especially Christianity), the rules suddenly become skewed. Someone who is employed by a university, for example, may be considered an "expert" on the subject, while someone who attends a church that is part of a larger fellowship has their neutrality questioned? Nonetheless, the issue I had with all the 9/11 blather is that it was all about Chuck Smith, not Calvary Chapel. Smith doesn't speak for every church that is part of the fellowship (technically it's not a denomination, as it does lack some of the support system a typical denomination has). His beliefs on a particular item don't seem to be a reliable part of the article, any more than Lee Iacocca's opinion of a hospital would be worth placing into an article about the hospital or Chrysler.
Still, with the neutrality question thrown up, the credibility of anything related to Christianity on Wikipedia has plummeted farther and faster than any stock has done lately. Meanwhile, I've got better things to do than to check Wikipedia every hour for a comment on something; if a 24-hour period is too long for a "consensus," then I'll never be part of the consensus. Why bother? -- Joe Sewell ( talk) 17:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Saw your note on the edits. Agree that it would be nice if he had a page. I believe he used to have one but it was very poorly written, or maybe that was part of the church link all along. Some reasons I believe he deserves listing as a prominent pastor of CC.
- senior pastor of the largest church (not just largest Calvary) in Florida - CC Ft. L has its own wiki page - consistent speaker at yearly Southeast Calvary Chapel pastor's conferences (and possibly others) - guest teacher at Billy Graham's "The Cove" training center. Next event here: http://www.thecove.org/event.aspx?eventid=409&typeid=1 - launched Christian radio station ReachFM (currently with repeaters throughout Florida), also with its own Wiki page
Thoughts? 71.203.159.204 ( talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please cite a reference for your addition? Amandajm ( talk) 07:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, BlueMoonlet. I am just curious why you didn't like the use of word "moonlet" throughout the 1994 CC article (esp. given it is a part of your nick, j/k ;)) ? Is it due to seemingly unofficial status of the word moonlet or since it's an asteroid moon (which you wikified, but the display word could still remain a moonlet since it's used quite frequently as a term for small moons, and no doubt will be adopted officially eventually)? It kind of makes sense to describe these two as moonlets as they are squite small compared to the main asteroid's size. I also saw a common use of the word to describe small Saturnian moons embedded in its rings and perturbing the material in them as references on the Moonlet's wiki article and the externally referenced Google books search for the word. Why does it have to come from a professional astronomer to call a small moon a moonlet? I don't think the "professional astronomer" status or lack thereof makes one more or less qualified to call small moons moonlets. Just like it's not required to have a status of a professional programmer/developer/software engineer to call small scripts as scriptlets, small server components servlets, small applications as applets, etc. Granted, I am a far cry from a pro astronomer, but that should not disqualify me before you using this simple word in my edits. I do my reading, too. -- Mokhov ( talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I shall get in touch again with Dr. T. and explain somethings about Wikipedia about Wikipedia. It will be better if I deal with this. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your response on Calvary Chapel's government. I know it's a little late. I forgot about it until I was browsing through the talk page and saw your response! Ltwin ( talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas ( talk) 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
I see your work on my watchlists all the time. Thank you for your dedication to improving scientific topics on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC) |
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hillman College. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillman College. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
My concern is thatif all you are doing is comparing the two lists, then you have used Wikipedia as a source, and it is not conisdered reliable. All information that is likely to be challenged must be cited, and since this is featured content, and soon to be part of a featured topic which the baseball project has worked long and hard on, there can't be any question as to whether the information is verified, or how. It needs to have a source to be included. Additionally, overlinking was a concern, and I would have simply de-linked if that was the only issue that I saw. If you do plan to re-insert the information, please be sure and check to see that you haven't duplicated any links from earlier in the lead or other prose. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This discussion is worthwhile, but it belongs on the article's Talk page, not in a personal back-and-forth. if you'd like to launch a thread there, I'll be happy to respond. Best, Dan.— DCGeist ( talk) 17:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the amount of time you've spent on Wikipedia, you have no excuse for not knowing better than to make the edit you did to perfect game under the rationale you offered. You're unhappiness with my "tone" is de minimis in comparison. No more personal communications about this, please. Let's keep it on the article Talk pages where it belongs.— DCGeist ( talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines 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) 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Blue. I prefer the old wording in the Alvin Greene article. Would you consider reverting? Identifying that an election outcome would be historic doesn't violate any policy. So no reqording was necessary. Freakshownerd ( talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To the left of the search bar? Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 19:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for looking over our intro to the article. I am one of the primary editors on the article and after letting it set for a couple weeks due to real life commitments I noticed multiple minor copy edit issues that I (we) had become immune to after working on it so hard. I've been purposely staying away from it as much as possible, other then monitoring it for damage, so I can tackle some of the issues I think it still has with a fresh set of eyes. I welcome any other fresh eyes who would like to help touch it up. Thanks again for your contribution. Cheers, Veriss ( talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet. As the creator of the redirect at Martyn Minns, you may have an interest in, or a contribution to make at, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bolman Deal/Martyn Minns. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In your last edit to this template, you said "This template is not for links to individuals, but links to titles." The problem is, that's impossible to do consistently for the female titles. Only Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of York, and Duchess of Rothesay meet your standard. Duchess of Cambridge and Countess of Wessex are both redirects to articles about the current holders of those titles. Duchess of Gloucester is a redirect to an article about the ducal title. And Duchess of Kent is a disambiguation page, which is not supposed to be the target of incoming links. (Perhaps the problem is not so much the link being in the template, as the fact that having a disambiguation page at this title is not a very good idea.) Any thoughts? -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Good clarification. Many thanks. Michael J. Mullany ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
From looking at the talk page archive, I see you you were a voice of moderation at Calvary Chapel some time ago. Care to weigh in there again? Mojoworker ( talk) 23:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to register my appreciation for once again being a voice of moderation on the most recent dispute. -- Esquire880 ( talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait, you already are. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Would you be open to reverting your recent change on the CC page? I agree with your point in the edit summary; however, I thought leaving it would help smooth things over and it was also going to be a reminder to me research and provide references when I have some time. 71.199.242.40 ( talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read Tausch, A. (2011) before blindly reverting prose. I correctly represented the source's actual research, which wasn't a quality ranking at all. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
(response to your query) -- Yes, BlueMoonlet, gang mentality.
Here is another example of a zealous follower's comments. I have not looked into the news reports at all, I just googled "Calvary Chapel gang mentality" and clicked on one of the many links. From what the Calvary Follower posted, it looks like a fellow Calvary Chapelite was charged with some kind of sexual misconduct. The follower's response starts with a childish rhetoric, and is truly difficult to accept -- "winning" a sex abuse case? Really? Does anyone "win" a lawsuit? His quote,
You should do some more research. But I will say, you bring up a good thought. I'll have to research the psychology of gangs and how they come about, who follows them, and such. Thanks again for your post and query. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Try this - http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm. However, I am planning to scrap this whole section, in order to replace it with "the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom of France", essentially an English translation of a section of this French Wikipedia article "Querelles dynastiques françaises." Emerson 07 ( talk) 17:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I see that you also left a message for Ed. As he is an administrator and has access to tools I don;'t have, I'll leave the checking to him, if that's ok with you. Thanks Denisarona ( talk) 07:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Made the changes I talked about. Thanks for dropping a line & making suggestion. Tapered ( talk) 00:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Crisis pregnancy center. 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. Note that Crisis pregnancy center falls under the 1RR situation of all abortion topics. The talk page declares the 1RR condition. Only one revert is allowed per person per day. Binksternet ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
What part of "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" did you fail to comprehend? Nowhere does WP:V states or imply that you "you must at least suspect untruth before deleting".
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you please cease and desist inserting claims that are not WP:Verifiable to their cited source -- this is particularly problematical as your claims about the CRS & ICR being formed in response to the book are patently false -- the former was in the process of being formed well before publication (see chapter in The Creationists), the latter was founded by its co-author.
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Among others, [7], [8], [9] – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Please accept this
invite to join the
Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel ( talk) 10:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
I wanted to thank you for finishing updating the finacial info on the Chipotle Mexican Grill article. I started it, but didn't have time to finish. Thanks again! Angryapathy ( talk) 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Blue, I apologize if my edit summary seemed accusatory. To answer the rest of your questions, the plot summary (any movie plot summary) needs to be short (within WikiProject Film guidelines) and to the point, and it's been a constant struggle to keep it within those bounds. Also, the Plot summary is not a place for emphasizing or interpreting details, or reading the filmmakers minds or pointing out one's own reactions. For instance, your mentioning to me that "My thought was that the first part of the passage (about the 'nations') is highly relevant to the sacrifice Liddell is making at that moment, and that the juxtaposition of what Abrahams and Montague are doing while Liddell is in church reading this passage is important to the effect of this scene, which is arguably the climax of the movie (I certainly wouldn't suggest every scene in the movie be described in this amount of detail)" -- all of that is your personal reaction to and interpretation of the film. These sorts of cherry-picking of details and deciding what the point or climax or meaning of the film is, is not what the Plot summary is for. I hope that makes sense. Softlavender ( talk) 03:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I would obviously prefer not to, but if you need me to I'll go point by point on why I reverted this edit of yours. Let me know. —chaos5023 ( talk) 19:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I rearranged it because, since the article is about centers that counsel women not to have abortions (rather than non-directive counseling like the government centers), it was potentially confusing to describe the government centers first and give the impression that they were the same sort of center as the American, Canadian, etc. ones that we discuss for most of the article. What do you think? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Making an excellent, epic and very popular song into a debate about anti-semitism because of some obscure Quaker publication is completely "non-encyclopedic." Please refrain from simply cancelling out my edits from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 ( talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you know nothing about a subject and don't care enough to properly investigate it, you really shouldn't be screwing with other people's edits, which you seem to not have even bothered to read or appreciate the value of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 ( talk) 03:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Look, I confess my statements were a bit harsh, but I feel strongly that you failed to give adequate consideration to what you were doing: First, the argument you are levying against my original edits commits two logical fallacies: the first is a red herring "appeal to motive," and the second is a form of "damning the source," a form of ad hominem. Second, I deleted nothing in my original set of edits-- I added. And you deleted all of my work, without comment.
I reserve the right to not bother with edit summaries. I do not necessarily have time for that. Edit summaries are not a requirement for Wikipedia editing (in case you have not noticed), nor should they be. In most cases, good edits should speak for themselves.
The problem with your statement "If there is a legitimate controversy that is attested by reliable sources, then we must discuss it" lies in the definition of "legitimate controversy." Relevancy is a clear prerequisite to legitimacy. I cannot respond directly to your statement 'The song's qualities as "excellent, epic and very popular" are irrelevant,' because I do not know what you are talking about. If, however, you are saying that those qualities are, as a blanket statement, or as relates to their presence on Wikipedia, irrelevant, then I completely disagree with you: those qualities are exactly why the song has its own Wikipedia page, and also exactly why it should continue to do so, and, as necessarily follows, why said page should be concise, well written, and relevant to the actual subject. If, on the other hand, you are saying that qualities of excellence, etc., do not make something immune to controversy or the legitimate dissemination of knowledge thereof, then I completely agree-- the truth should speak for itself. Yet, in the writing of an article, one must take into account the reader of the article, and the holistic intellectual impression the reader will get from the entire article. And this is not only the impression of the single article, but of Wikipedia's ability to provide information on such things, and Wikipedia as a whole. If Wikipedia becomes filled with completely meaningless crap, and despite countless edits, no one makes any effort to deal with that, then it is not a very good reference source, and the critics are indeed right.
In response to your objection to my "accusation," I withdraw my statement that you "know nothing about the subject." I withdraw it based solely on the fact that I have insufficient information to make the claim. I'm afraid I can't withdraw the statement that you didn't care enough to adequately investigate. It was not a personal attack, but a legitimate statement of well-reasoned perspective. As I have implied above, the claim of my not being "a serious editor" is actually adequately true, but does not excuse discounting my edits-- that's not how philosophical debate or democracy works. All humans are subject to the adrenaline rush to be gained from "helping" or "contributing," or "acting as an authority," and I'm well aware that Wikipedia feeds on that to a great degree. Objectively speaking, however, it is generally the number of edits that provides an adrenaline rush, but the quality of edits that provides light and truth to the world; unfortunately, quality and quantity of edit(s), if possessing any relation at all, are inverse variables.
As for the assumption of good faith you speak of, I find it utterly insane, and cannot grant your request.
Yes, probably, I should have my own Wikipedia profile. I believe I do have one, but I do not edit Wikipedia frequently enough that I remember what it is, or bother with it. I briefly edit about three Wikipedia pages a year.
Cheers, Tran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 ( talk) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
>>>Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not usually sufficient for edits to "speak for themselves". You must effectively communicate with your fellow editors to enable cooperation. Yes, it is possible >for you to make edits without using edit summaries, but if you do so then you should be prepared for other editors to misunderstand you (see WP:ES), as happened in our case.
Oh, I was. This is not to the credit of the average Wikipedia editor, or to yourself, I'm afraid.
>>>My point about the phrase "excellent, epic and very popular" is that those adjectives are subjective and unverifiable.
Bullshit. I mean, yes, that may have been your point, but if so you are wrong, because that point is bullshit.
>>>The standard for whether a subject is worth having an article is whether the subject is WP:Notable.
Egotistical, elitist bullshit. That is not a standard, it is a code name; code names, basically, are for "in crowds", and your "in crowd" is not one I have a wish to be part of. More importantly, your wholly non-universal "standard" is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand-- you are arguing semantics, and I am not.
>>>Yes, it is true that you did not delete anything in your first set of edits. However, what you did do is add text that was scatological as well as nonsensical.
False. And there was a reference, although somehow it did not make it onto the version you point to. Quite possibly my error. There is a Society of the Moo (I know, because, I started it), and they have exactly the views I ascribed to them, and those views are *exactly* as relevant as those views published in the Quaker article.
>>>and also add the song's lyrics, which is a WP:Copyright violation.
Yes. I did do that. And in a highly questionable way, re: copyright protections, which do have some degree of importance. And I was not mindful of fairly just rules in this case. I am afraid you have me on this point. A well meaning error, however, and from an impartial perspective I would say it was fairly excusable given the context.
>>>To me, this did not pass the smell test, so I reverted. The section blanking came next. All of these are mentioned in WP:Vandalism.
Black text on a white background has no smell, insofar as I am aware. Excuse me, but are you a robot that checks things against keywords in the Wikipedia guidelines? Sorry, but that is not a very efficient way to write *good* Wikipedia articles, though I suppose it works well for avoiding the writing of really realllllly bad ones. Besides, the original set of edits-- not the blanking-- was "vandalism." Direct, pointed vandalism aimed at the pursuit, establishment, and dissemination of the truth, which it has effectively accomplished, for no other reason but that the truth always wins in the end. All of Wikipedia is vandalism, scandal, and graffiti. So is all human knowledge.
>>>I agree that this text could eventually be a useful addition to the article, if you can find appropriate WP:References.
WP:References says... "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source" ... which I did, or intended to do, though I cannot find a record of this.
>>>I'm glad that you find it gratifying to contribute to Wikipedia, but real gratification should come from contribuing well,
The pot backhandedly calleth the kettle black, me thinks.
>>>and to do that you need to conform your contribution to the established process of how Wikipedia works.
I most certainly do not need to do any such thing! And I will not. I will conform my contribution to my own common sense, and you and the thought police can go lock someone else up, because I will not be bound.
>>>I hope what I have written here will help you to do that.
Yeah, not really. Thanks, but no thanks.
>>>Finally, Assuming Good Faith is an indispensible part of how Wikipedia works, and you won't get very far if you can't find it in your heart.
As I already pointed out, I have plenty of faith in my heart in the "good faith" of human beings with their minds unfettered, and no faith at all in individual people who choose to abuse the power they have.
>>>I might point out that I wouldn't have spent as much time as I have writing to you if I were not acting in good faith.
Unless... unless you write out of some sadistic, condescending wish to prove that though you did something clearly wrong, you are in fact still right, and it is I that is in the wrong, and hence that needs to change. That's called blaming the victim, and a LOT of people really seem to enjoy it. I'm glad to hear it makes you feel good, but it's not quite the same thing as acting in good faith.
>>>What assurance do I have that you are doing the same?
None. But I don't actually care.
>>>Given the anonymity of the Internet, not much (no offense, but I hope you can see it from my point of view), but I proceed anyway. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, you're clearly trying very hard to be polite, I'll give you that. And I am definitely being a jackass. But that isn't really the point, is it? The point is the authorship and dissemination of the unbiased truth, and that is better facilitated by sarcasm, direct words, devil's advocacy and rule breaking than it is by robot thinking and courteous conformity, and you only emphasize that further every time you point at your guidebook. Anyway, I get that you're well-intended (most people are); you just happen to be wrong, and advocating for questionable ideals. That said, I have no wish to hurt your feelings further, so let us close this discussion. I won't say that I'll agree to simply disagree, but I'll agree to shut up for the moment on this particular subject if you will. Thank you for your contributions (the good ones, not the shit ones), and for your time; I have at least somewhat enjoyed this discussion. I am sure that the successful operation of Wikipedia hinges considerably more on people like you than it does on people like me.
Cheers, Tran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 ( talk) 11:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rcbrown. I would like to discuss your recent removal of the word "evangelical" (at least when referring to the article subject) from the
Presbyterian Church in America article. While there are certainly elements in the evangelical community that many in the PCA would criticize, it seems to me that they are still part of that community, and that the word should be restored to the article. I'd be interested in your views on the subject, and particularly in your reasons for removing the word. Thanks, --
BlueMoonlet (
t/
c) 00:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is reposted from
User talk:Rcbrown1990.
![]() |
Please accept this
invite to join the
Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – User: John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 01:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
We certainly can use a editor of your caliber
John D. Rockerduck (
talk) 06:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet (I love your user name :o) )
I just thought I'd pop over and say Hi on a friendly level, as I think you may possibly be viewing me / my views as confrontational and / or aggressive, and that's really not who I am!
I do think it's desperately important for non-Autism-spectrum people to internalise the idea that Autism-spectrum disorders which don't affect basic intelligence (or the appearance of it) doesn't mean being "disabled" in any way. Neurotypical and Autistic processing are just differences. (I've been a professional teacher, in my own sphere, for decades, and have taught a huge range of people with differing processing styles and abilities, so I'm really not talking off the top of my head here.)
Compared to neurotypicals, high-functioning autistics and Aspergers people have a "disability" only in terms of the kinds of intuitive interactions with others, and with language, that neurotypicals have. On the other side of the coin, and just as valid, is that neurotypicals have a "disability", compared to A-spectrummers, in data handling. Data storage, data processing, indexing, and rapid access. Each type has an area of dysfunctionality compared to the other type.
In the same way that A-spectrum editors can appear (to neurotypicals) to have seriously sub-standard levels of language and interaction processes, the neurotypicals appear (to high-functioning Aspie/auties, and to A-spectrum savants), to have almost-moronic levels of data processing. This is why we lose patience with each other so readily; it's virtually impossible for each type to be able to believe that the other type isn't being disruptive, or disingenuous, or dishonest (or "disabled"). I've found (for decades!) that one of the best parallels is to think of the two types as two different types of computers. One computer-type has a wonderfully intuitive user-interface, but comparatively lousy data-handling power. The other type has vast data-storage and data-processing powers, but a f*cking lousy (comparatively speaking) user interface. It's a simple case of each computer type coming pre-loaded with different software; not different power. I've found that there's a huge mythconception (I do love that neologism!) amongst neurotypicals about what autism-spectrum really is. That mythconception causes so many problems for all of us, and enlightened education is the only answer to it. So, in short, please don't equate autism with disability or intellectual incompetence! Neither HFA's nor neurotypicals are "thick" compared to the others. We're just different in where our processors direct the power. Pesky ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Mind you, the literalism thing does have its advantages; there's so much unintentional humour lurking in the world which can have A-spectrum people in fits of giggles. Like those notices which say "Part-time people wanted." That one will generally raise snickers from autie-types, just pondering what those individuals might be the rest of the time. Werewolves, perhaps? Pesky ( talk) 01:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been an edit request so the Chick-Fil-A debate you where a party is now in a differant section so your prevoius opinions might not be factored into the editors request for dispute resolution debate. thought you should know and check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chick-fil-A#Edit_request_on_25_July_2012 Algonquin7 ( talk) 00:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Like I said definate "improvement" good compromising skills keep it up and keep me grounded or who knows what I'll do Algonquin7 ( talk) 04:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence, for your efforts above and beyond the call of duty in bringing forward valuable new sources at Talk:Chick-fil-A! Belchfire ( talk) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet, this is Tran-- we quibbled over whether my un-noted blanking out of the "controversy" section of the Lord of the Dance hymn was legitimate or not a couple of months ago.
I am completely fucking amazed by people's continued desire to trash a perfectly good song and scribble over the Wikipedia article thereof in attempts to show that a song which is clearly not racist/prejudiced in intent or in fact has some aura of a plausible claim of being so. The reason why no organization notable enough to fit into a Wikipedia article has come out to criticize the song as anti-Semitic is that notable organizations tend to be notable for a reason and often do not like to throw away positive aspects of their notability by making claims that are clearly false to anyone who is noting what they are saying-- in other words, no one of interest has come out and made the claim because the claim is complete horse crap.
I do not understand the justification for this. I can see that your newest version is an attempt to stave-off less informed/articulate criticism, and I appreciate that.
I still think the "controversy" section is unwarranted. The first stanza of "Deutschlandlied" can be said to be controversial due to historical content. The second stanza of the same song is simply not. "Lord of the Dance" is not anti-semitic, it is not controversial, it is, for lack of a better description, a fucking narrative. If it is a narrative with a moral, the moral is most certainly not "the Jews are bad because it was Jews who killed christ," and in fact is ironically far closer in form to "people who cry 'racism' at every turn of the road are not just crying wolf, they are the wolves." Whether the story itself actually happened, or how it happened, I am inclined leave to the religious scholars, because the historians will never really know. But I will say that I think it is almost certainly clear that if Christ existed, he was a Jew. And that is not really controversial, either. A story that relates one Jew (set of Jews) having problems with another set of Jews cannot be said to be anti-Semitic unless it somehow says something bad about everyone involved... similarly the song in question cannot be said to be discriminatory except towards a real or hypothetical group of people that would rough someone up / kill them for healing the sick on the wrong day of the week. I am leaving the page basically alone for now, but will be periodically checking back and will probably be blanking the section again if it is "adjusted" such that it more obviously conflicts with the relevant facts.
Hello there. You mentioned that you would e-mail electronic copies of Boston Globe articles concerning the ICOC to interested parties; well, I'm an interested party. Feel free to send them to me at nietzsche12395@yahoo.com. Thanks, - Nietzsche123 ( talk) 23:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet,
I was wondering why you deleted my addition of the "Criticism" section to the World Baseball Classic article. I read through the Wikipedia guidelines and didn't feel that it was in violation of any of them. I've seen many articles with similar "Controversies" or "Criticism" sections. Perhaps I missed something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basically33 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear BlueMoonlet,
I was wondering how I could gain access to the Nova Publishers page so that I can edit its contents. I work for Nova Publishers and would like to add some content regarding Book Reviews to our Wikipedia page. I am new to Wikipedia so I am really not familiar with how it works. It appears the page is semi-protected and that I need to contact the admin for this page. I would like to be able to make edits myself, if at all possible, since edits may be frequently. If so, please let me know what you may need from me.
Thank you! Pub Market ( talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
While I was 100% on board with the move, it probably would've been best to wait a bit longer to fully establish consensus on the talk page before making a controversial move. Inks.LWC ( talk) 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Liberty | |
As one of the core contributors to WP:RFC/AAMC, I hereby award you this barnstar. Through continued effort, policy-grounded thinking and consensus-building, we succeeded where measures as extreme as an outright ArbCom mandate to come up with an answer failed. Thanks for your dedicated work! —chaos5023 ( talk) 02:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC) |
I noticed that you were a part of the Winter Storm Athena/ 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season fiasco. So, I thought you would like to stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus and offer your input. Thanks, United States Man ( talk) 04:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kennedy Center Honors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page That's the way it is ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your interest in ResearchGate but don't agree that the source you've cited for the spam criticism is a legitimate source by Wikipedia standards. Because there has been some back and forth on this issue over several months, I felt it best to bring the spam criticism issue up with Wikipedia's dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. JNorman704 ( talk) 01:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The image was deleted as a copy of it was available on commons per Wikipedia:CSD#F8. Thus discussion would now need to occur on commons not Wikipedia. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited His Honour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hizzoner ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited So Taguchi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Can't believe I hadn't thought of including Sikorski's accident in the airport article... Thank you for your contribution! -- Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am sorry I had to mention your name here and drag you into all of that. It is entirely okay if you do not wish to take part in the discussion. I just thought it would be fair to notify you. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Was there a section we were going to write in this article? I vaguely recall we were going to collaborate on something, but I don't remember what. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Red Sox: [10], [11], [12], [13]
White Sox: [14], [15], [16], [17]
Those are only a handful of the sources I found after a minute-long Google search. Your contentions to the contrary that this is not how it should be are unfortunately irrelevant. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, the vast majority of which say the Red Sox had an 86-year drought and the White Sox had an 88-year drought. TempDog123 ( talk) 19:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you help with making the Cincinnati Christian University and related articles better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatsONS ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominion Theology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Christianity ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am reviewing information you post and delete on Nova site. And its quite confusing to me, especially when facts are deleted. I would like to know your reasoning behind it.
Thank you. Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaCRittenberg ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:List of United States congressional districts related to style of new district-level maps for the post-2013 United States congressional districts. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. -- 7partparadigm talk 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In your zeal to improve the article Article the First you removed the defaultsort and category from the article with this edit. Take care. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angevins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page House of Anjou ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You are correct that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "collection of indiscriminate facts". Neither is it supposed to be filled with opinionated quotes from personal blogs/websites, especially if the original statement is not entirely true. Beatrice Lugger's complaint was exaggerated and RG members are very unlikely to obtain higher scores unless having an extensive publication record. Her statement should not have been quoted in the first place.
The facts that I now have given can be obtained through the original reference, but I will also add a link to her RG profile. The section is now professionally written and does not single her out. Your removal will be reverted on a daily basis until you have suggested a compromise or engaged in a more meaningful discussion. Why do you remove without attempting to modify/check facts in the first place? As a researcher, you are certainly aware of the open peer-review process. No offense taken.
Regards, Sjuttiosjuochfjorton
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " ResearchGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I invited you to a conflict dispute although you are doing a decent job moderating (I am getting nowhere with Chire and it is clear that he has an agenda). I have asked for 3 more editors that will make an effort and do some serious background search. Also, editors should of course have RG accounts or have knowledge about the site Sjuttiosjuochfjorton ( talk) 00:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet, I need help finishing updating several pages related to the US congress and ensuring that Wikipedia has current district maps represented. There is not too much left to do, but I could use a hand doing it. Details are here. Thank you -- 7partparadigm talk 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. Please come along and contribute at Talk:Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom#Dukes of Here and There. Thanks! DBD 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
For having an opinion about the involved imagery and its place on both Commons and here on Wikipedia for the article on anencephaly, which shall always be a tricky and emotional subject, but at least let it be one presented with properly licensed imagery. Thanks! KDS4444 Talk 12:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI -- Kaptinavenger ( talk) 08:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:BlueMoonlet I disagree with your edits on articles about the Dukes of Albany. The legislation is very clear. People who needed permission for their marriages under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and not obtain them have conducted marriages that can have no consequences under British Law. This has recently been discussed again on this talk page. I'm going to revert your edits for now, awaiting a secondary source that indeed explicitly puts the question in doubt. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 01:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, BlueMoonlet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people with quadriplegia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with quadriplegia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Maile ( talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi BlueMoonlet, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 03:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's what the rivalry should say, not "S.F. Giants vs. L.A. Dodgers". It should follow the informal "standard" used with these: Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry and White Sox-Cubs rivalry. I think some anon set it up that way. I will probably move it sometime in the next few days, if no one else does. d:) Wahkeenah 17:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Any objections to renaming the article? Wahkeenah 13:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Great work on the Dodgers article. Keep it up! -- Dysepsion 07:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find the wording confusing. Moses' plan was not "realized" until 1964, when Shea Stadium was opened. And the Mets themselves were not Moses' plan as such, just the ballpark... in conjunction with the 1964-65 World's Fair, whose plan was also Moses', as I recall, and of which Shea Stadium was a part, albeit on the other side of the tracks from it. Wahkeenah 18:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks good now. :) Wahkeenah 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't write that part. I saw it, and wondered what the point was. Scully's not an independent commentator. He's paid by the ball club. They hand him a script that talks about upcoming games, he's expected to read it. End of story. Anyone who didn't know about the impending strike was an "ignoranimous". And right up to the last day, people were at least hopeful it could be averted. So I think whoever wrote that either has something against Vin Scully or more likely wasn't around at the time and doesn't know that the strike was not necessarily a foregone conclusion. Wahkeenah 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear, but I meant to address the second part of that message to the user who had added that paragraph. I agree with your assessment, and would not mind if you wanted to remove it. -- BlueMoonlet 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I realized that later. It was late after a long working weekend. :) Regarding the Scully comments you beat me to it, and that's fine. And you improved the stuff I added about the ballparks and the nicknames. Good work.
Ithaca, NY. Don't they have a waterfall there, possibly right on campus? Wahkeenah 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
One down and twenty-nine to go. That user "FPAtl" took it upon himself to do that redundant entry on every one of the major league baseball sites. Wahkeenah 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I've never really been involved in any decency/censorship debate before; I just got drawn into this one accidentally because I have Talk:Main page on my watchlist and I pretty regularly check the main page for poorly-worded entries. I don't actually care that much about the issue, I just get annoyed by smug self-righteousness (which where decency/censorship is concerned can be found on both sides of the debate). If you want to start a policy discussion on Talk:Main page you can try; but I doubt you'll get anywhere. Cheers. Doops | talk 19:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good and I like it; do you have a source? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 21:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Think I've now blocked all the accounts involved (including, but not limited to, the ones you reported). Please do report any others you come across. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Petros471 10:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Try doing an edit here and look at the following:
*This line starts with an asterisk...
Enjoy! :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, BlueMoonlet!
I'm a Lloydie, and I've taken an interest in the article about the student hovses. I notice that you did the lion's share of the work when the present article was created by merging seven separate articles into one. So I have a few questions for you.
Please write back, either here or on my talk page. Thanks for your time, and have a great day! DavidCBryant 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to participate in
WikiProject Calvinism
The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
![]() |
-- Flex ( talk| contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Yarkovsky.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been itching to do that for a while, but I've been a little hyperfocused on getting United States to FA. Again, thanks. Here's the notes I was keeping about the merge:
There's still probably some good work to be done. Let me know if you need a hand. MrZaius talk 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out BlueMoonlet, you must have looked very carefully at the article to spot that. The source for that particular piece of text is translated and then reworded from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia; while other wikipedias are not allowed to be sourced, the note at the bottom allows people to know that some, techically unsourced information exists in the article. The corresponding German article was atypically verbose, and that part was something I found rather difficult to understand. Therefore, that particular piece of text which you see is my very best interpretation of the translation. However, since you dispute it, you should take a look at the German Wikipedia article about the subject. The link for the article can be found near the bottom, under the References section. I hope that you can perhaps understand it better than me, and maybe you will even be able to "translate" more of the article (parts I could not actually put into coherent English) to add to the en.Wikipedia. Thanks, and I hope I have adequately cleared the matter up. Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
mmmmm. I think Paliament doesn't look very favorably at such "holding court". HMQ can call herself by any name she wants providing she gets approval from Parliament. HMQ certainly doesn't get that approval by "holding court". The whole paragraph is a nonsense. In 1917 George V, changed his name and that of all his decendants to Windsor by Act of Parliament. No need for "holding court" - the law says that all decendants of George V are Windsor. The only way of changing that is through repeal and a new act. Please consider edits to Wikipedia pages very seriously. I know that this particular paragraph has been copied from wikipedia several times and is just plain bullshit. Mike33 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you forget to add that part? Mike33 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This About The House of Windsor
Geneologically yes such concerns stand but the house of windsor is simply a an instrument of parliament. It is not a royal house. it is an instrument of parliament which gives the children of George V the right to title themselves. dont get silly. they all have titles above and beyond house of windsor. but this is not the article to state honorifics Mike33 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
AS PER PARLIAMENT are u joking? 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa Belief overides knowledge. I must apologise ten times. You are quite right that there wasn't a parliamentary act. Although the "decree" and further "decrees" have no legal basis, they should be included. Forgive my use of bullshit and my insistance on parliament. Mike33 02:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me. It's been a rough week or so, and your comments on my discussion page have slipped my mind. As you've mentioned I would, I greatly disagree with you. The "official nicknames" as you call them, are known as that harkening back to the time when the teams were officially known as Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Chicago AL and names like Orioles, Reds, and Cubs were "nicknames" used by fans and the media. Nowadays, these aren't nicknames, they're just the names of the teams. The nicknames are names which are used by the fans, the media, and, in most cases, the team and it's broadcasters. You've already noted the circulation of "Bronx Bombers". "A's" is more frequently used than Athletics. "Blue Crew" is what the dodgers are referred to in the name of the team's organization-owned fan club. "Cubbies" is used not only by fans, but by the organization during the singing of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game".
These nicknames are information about the team, and should not be excluded. First of all, they are other names for the subject, and those go in the lead, more often than not in bold like the subject's standard or full name. The nicknames usually take up a small block of text in the lead, and are sometimes taken care of in one sentence or in a few words in a set of parenthesis. I think that, when you say "They are also known as" or something to that effect before mentioning the names, they're in enough context for people to figure out what they mean. The article isn't telling people to use them, but it does explain that they are other names for the team, and in many instances explains the meaning behind them. As for the infobox, that is one nickname, the most widely used one, that we put there. The only instances where the most widely used one is not the one displayed is when it comes to the Red Sox and the White Sox, where they share the nickname "The Sox". I have not added all the nicknames for these teams, and, in fact, I've been joined by other wikipedians who want these names to stay on their pages. The White Sox and Cubs pages have repeatedly tried to add more nicknames to the infobox, but more than one makes it too crowded. The Mets page's people have already reverted your changes, with no prompting by me. I've not added all the nicknames, and didn't even know of most of them until the good people of each page's own little community revealed them. In fact, I didn't even add them all to the infoboxes.
The nicknames have never been fought against (the only exception being the Braves), and have, in fact, been added to. The people have embraced them, changing them, if need be. They are not unsourced and unencyclopedic. No name has been added by me unless I had firsthand knowledge, or have researched the name and seen that it is used by the media or the fans. Most, if not all, are used by the organization at the stadium, on merchandize, by broadcasters, or in websites. I believe that's enough to be considered "official". These things are information about the team, and as such, should be included. -- Silent Wind of Doom 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to help me create a WikiProject for the Dodgers? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You might have heard this one: "In the Big Inning, God created the heaven and the earth..." Baseball Bugs 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In all technicality, I can challenge everything on the page since no specific source is provided for any of the information. If you want examples, please see Wikipedia:Good articles. Almost every page there provides a source after every fact. A good article doesn't wait until a fact is challenged to be cited; it provides the the citations before it even be challenged. Let's take a look at a few examples. Under Early Brooklyn baseball, it states "Eight of 16 participants in the first convention were from Brooklyn, including the Atlantic, Eckford and Excelsior clubs that combined to dominate play for most of the 1860s." If a curious reader decides to look up where that information is coming from, it can't be done. There are no references provided for that specific statement. The entire history section runs along the same line; no specific source is provided for any of the information. The article is not properly cited until specific references are attributed to each statement.
PS I choose to remain anonymous. That's the beauty of Wikipedia; anyone, and not just registered users, is allowed to make edits. I have a talk page should you choose to use it. 75.183.24.180 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How do I withdraw the AFD? -- RucasHost 09:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
High, Blue Moonlet You seem to be the only wikipedist interested in fever trees. Do you have an idea why instead of saying, as you do, that Acacia xanthophloea grows near swamps, several webpages (Worldweb, Definition.com;, and others) say that it "marks healthful regions"? That does not make much sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredr ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, if you get a moment or two, could you look over the page I created at RHEMA Bible Training Center? Any input would be valuable and appreciated. Thanks! -- profg 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For your excellent wording improvements suggested at WP:ERRORS. — TKD:: Talk 02:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your bang-up job of researching, improving, and continuing to improve Dominionism with those who differ. |
-- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
PS, I decided to give you this before I saw the barnstar you won above. See, everyone (well, almost) thinks you're doing good work!
Since you've taken it upon yourself to undo this chronically disruptive supposed "editor" 's community ban, myself and the others he wikistalked and harassed intend to hold you responsible for ensuring that he lives up to the specific terms of his parole: 1) 1RR, 2) zero tolerance for wikistalking, harassment and incivility. IOW, if he starts up with this nonsense again, you are expected to restore the block. He's your and User:B's responsibility now, accept it. Odd nature 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in the unblock. If it's not too much trouble, I would like to ask you to monitor all of my activities and interactions with others, especially with those who brought and fought for the charges resulting in the indef block, with the purpose of giving me warning, instruction, and (in general) mentoring me along the way here at Wikipedia. I admire your fairness in contributing to the WP project, and would appreciate your assistance here. -- profg Talk 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Your slur against ON on AN is totally out of line. Guettarda 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Reswobslc. I sympathize with your most recent comment on the DRV. "Anti-X" implies prejudice or persecution based on a person's beliefs (or other fundamental characteristics), and certainly there is plenty of real anti-Mormonism to be found in this world. But a reasoned critique of a belief system should not be included under that heading. "Protesting" in this context is anti-Mormon because it is speaking without listening; "proselytism" (at least at its best) is not. Thus I would not submit the people in the image as examples of how "anti-Mormonism" isn't always so bad; rather, they should not be in the article because they fundamentally were not engaging in anti-Mormon activity.
Anyway, I am not presently inclined to jump into this topic with both feet, but if an issue ever arises on which you would think it helpful for me to comment, please let me know. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I really do appreciate someone else caring about reliable sources. Turtlescrubber 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I got your email. Not all was as it seems there based on other emails I've received. I don't think I need more input for accurately describing that situation, but thanks for offering. GRBerry 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Dominionism. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. I'm not choosing to get into a fight with you about this, but you are at 3RR, and I know you know better. I don't traditionally slap a warning on experienced editors, but again, you should know better.
OrangeMarlin
Talk•
Contributions 04:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
At User talk:Jeepday#Muscovite99 you requested my input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muscovite99 which appears to have been resolved or settled since your request. I believe my participation is no longer required on the issue if there is something else please let me know. Jeepday ( talk) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Blue,
Thanks for the suggestion. I nominated Rings of Rhea at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 7, in case you want to chime in. — kwami ( talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those can be deleted, but it's kind of a pain -- it requires temporarily deleting each vandalized page and then restoring it without the vandal edits. We usually only do that if there's really nasty stuff in the edit summary. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice! Malinaccier ( talk) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
My original post on User talk:Akda18: Hi Akda18. I appreciate your thinking twice about reverting that edit a second time, and I also appreciate the good faith you showed by trying to improve the edit instead. However, it is not acceptable content to simply give your opinion on why Os Guinness may have ulterior motives. We need the opinion of a reliable source. I am happy to talk about this further with you. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'd read the book you would have seen letters from Frank's sisters which he included in the book with their permission (he had requested that they write something he could include in the book). Os' bias is obvious; like anyone else he seeks to defend his friends' integrity (who wouldn't?). Frank position is that he's just finally trying to come clean and make peace with his past. But you are right in that this isn't an appropriate argument for wikipedia...and I've left your last edit intact. On the other hand I believe it's appropriate to edit clear bias wherever it's found on wikipedia. As a religious person I am all too aware that individuals of faith have a tendency to express bias and shout down evidence to the contrary in an attempt to justify their faith to themselves. In truth, we are all human, and all humans have shortcomings. It seems to me to be either ignorance or cult-like denial to either ignore or deny the shortcomings of our leaders when faced with evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akda18 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV inputs to the articles 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation would be greatly appreciated. The 1831 polygamy revelation article in particular is receiving a lot of attention since its appearance on the DYK section of the main page, and many recent editors appear to be fixated on endowing it with a particular POV and deleting relevant cited information from reliable sources. If you are knowledgeable about this subject, please feel free to edit these articles yourself, or invite other editors to do so. Écrasez l'infâme ( talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the discussion at 1831 polygamy revelation and just thought you might consider not taking sides so blatantly. In the spirit of corroboration, lets try to avoid saying "he is right, and you are wrong" - speak to the issues and give your opinion on the content, not the editors. The topic is controversial enough, and already has escalated to nearly an edit war, and your comments I fear may escalate it further rather than diffuse the situation. Thanks for your consideration. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping on Aimee's page, I got my edits reverted two times on that page. Zolo6 —Preceding comment was added at 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Aimee really wants me to edit her page since I'm in Demolay. Zolo6- July 11 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok I get you don't worry and I read all the rules, it took me 20 minutes in total, but I know all the rules and editing rules too. -- Zolo6 ( talk) 03:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Crossposted to both user talkpages.
Y'all don't edit war now, ya hear? Talk this one over. GRBerry 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
My original post on User talk:Nergaal: Hi Nergaal. Would you please explain your reversion of my edits? Thanks, -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the wording a bit, and added a [transition] comment where it's more disjointed than I cared to fix. kwami ( talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Peace, Nergaal ( talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think your input is exactly what I am looking for. "Impartial" is difficult to pin down sometimes. Perhaps better than impartial, you can see the subject from more than one side and offer suggestions. Once a day is more than sufficient. Once a week would be plenty. My own objective is to move the editing process of the article forward so that it is eventually not divided between promotional and critical but integrates information in a realistic manner. Admittedly, I've chosen touchy subjects, but I think they are historically significant. Certainly, there is no lack of published material to warrant inclusion. Also, as this material is worked through, I hope this will tip the editing process in a more fruitful direction. Don Van Duyse ( talk) 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, BlueMoonlet, but it has become obvious to me that, when it comes to religion (especially Christianity), the rules suddenly become skewed. Someone who is employed by a university, for example, may be considered an "expert" on the subject, while someone who attends a church that is part of a larger fellowship has their neutrality questioned? Nonetheless, the issue I had with all the 9/11 blather is that it was all about Chuck Smith, not Calvary Chapel. Smith doesn't speak for every church that is part of the fellowship (technically it's not a denomination, as it does lack some of the support system a typical denomination has). His beliefs on a particular item don't seem to be a reliable part of the article, any more than Lee Iacocca's opinion of a hospital would be worth placing into an article about the hospital or Chrysler.
Still, with the neutrality question thrown up, the credibility of anything related to Christianity on Wikipedia has plummeted farther and faster than any stock has done lately. Meanwhile, I've got better things to do than to check Wikipedia every hour for a comment on something; if a 24-hour period is too long for a "consensus," then I'll never be part of the consensus. Why bother? -- Joe Sewell ( talk) 17:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Saw your note on the edits. Agree that it would be nice if he had a page. I believe he used to have one but it was very poorly written, or maybe that was part of the church link all along. Some reasons I believe he deserves listing as a prominent pastor of CC.
- senior pastor of the largest church (not just largest Calvary) in Florida - CC Ft. L has its own wiki page - consistent speaker at yearly Southeast Calvary Chapel pastor's conferences (and possibly others) - guest teacher at Billy Graham's "The Cove" training center. Next event here: http://www.thecove.org/event.aspx?eventid=409&typeid=1 - launched Christian radio station ReachFM (currently with repeaters throughout Florida), also with its own Wiki page
Thoughts? 71.203.159.204 ( talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please cite a reference for your addition? Amandajm ( talk) 07:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, BlueMoonlet. I am just curious why you didn't like the use of word "moonlet" throughout the 1994 CC article (esp. given it is a part of your nick, j/k ;)) ? Is it due to seemingly unofficial status of the word moonlet or since it's an asteroid moon (which you wikified, but the display word could still remain a moonlet since it's used quite frequently as a term for small moons, and no doubt will be adopted officially eventually)? It kind of makes sense to describe these two as moonlets as they are squite small compared to the main asteroid's size. I also saw a common use of the word to describe small Saturnian moons embedded in its rings and perturbing the material in them as references on the Moonlet's wiki article and the externally referenced Google books search for the word. Why does it have to come from a professional astronomer to call a small moon a moonlet? I don't think the "professional astronomer" status or lack thereof makes one more or less qualified to call small moons moonlets. Just like it's not required to have a status of a professional programmer/developer/software engineer to call small scripts as scriptlets, small server components servlets, small applications as applets, etc. Granted, I am a far cry from a pro astronomer, but that should not disqualify me before you using this simple word in my edits. I do my reading, too. -- Mokhov ( talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I shall get in touch again with Dr. T. and explain somethings about Wikipedia about Wikipedia. It will be better if I deal with this. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your response on Calvary Chapel's government. I know it's a little late. I forgot about it until I was browsing through the talk page and saw your response! Ltwin ( talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas ( talk) 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
I see your work on my watchlists all the time. Thank you for your dedication to improving scientific topics on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC) |
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hillman College. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillman College. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
My concern is thatif all you are doing is comparing the two lists, then you have used Wikipedia as a source, and it is not conisdered reliable. All information that is likely to be challenged must be cited, and since this is featured content, and soon to be part of a featured topic which the baseball project has worked long and hard on, there can't be any question as to whether the information is verified, or how. It needs to have a source to be included. Additionally, overlinking was a concern, and I would have simply de-linked if that was the only issue that I saw. If you do plan to re-insert the information, please be sure and check to see that you haven't duplicated any links from earlier in the lead or other prose. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This discussion is worthwhile, but it belongs on the article's Talk page, not in a personal back-and-forth. if you'd like to launch a thread there, I'll be happy to respond. Best, Dan.— DCGeist ( talk) 17:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the amount of time you've spent on Wikipedia, you have no excuse for not knowing better than to make the edit you did to perfect game under the rationale you offered. You're unhappiness with my "tone" is de minimis in comparison. No more personal communications about this, please. Let's keep it on the article Talk pages where it belongs.— DCGeist ( talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines 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) 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Blue. I prefer the old wording in the Alvin Greene article. Would you consider reverting? Identifying that an election outcome would be historic doesn't violate any policy. So no reqording was necessary. Freakshownerd ( talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To the left of the search bar? Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 19:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for looking over our intro to the article. I am one of the primary editors on the article and after letting it set for a couple weeks due to real life commitments I noticed multiple minor copy edit issues that I (we) had become immune to after working on it so hard. I've been purposely staying away from it as much as possible, other then monitoring it for damage, so I can tackle some of the issues I think it still has with a fresh set of eyes. I welcome any other fresh eyes who would like to help touch it up. Thanks again for your contribution. Cheers, Veriss ( talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet. As the creator of the redirect at Martyn Minns, you may have an interest in, or a contribution to make at, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bolman Deal/Martyn Minns. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In your last edit to this template, you said "This template is not for links to individuals, but links to titles." The problem is, that's impossible to do consistently for the female titles. Only Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of York, and Duchess of Rothesay meet your standard. Duchess of Cambridge and Countess of Wessex are both redirects to articles about the current holders of those titles. Duchess of Gloucester is a redirect to an article about the ducal title. And Duchess of Kent is a disambiguation page, which is not supposed to be the target of incoming links. (Perhaps the problem is not so much the link being in the template, as the fact that having a disambiguation page at this title is not a very good idea.) Any thoughts? -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Good clarification. Many thanks. Michael J. Mullany ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
From looking at the talk page archive, I see you you were a voice of moderation at Calvary Chapel some time ago. Care to weigh in there again? Mojoworker ( talk) 23:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to register my appreciation for once again being a voice of moderation on the most recent dispute. -- Esquire880 ( talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait, you already are. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 05:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Would you be open to reverting your recent change on the CC page? I agree with your point in the edit summary; however, I thought leaving it would help smooth things over and it was also going to be a reminder to me research and provide references when I have some time. 71.199.242.40 ( talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read Tausch, A. (2011) before blindly reverting prose. I correctly represented the source's actual research, which wasn't a quality ranking at all. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
(response to your query) -- Yes, BlueMoonlet, gang mentality.
Here is another example of a zealous follower's comments. I have not looked into the news reports at all, I just googled "Calvary Chapel gang mentality" and clicked on one of the many links. From what the Calvary Follower posted, it looks like a fellow Calvary Chapelite was charged with some kind of sexual misconduct. The follower's response starts with a childish rhetoric, and is truly difficult to accept -- "winning" a sex abuse case? Really? Does anyone "win" a lawsuit? His quote,
You should do some more research. But I will say, you bring up a good thought. I'll have to research the psychology of gangs and how they come about, who follows them, and such. Thanks again for your post and query. Sliceofmiami ( talk) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Try this - http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm. However, I am planning to scrap this whole section, in order to replace it with "the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom of France", essentially an English translation of a section of this French Wikipedia article "Querelles dynastiques françaises." Emerson 07 ( talk) 17:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I see that you also left a message for Ed. As he is an administrator and has access to tools I don;'t have, I'll leave the checking to him, if that's ok with you. Thanks Denisarona ( talk) 07:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Made the changes I talked about. Thanks for dropping a line & making suggestion. Tapered ( talk) 00:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Crisis pregnancy center. 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. Note that Crisis pregnancy center falls under the 1RR situation of all abortion topics. The talk page declares the 1RR condition. Only one revert is allowed per person per day. Binksternet ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
What part of "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" did you fail to comprehend? Nowhere does WP:V states or imply that you "you must at least suspect untruth before deleting".
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you please cease and desist inserting claims that are not WP:Verifiable to their cited source -- this is particularly problematical as your claims about the CRS & ICR being formed in response to the book are patently false -- the former was in the process of being formed well before publication (see chapter in The Creationists), the latter was founded by its co-author.
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Among others, [7], [8], [9] – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Please accept this
invite to join the
Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel ( talk) 10:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
I wanted to thank you for finishing updating the finacial info on the Chipotle Mexican Grill article. I started it, but didn't have time to finish. Thanks again! Angryapathy ( talk) 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Blue, I apologize if my edit summary seemed accusatory. To answer the rest of your questions, the plot summary (any movie plot summary) needs to be short (within WikiProject Film guidelines) and to the point, and it's been a constant struggle to keep it within those bounds. Also, the Plot summary is not a place for emphasizing or interpreting details, or reading the filmmakers minds or pointing out one's own reactions. For instance, your mentioning to me that "My thought was that the first part of the passage (about the 'nations') is highly relevant to the sacrifice Liddell is making at that moment, and that the juxtaposition of what Abrahams and Montague are doing while Liddell is in church reading this passage is important to the effect of this scene, which is arguably the climax of the movie (I certainly wouldn't suggest every scene in the movie be described in this amount of detail)" -- all of that is your personal reaction to and interpretation of the film. These sorts of cherry-picking of details and deciding what the point or climax or meaning of the film is, is not what the Plot summary is for. I hope that makes sense. Softlavender ( talk) 03:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I would obviously prefer not to, but if you need me to I'll go point by point on why I reverted this edit of yours. Let me know. —chaos5023 ( talk) 19:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I rearranged it because, since the article is about centers that counsel women not to have abortions (rather than non-directive counseling like the government centers), it was potentially confusing to describe the government centers first and give the impression that they were the same sort of center as the American, Canadian, etc. ones that we discuss for most of the article. What do you think? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Making an excellent, epic and very popular song into a debate about anti-semitism because of some obscure Quaker publication is completely "non-encyclopedic." Please refrain from simply cancelling out my edits from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 ( talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you know nothing about a subject and don't care enough to properly investigate it, you really shouldn't be screwing with other people's edits, which you seem to not have even bothered to read or appreciate the value of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 ( talk) 03:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Look, I confess my statements were a bit harsh, but I feel strongly that you failed to give adequate consideration to what you were doing: First, the argument you are levying against my original edits commits two logical fallacies: the first is a red herring "appeal to motive," and the second is a form of "damning the source," a form of ad hominem. Second, I deleted nothing in my original set of edits-- I added. And you deleted all of my work, without comment.
I reserve the right to not bother with edit summaries. I do not necessarily have time for that. Edit summaries are not a requirement for Wikipedia editing (in case you have not noticed), nor should they be. In most cases, good edits should speak for themselves.
The problem with your statement "If there is a legitimate controversy that is attested by reliable sources, then we must discuss it" lies in the definition of "legitimate controversy." Relevancy is a clear prerequisite to legitimacy. I cannot respond directly to your statement 'The song's qualities as "excellent, epic and very popular" are irrelevant,' because I do not know what you are talking about. If, however, you are saying that those qualities are, as a blanket statement, or as relates to their presence on Wikipedia, irrelevant, then I completely disagree with you: those qualities are exactly why the song has its own Wikipedia page, and also exactly why it should continue to do so, and, as necessarily follows, why said page should be concise, well written, and relevant to the actual subject. If, on the other hand, you are saying that qualities of excellence, etc., do not make something immune to controversy or the legitimate dissemination of knowledge thereof, then I completely agree-- the truth should speak for itself. Yet, in the writing of an article, one must take into account the reader of the article, and the holistic intellectual impression the reader will get from the entire article. And this is not only the impression of the single article, but of Wikipedia's ability to provide information on such things, and Wikipedia as a whole. If Wikipedia becomes filled with completely meaningless crap, and despite countless edits, no one makes any effort to deal with that, then it is not a very good reference source, and the critics are indeed right.
In response to your objection to my "accusation," I withdraw my statement that you "know nothing about the subject." I withdraw it based solely on the fact that I have insufficient information to make the claim. I'm afraid I can't withdraw the statement that you didn't care enough to adequately investigate. It was not a personal attack, but a legitimate statement of well-reasoned perspective. As I have implied above, the claim of my not being "a serious editor" is actually adequately true, but does not excuse discounting my edits-- that's not how philosophical debate or democracy works. All humans are subject to the adrenaline rush to be gained from "helping" or "contributing," or "acting as an authority," and I'm well aware that Wikipedia feeds on that to a great degree. Objectively speaking, however, it is generally the number of edits that provides an adrenaline rush, but the quality of edits that provides light and truth to the world; unfortunately, quality and quantity of edit(s), if possessing any relation at all, are inverse variables.
As for the assumption of good faith you speak of, I find it utterly insane, and cannot grant your request.
Yes, probably, I should have my own Wikipedia profile. I believe I do have one, but I do not edit Wikipedia frequently enough that I remember what it is, or bother with it. I briefly edit about three Wikipedia pages a year.
Cheers, Tran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 ( talk) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
>>>Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not usually sufficient for edits to "speak for themselves". You must effectively communicate with your fellow editors to enable cooperation. Yes, it is possible >for you to make edits without using edit summaries, but if you do so then you should be prepared for other editors to misunderstand you (see WP:ES), as happened in our case.
Oh, I was. This is not to the credit of the average Wikipedia editor, or to yourself, I'm afraid.
>>>My point about the phrase "excellent, epic and very popular" is that those adjectives are subjective and unverifiable.
Bullshit. I mean, yes, that may have been your point, but if so you are wrong, because that point is bullshit.
>>>The standard for whether a subject is worth having an article is whether the subject is WP:Notable.
Egotistical, elitist bullshit. That is not a standard, it is a code name; code names, basically, are for "in crowds", and your "in crowd" is not one I have a wish to be part of. More importantly, your wholly non-universal "standard" is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand-- you are arguing semantics, and I am not.
>>>Yes, it is true that you did not delete anything in your first set of edits. However, what you did do is add text that was scatological as well as nonsensical.
False. And there was a reference, although somehow it did not make it onto the version you point to. Quite possibly my error. There is a Society of the Moo (I know, because, I started it), and they have exactly the views I ascribed to them, and those views are *exactly* as relevant as those views published in the Quaker article.
>>>and also add the song's lyrics, which is a WP:Copyright violation.
Yes. I did do that. And in a highly questionable way, re: copyright protections, which do have some degree of importance. And I was not mindful of fairly just rules in this case. I am afraid you have me on this point. A well meaning error, however, and from an impartial perspective I would say it was fairly excusable given the context.
>>>To me, this did not pass the smell test, so I reverted. The section blanking came next. All of these are mentioned in WP:Vandalism.
Black text on a white background has no smell, insofar as I am aware. Excuse me, but are you a robot that checks things against keywords in the Wikipedia guidelines? Sorry, but that is not a very efficient way to write *good* Wikipedia articles, though I suppose it works well for avoiding the writing of really realllllly bad ones. Besides, the original set of edits-- not the blanking-- was "vandalism." Direct, pointed vandalism aimed at the pursuit, establishment, and dissemination of the truth, which it has effectively accomplished, for no other reason but that the truth always wins in the end. All of Wikipedia is vandalism, scandal, and graffiti. So is all human knowledge.
>>>I agree that this text could eventually be a useful addition to the article, if you can find appropriate WP:References.
WP:References says... "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source" ... which I did, or intended to do, though I cannot find a record of this.
>>>I'm glad that you find it gratifying to contribute to Wikipedia, but real gratification should come from contribuing well,
The pot backhandedly calleth the kettle black, me thinks.
>>>and to do that you need to conform your contribution to the established process of how Wikipedia works.
I most certainly do not need to do any such thing! And I will not. I will conform my contribution to my own common sense, and you and the thought police can go lock someone else up, because I will not be bound.
>>>I hope what I have written here will help you to do that.
Yeah, not really. Thanks, but no thanks.
>>>Finally, Assuming Good Faith is an indispensible part of how Wikipedia works, and you won't get very far if you can't find it in your heart.
As I already pointed out, I have plenty of faith in my heart in the "good faith" of human beings with their minds unfettered, and no faith at all in individual people who choose to abuse the power they have.
>>>I might point out that I wouldn't have spent as much time as I have writing to you if I were not acting in good faith.
Unless... unless you write out of some sadistic, condescending wish to prove that though you did something clearly wrong, you are in fact still right, and it is I that is in the wrong, and hence that needs to change. That's called blaming the victim, and a LOT of people really seem to enjoy it. I'm glad to hear it makes you feel good, but it's not quite the same thing as acting in good faith.
>>>What assurance do I have that you are doing the same?
None. But I don't actually care.
>>>Given the anonymity of the Internet, not much (no offense, but I hope you can see it from my point of view), but I proceed anyway. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, you're clearly trying very hard to be polite, I'll give you that. And I am definitely being a jackass. But that isn't really the point, is it? The point is the authorship and dissemination of the unbiased truth, and that is better facilitated by sarcasm, direct words, devil's advocacy and rule breaking than it is by robot thinking and courteous conformity, and you only emphasize that further every time you point at your guidebook. Anyway, I get that you're well-intended (most people are); you just happen to be wrong, and advocating for questionable ideals. That said, I have no wish to hurt your feelings further, so let us close this discussion. I won't say that I'll agree to simply disagree, but I'll agree to shut up for the moment on this particular subject if you will. Thank you for your contributions (the good ones, not the shit ones), and for your time; I have at least somewhat enjoyed this discussion. I am sure that the successful operation of Wikipedia hinges considerably more on people like you than it does on people like me.
Cheers, Tran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 ( talk) 11:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rcbrown. I would like to discuss your recent removal of the word "evangelical" (at least when referring to the article subject) from the
Presbyterian Church in America article. While there are certainly elements in the evangelical community that many in the PCA would criticize, it seems to me that they are still part of that community, and that the word should be restored to the article. I'd be interested in your views on the subject, and particularly in your reasons for removing the word. Thanks, --
BlueMoonlet (
t/
c) 00:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is reposted from
User talk:Rcbrown1990.
![]() |
Please accept this
invite to join the
Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – User: John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 01:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC) |
We certainly can use a editor of your caliber
John D. Rockerduck (
talk) 06:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet (I love your user name :o) )
I just thought I'd pop over and say Hi on a friendly level, as I think you may possibly be viewing me / my views as confrontational and / or aggressive, and that's really not who I am!
I do think it's desperately important for non-Autism-spectrum people to internalise the idea that Autism-spectrum disorders which don't affect basic intelligence (or the appearance of it) doesn't mean being "disabled" in any way. Neurotypical and Autistic processing are just differences. (I've been a professional teacher, in my own sphere, for decades, and have taught a huge range of people with differing processing styles and abilities, so I'm really not talking off the top of my head here.)
Compared to neurotypicals, high-functioning autistics and Aspergers people have a "disability" only in terms of the kinds of intuitive interactions with others, and with language, that neurotypicals have. On the other side of the coin, and just as valid, is that neurotypicals have a "disability", compared to A-spectrummers, in data handling. Data storage, data processing, indexing, and rapid access. Each type has an area of dysfunctionality compared to the other type.
In the same way that A-spectrum editors can appear (to neurotypicals) to have seriously sub-standard levels of language and interaction processes, the neurotypicals appear (to high-functioning Aspie/auties, and to A-spectrum savants), to have almost-moronic levels of data processing. This is why we lose patience with each other so readily; it's virtually impossible for each type to be able to believe that the other type isn't being disruptive, or disingenuous, or dishonest (or "disabled"). I've found (for decades!) that one of the best parallels is to think of the two types as two different types of computers. One computer-type has a wonderfully intuitive user-interface, but comparatively lousy data-handling power. The other type has vast data-storage and data-processing powers, but a f*cking lousy (comparatively speaking) user interface. It's a simple case of each computer type coming pre-loaded with different software; not different power. I've found that there's a huge mythconception (I do love that neologism!) amongst neurotypicals about what autism-spectrum really is. That mythconception causes so many problems for all of us, and enlightened education is the only answer to it. So, in short, please don't equate autism with disability or intellectual incompetence! Neither HFA's nor neurotypicals are "thick" compared to the others. We're just different in where our processors direct the power. Pesky ( talk) 06:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Mind you, the literalism thing does have its advantages; there's so much unintentional humour lurking in the world which can have A-spectrum people in fits of giggles. Like those notices which say "Part-time people wanted." That one will generally raise snickers from autie-types, just pondering what those individuals might be the rest of the time. Werewolves, perhaps? Pesky ( talk) 01:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been an edit request so the Chick-Fil-A debate you where a party is now in a differant section so your prevoius opinions might not be factored into the editors request for dispute resolution debate. thought you should know and check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chick-fil-A#Edit_request_on_25_July_2012 Algonquin7 ( talk) 00:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Like I said definate "improvement" good compromising skills keep it up and keep me grounded or who knows what I'll do Algonquin7 ( talk) 04:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence, for your efforts above and beyond the call of duty in bringing forward valuable new sources at Talk:Chick-fil-A! Belchfire ( talk) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet, this is Tran-- we quibbled over whether my un-noted blanking out of the "controversy" section of the Lord of the Dance hymn was legitimate or not a couple of months ago.
I am completely fucking amazed by people's continued desire to trash a perfectly good song and scribble over the Wikipedia article thereof in attempts to show that a song which is clearly not racist/prejudiced in intent or in fact has some aura of a plausible claim of being so. The reason why no organization notable enough to fit into a Wikipedia article has come out to criticize the song as anti-Semitic is that notable organizations tend to be notable for a reason and often do not like to throw away positive aspects of their notability by making claims that are clearly false to anyone who is noting what they are saying-- in other words, no one of interest has come out and made the claim because the claim is complete horse crap.
I do not understand the justification for this. I can see that your newest version is an attempt to stave-off less informed/articulate criticism, and I appreciate that.
I still think the "controversy" section is unwarranted. The first stanza of "Deutschlandlied" can be said to be controversial due to historical content. The second stanza of the same song is simply not. "Lord of the Dance" is not anti-semitic, it is not controversial, it is, for lack of a better description, a fucking narrative. If it is a narrative with a moral, the moral is most certainly not "the Jews are bad because it was Jews who killed christ," and in fact is ironically far closer in form to "people who cry 'racism' at every turn of the road are not just crying wolf, they are the wolves." Whether the story itself actually happened, or how it happened, I am inclined leave to the religious scholars, because the historians will never really know. But I will say that I think it is almost certainly clear that if Christ existed, he was a Jew. And that is not really controversial, either. A story that relates one Jew (set of Jews) having problems with another set of Jews cannot be said to be anti-Semitic unless it somehow says something bad about everyone involved... similarly the song in question cannot be said to be discriminatory except towards a real or hypothetical group of people that would rough someone up / kill them for healing the sick on the wrong day of the week. I am leaving the page basically alone for now, but will be periodically checking back and will probably be blanking the section again if it is "adjusted" such that it more obviously conflicts with the relevant facts.
Hello there. You mentioned that you would e-mail electronic copies of Boston Globe articles concerning the ICOC to interested parties; well, I'm an interested party. Feel free to send them to me at nietzsche12395@yahoo.com. Thanks, - Nietzsche123 ( talk) 23:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet,
I was wondering why you deleted my addition of the "Criticism" section to the World Baseball Classic article. I read through the Wikipedia guidelines and didn't feel that it was in violation of any of them. I've seen many articles with similar "Controversies" or "Criticism" sections. Perhaps I missed something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basically33 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear BlueMoonlet,
I was wondering how I could gain access to the Nova Publishers page so that I can edit its contents. I work for Nova Publishers and would like to add some content regarding Book Reviews to our Wikipedia page. I am new to Wikipedia so I am really not familiar with how it works. It appears the page is semi-protected and that I need to contact the admin for this page. I would like to be able to make edits myself, if at all possible, since edits may be frequently. If so, please let me know what you may need from me.
Thank you! Pub Market ( talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
While I was 100% on board with the move, it probably would've been best to wait a bit longer to fully establish consensus on the talk page before making a controversial move. Inks.LWC ( talk) 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Liberty | |
As one of the core contributors to WP:RFC/AAMC, I hereby award you this barnstar. Through continued effort, policy-grounded thinking and consensus-building, we succeeded where measures as extreme as an outright ArbCom mandate to come up with an answer failed. Thanks for your dedicated work! —chaos5023 ( talk) 02:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC) |
I noticed that you were a part of the Winter Storm Athena/ 2012-13 U.S. winter storm season fiasco. So, I thought you would like to stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus and offer your input. Thanks, United States Man ( talk) 04:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kennedy Center Honors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page That's the way it is ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your interest in ResearchGate but don't agree that the source you've cited for the spam criticism is a legitimate source by Wikipedia standards. Because there has been some back and forth on this issue over several months, I felt it best to bring the spam criticism issue up with Wikipedia's dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. JNorman704 ( talk) 01:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The image was deleted as a copy of it was available on commons per Wikipedia:CSD#F8. Thus discussion would now need to occur on commons not Wikipedia. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited His Honour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hizzoner ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited So Taguchi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Can't believe I hadn't thought of including Sikorski's accident in the airport article... Thank you for your contribution! -- Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am sorry I had to mention your name here and drag you into all of that. It is entirely okay if you do not wish to take part in the discussion. I just thought it would be fair to notify you. Surtsicna ( talk) 14:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Was there a section we were going to write in this article? I vaguely recall we were going to collaborate on something, but I don't remember what. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Red Sox: [10], [11], [12], [13]
White Sox: [14], [15], [16], [17]
Those are only a handful of the sources I found after a minute-long Google search. Your contentions to the contrary that this is not how it should be are unfortunately irrelevant. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, the vast majority of which say the Red Sox had an 86-year drought and the White Sox had an 88-year drought. TempDog123 ( talk) 19:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you help with making the Cincinnati Christian University and related articles better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatsONS ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominion Theology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Christianity ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am reviewing information you post and delete on Nova site. And its quite confusing to me, especially when facts are deleted. I would like to know your reasoning behind it.
Thank you. Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaCRittenberg ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:List of United States congressional districts related to style of new district-level maps for the post-2013 United States congressional districts. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. -- 7partparadigm talk 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In your zeal to improve the article Article the First you removed the defaultsort and category from the article with this edit. Take care. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angevins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page House of Anjou ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You are correct that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "collection of indiscriminate facts". Neither is it supposed to be filled with opinionated quotes from personal blogs/websites, especially if the original statement is not entirely true. Beatrice Lugger's complaint was exaggerated and RG members are very unlikely to obtain higher scores unless having an extensive publication record. Her statement should not have been quoted in the first place.
The facts that I now have given can be obtained through the original reference, but I will also add a link to her RG profile. The section is now professionally written and does not single her out. Your removal will be reverted on a daily basis until you have suggested a compromise or engaged in a more meaningful discussion. Why do you remove without attempting to modify/check facts in the first place? As a researcher, you are certainly aware of the open peer-review process. No offense taken.
Regards, Sjuttiosjuochfjorton
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " ResearchGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I invited you to a conflict dispute although you are doing a decent job moderating (I am getting nowhere with Chire and it is clear that he has an agenda). I have asked for 3 more editors that will make an effort and do some serious background search. Also, editors should of course have RG accounts or have knowledge about the site Sjuttiosjuochfjorton ( talk) 00:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonlet, I need help finishing updating several pages related to the US congress and ensuring that Wikipedia has current district maps represented. There is not too much left to do, but I could use a hand doing it. Details are here. Thank you -- 7partparadigm talk 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. Please come along and contribute at Talk:Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom#Dukes of Here and There. Thanks! DBD 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
For having an opinion about the involved imagery and its place on both Commons and here on Wikipedia for the article on anencephaly, which shall always be a tricky and emotional subject, but at least let it be one presented with properly licensed imagery. Thanks! KDS4444 Talk 12:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI -- Kaptinavenger ( talk) 08:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:BlueMoonlet I disagree with your edits on articles about the Dukes of Albany. The legislation is very clear. People who needed permission for their marriages under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and not obtain them have conducted marriages that can have no consequences under British Law. This has recently been discussed again on this talk page. I'm going to revert your edits for now, awaiting a secondary source that indeed explicitly puts the question in doubt. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 01:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, BlueMoonlet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people with quadriplegia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with quadriplegia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Maile ( talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)