User talk:Harizotoh9/archive

Why do you undo added content which is accurate?

When handling architects and engineers for 911 Truth -organization, referring to information in their own website about which their main claims are, is both accurate and relevant. So it must be right to put link to the most informative presentation to the wiki-page also. OR, is it perhaps then better to list actual findings they have from their presentation to that wiki page? Which way is preferred link or list? Mik-kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 13:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_CIA_and_September_11_%28book%29 I have attempted to provide a summary of the main claims of the book, after having read it, and having it available for reference. Someone keeps undoing it to the original version which had only one sentence on the book's content. It's ok to keep on editing, this may be improved, but just deleting additional, accurate content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.14.1 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I also edited a page on vinyl siding, which had been criticised as industry-only, and added a few sourced statements on environmental hazards of PVC. This was undone by the same "sock puppet", as the edit on the 9/11 book. Since those two edits are the only ones I ever did on wikipedia, and I will never do any other ever, after this experience, it stands to reason that this "user" must have been following both of my edits. Mysterious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.137 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new deletion review has been created regarding an article you've recently discussed. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Salvi is more notable than the shootings. This is anecdotal evidence, of course, but I know that before I did any in-depth research on the subject, I'd have been more able to name Salvi among a list of anti-abortion terrorists than to identify a 1994 PP shooting as a notable incident (as opposed to things like the murder of David Gunn). I suggest moving the page back and doing a Requested Move. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it is reasonable for OntarioInvasivePlants to add a link to their fact sheet. It is a government agency, so there wouldn't be personal gain involved. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Death Valley Driver Video Review. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Goodvac (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why you changed "it was considered a method of preserving and improving the fitness of the then dominant groups in American society" to "it was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population". Do you say there's no difference between the dominant groups then and now or that biological fitness wasn't the Eugenicists goal? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted it to the old one. I am not crazy about how the old version was phrased myself. However, I have a problem linking to the article on fitness. Eugenicists did not have the same conception as modern biologists. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Right of course not, the Eugenics discussed in the article died out more than a decade before the discovery of DNA. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNA was identified and isolated in the late 19th century. The structure of DNA was not figured out until 1953. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually it's its role in Mendelian genetics that was figured out. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to self-revert your last edit, as Planned Parenthood is under a 1RR restriction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you undid my revision. The sentence in question is attempting to list six things that Nation of Islam adherents do and don't do. They do not consume two things, they do not use two things, and they do stress two things.

Prior to my revision, and as the sentence currently stands, the listing is not parallel:

"NOI adherents do not consume pork, alcohol, use drugs, tobacco, and stress a healthy diet and physical fitness."

What that sentence says, among other things, is that NOI adherents "do not alcohol" that they "do not tobacco" and that they "do not stress a healthy diet and physical fitness". I proposed the following revision:

"NOI adherents do not consume pork or alcohol or use drugs or tobacco, and stress a healthy diet and physical fitness."

My revision may not be perfect, but it is logically correct. If you don't like it, then you can fix it. Add a comma, turn it into three sentences, but don't simply revert it like it's a piece of vandalism.

BillyPreset (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

You left no valid reason for this edit. Why did you make it? 190.46.108.149 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

And you left no justification for this one but you did manage to leave a personal attack. What was your reason for the edit, and why did you make the attack? 190.46.108.149 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in touch with Jimmy wales through e - mail. It was his suggestion that we discuss this issue on his talk page!

Re: Blatant misinformation and vandalism of "India"(n) articles on Wikipedia

FROM: Jimmy Wales

TO: Frankly Idontcare CC: jwales@wikia.com

Message flagged Wednesday, November 23, 2011 3:40 PM

What is your user account? The best place for a discussion about this would be on my user talk page - I would welcome that discussion. I'm going to be very busy until early next week so I won't have time right away to look into the specifics you outline below until then. But if you can post to my user talk page (NOT under a new account - don't get yourself in trouble!!!) earlier than that, a discussion can start there.

As you have been accused of sock puppetry is it really important that you stay 100% clean on that issue. If you did it, own up to it, apologize for it, and move on.

--Jimbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.64.115 (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I added that tag in good faith and included an explanation on the talk page. Please don't revert it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to start a discussion on the talk page; mergers don't happen on their own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a response to the response to your query about an infobox at the Mozart article. Could you revisit the article's talk page and give some more input. I, for one, believe the article (and others like it) need infoboxes and would like to start with the Mozart article. It may take joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers to get more input and make a difference through consensus as well. If interested, please take part in the continued discussion, add your own thoughts, and it may be possible to come up with new consensus. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on the talk page of David. PiCo (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it Harizotoh9 if you would stop stalking my edits! You have no right to follow behind me and revert me. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (6th nomination) An AFD you participated in last month is at AFD again. Dream Focus 23:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The length of leads for lists of characters depends on the size of the article, as do leads for other articles. As the size of the article is around 30,000 characters, it does merit at least two paragraphs in the lead. I'd like to work with you to figure out something that works for the article: would you agree to compromising? I suggest we add one (short) paragraph to what is currently there that briefly explains explains the characters and how they're connected, as the lead should. Thanks. Murmuration (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of concerned that you think that one line is ever okay as the lead for an article: I take it you didn't read WP:LEAD? What other articles have for their leads isn't at all an accurate way to asses how long a lead should be, especially since 3 out of 4 of the article you referenced don't meet Wikipedia's standards. Leads for lists of characters should do exactly the same thing as leads for other articles: accurately summarize the article's contents in proportion to the article's size. For the size of List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters, the lead isn't at all the right length. Murmuration (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was your reason for this revert? Simply undoing an edit without giving any reason, in the hopes that the other editor won't notice, is edit warring and is unacceptable. If you disagree, explain your reason here and we will discuss it. Edit warring is not an appropriate way to resolve a dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: Help:Minor edit. The "minor edit" checkbox is not meant to be used for edits that are clearly not minor. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose an alternative at talk page. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have a personal grudge against me ? I just want to help. Why do you discourage new users ? This is not the friendly Wikipedia I was expecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoverPony (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, in the future, Berserk (anime) will be re-merged into Berserk (manga). Its just that no one really cares about it right now; but the justification would be that their separation violates WP:MOS-AM. To see an example of this situation, you can see the consensus here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just so you know, your edits do not comply to the Manual of Style for wiki. I'm not going to revert your edits, but if an editor takes an interest in the Berserk article, they would be justified to do so. I suggest you find a article that is GA rank and base your work off of that. Currently the way you set up berserk is a "by fan for fan" basis; a style you need to change. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has started a thread about you on ANI: see WP:ANI#Problem with User:Harizotoh9. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Historical reliability of the Gospels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesus and history (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) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted edits to Zork and The Black Onyx that changed the importance from High to Mid, based on the enormous influence these games had on the industry. Though some of you edits of this nature seem justified, others seem less so, and still others seem very strange. I'm assuming that you have a good reason for the edits that you are making, but due to the number and nature of the edits, I've brought it to the attention of the VG WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Editor changing importance of large number of articles. Please feel free to comment there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! HairyWombat 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had much time for Wikipedia over the last couple of days, so it's taken me a while to get round to answering your post on my talk page. However, I have answered at last, and you can see my response in this edit. I have also responded to your report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, as you can see here, and posted a message about this at User talk:Maynardox. Please feel welcome to contact me again if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only add external links when they are new and relevant and enhance an entry. (Maynardox (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the My Little Pony section to the 4chan meme section. They are not a meme because most the internet hates them, if you keep restoring it, I will have to report you for posting false information, and your account may be banned. Kusaga (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. You have new messages at ClueBot Commons's talk page.
Message added 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 4chan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kusaga (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the delay. So far, what you've done is great. My only input/suggestion would be to condense what you put at Transitional Fossils, but, given as how Amphistium as it is is just a stub, that might not be possible. I'll think of something, and keep up the good work in the meantime.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly check the article, but I have to tell you up front that I dislike the term "transitional fossil" almost as much as the term "missing link" - both are nonsense, and give a wrong impression to laypeople. HMallison (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative#RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth" in the academic sense"?. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here. This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Steve Jobs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hype and Bravado (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) 10:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Can you please share reasons for deleting material on Return on Investment - disambiguation on various types of ROI?

(diff | hist) . . Return on Investment‎; 01:02 . . (-5,767) . . Harizotoh9 (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 479041709 by A. Bokov (talk))

A. Bokov (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)A. Bokov[reply]

I thought my edit here was fairly straightforward and unproblematic - care to explain why you undid it? Slac speak up! 01:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've paraphrased the original wording more, I don't think we needed to remove the complete paragraph. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reality distortion field. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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.
You appear to be having some process difficulties too. You proposed a merger on Talk:Steve Jobs, but didn't tag either Steve Jobs or Reality Distortion Field with ((merge)). Typically discussion lasts for seven days, but you chose to be Bold only nine hours later. Someone reverted you, so now the Discussion phase of the WP:BRD process should kick in until there is a WP:CONSENSUS or the discussion goes stale. Please do not think the discussion has gone stale until no one has responded for several days. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead I created for Abiogenesis is more than adequate. The lead may have "seemed" long to you, but is is actually the perfect size in proportion to the rest of the article. Every article needs an adequate lead that summarizes the contents and gives an introduction to the topic, not just a quick definition. Depending on the size of the article a lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs, and for an article as long as Abiogenesis the lead size was perfect. Look at the leads for evolution, the history of life, and history of the earth and you will see that these articles are long and SO the leads are fairly sizeable in proportion. Please also see WP:LEAD -- Cadiomals (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For topical series, please use a bottom-of-the-page banner template rather than an info-box style template. The latter tend to complete for much visual space, especially when a topic belongs to more than one series. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that wasn't too rude or intrusive of me... thanks for what you've been doing here! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is rude of you to use the undo button to undo my changes without giving any reason for doing so. Please quit doing that - if you disagree with something I add to an article please have the decency to tell me why.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

II darou, you could have just told me that it was unneeded rather than feed me a bunch of BS about it being "unsourced".Thannad (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a discussion on the talk page rather than through the edit summaries? Location (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working on that. I'm writing now. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Location (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't find ourselves in an edit war, I do not believe that the Histories (Herodotus) article should be included in the MILHIST project. Although it does cover the events of the Greco-Persian War, other ancient texts that cover military events like the Bible, Iliad and the War Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls are not included in the MILHIST project. Although deleting all task forces was a mistake on my part I would like to make a consensus as to the MILHIST tag. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You can remove Military History wikiproject then. I think the rest deserve to stay--Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Barbary Wars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Berber

California Gurls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Promo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't even remove or revert things in the List of My Little Pony characters page. You are getting upset because how I add things and you want to claim the page as your own? WELL STOP. I don't see your name there so revert that edit now! You don't own that page!--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't "own" that page either. WP works via consensus (WP:Consensus). Let's see how people respond to my post on the talk page before moving forward. Remember, Bold, revert, discuss. WP:BRD. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‰ is per mille, i.e. one tenth of a percent. It has caused confusion in that article before but the correct value is 10‰, not 10%. Ive changed it to read 10‰ (1%) and also put a link up further in the article to the per mille article (though it's likely to be missed since it's just one letter long). ☮Soap☮ 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend adding some clarification then. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition to a regular clarification for readers, also include a hidden note (using <!-- -->) to editors to not change it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your merger edit. This is a rather major change and a discussion should be conducted before it is executed. Please see guidance at Help:Merging#Proposing a merger for direction on the subject.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I completely forgot the actual nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I've started the GA Review and there are some comments you might like to look at. With best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harizotoh9, I'm away until 21 April back. Good luck with the remaining actions - all that's left is to resolve a few citations needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2012 09:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I've been rather lazy on that. I will soon get back to working on that article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? The other editor has been repeatedly reverting in violation of WP:BRD, while refusing to take the matter to talk page. I finally initiated a discussion, you came and reverted back with an empty edit summary and no comment on the discussion. Is this WP:CIVIL? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:AIV there's a notice that looks like this:

Important! Your report must follow these four points:

1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.
2. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.
3. Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent.
4. DO NOT report an already-blocked user (e.g., for talk page abuse) here as the report would just be removed by the bot. Instead, report at WP:ANI. Do not edit war with the bot.

Please take heed of these instructions, in particular point 3 - unregistered users must be active now. Since blocking is preventative and not punitive, reporting an IP address that was used for vandalism yesterday and is not active now is unhelpful. Please only report unregistered users if they are active now, as the notice clearly says. Thanks, waggers (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start an editing war so I'm contacting you. Back on March 10, you undid my revision that omitted the sentence, "Even though DNA samples taken from the letters sent by the Zodiac did not confirm that Allen had handled them, neither the Vallejo nor the San Francisco Police Departments have ruled out Allen as a suspect." I didn't see any explanation given for your revision. I think the sentence should be deleted because it's partly redundant with the previous sentence and the sourced article doesn't even mention the SFPD. Also, I'm not aware of the SFPD ever publicly stated they've cleared any of their 2,500 suspects so stating they continue considering Arthur Leigh Allen as a suspect seems misleading. I've left the sentence in the article for the time-being while waiting for your reply. Incidentally, do you have a personal opinion of who the Zodiac Killer was? Thank you for your time.TL36 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edits do not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little reminder than an article needs to go through a GA review before being listed as a good article. --MOLEY (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That rating was most likely accidental. I copied those Wikiproject listsings from the talk page from Holocaust denial and failed to correct it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited RoboCop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rick Baker (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) 10:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you had reverted a merger that I completed recently between Barbary Wars and Barbary corsairs. You had reverted the merger with a comment that you did not approve it. I had the proposal posted in January 2012, but I seem to have missed your suggestions/concerns about the merger. It would be appreciated if we could discuss it. My main concern is that the Barbary wars content seems to overlap with other articles and has no unique references while being low on referenced content itself. I came up with the idea for this merger when I entered the subject as a reader and found out that I had missed out on content due to the way it is split on Wikipedia. I would like to see the Barbary corsairs article develop and ultimately be evaluated for branching out as the content matures. Another editor suggested building an article structure now, but I am not sure how that would look. Also, I would rather have one larger good article then several small lower quality articles. Alan.ca (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you sign your messages on user talk pages. It is especially important when giving warnings or communicating with new users. Additionally, in the case of User talk:Sryuuza, the nature of the additions was correcting dead links and not spamming. Please review WP:BITE. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about your hatnote edit. I'll give it a week or two and if the number of disruptive edits increases, I might restore the original structure. Serendi^podous 07:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to make it more compact because it was incredibly large and ugly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My real concern is for Nibiru cataclysm. Many people searching for "Planet X" are in fact searching for that page. Still, maybe it's time to take it down. We'll see. Serendi^podous 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me as to why you think The Daily Telegraph is not a reliable source? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the subject's Facebook page may be used in the article per WP:ABOUTSELF - to corroborate an updated figure on how many people follow him. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see comments for why you removed the "Theory behind the Mask" section. Other films have "Theme" sections (like "Fight Club"). And poems and novels have "Interpretation" sections. How is this any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlam643371 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it. Someone else did. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah, sorry about that! My excuse is, given the time of night I was reading the "history" page, I just didn't translate the information. Silly on my part. --Tlam643371 (talk)

Hi, I'm planning to nominate Killer7 for Today's Featured Article for July 7, 2012 and I noticed you're pretty active in that area. Do you know how flexible the system is? I ask because there are a few points that the article is borderline on. It has been about 1 year and 9 months since it was promoted. The most recent video game TFA was Turok (April 13), which would be 2 months and 3 weeks from the requested date (if you don't go through with Castlevania on May 8...). It's also the 7th anniversary of the game's release, which is not a decennial, but seven is an important number in the game's fiction so that might could for something? This is my first time nominating something for TFA. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give it 2 points. One for age, and one for date relevant (NA release anniversary). It's not that hard to nominate. When the July 6th timeslot opens up, just place it there. Follow the format of other nominations. If there is another video game article less than a month before, then Killer 7 would lose all of it's points and may not run. Video games (and media in general) are somewhat over represented, so there may be some opposition to having it run. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a "significant contributor to the article, and has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article" ? Then that would be another point. For a total of 3. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. In your experience, are the people at TFA requests usually pretty strict about counting days or is there some leeway? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. But as long as you follow the rules and point system, most requests get selected. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the tips. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I was suggesting Killer7 run on July 7, though, which is two months out. It means I definitely can't get the points for no game TFAs for 3 months but that's not terrible, is it? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability? Membership is free this month... History2007 (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why Wikipedia users like yourself choose to purport fiction over fact. The edit I did yesterday - which was completely reverted by JFHJr to it's previous version - is completely accurate.

You insist on ignoring the truth and cite a single article which erroneously indicates Einhorn was the master of ceremonies when the fact - the truth - is that there was no master of ceremonies and Einhorn's only role at the event had been as a liaison with poet and featured speaker Allen Ginsberg. But Einhorn didn’t merely introduce Ginsberg — he "commandeered the stage" speaking "incoherently" for half an hour and refusing repeated requests to leave and let the program continue. This was said under oath by a respected doctor.

That statement was made under oath and penalty of perjury by Dr. Donald Nathonson - http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/10/18/einhorn/index.html

His testimony is corroborated by the actual event organizers who wrote Ira Einhorn’s claims that he was a founder or organizer of Earth Day are false. He is a fraud. Einhorn, given a small role on the stage at Earth Day, grabbed the microphone and refused to give up the podium for thirty minutes - http://www.amgot.org/einhorn/eday.htm

So do you rush to ensure every article on wikipedia based on lies and misinformation or only this one? TruthTime8752 (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment "It's suggested that Wikipedia editors assume that others are editing with good intentions" - but that does not seem to be the case with your constant edits and reverts with Ira Einhorn. Again, why do you insist on purporting the false notion that he was the master of ceremonies at Earth day when he was not??

If you took the time to actually read ALL the relevant material - not some McVersion of the facts - you would discover that you are putting false information on the page.

Are you going to correct your mistakes or continue to put this false information there? TruthTime8752 (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really have idea what your thinking was in your recent change to this article, which appeared to restore it back to some earlier state, completely with errors that I corrected. You provided no explanation in your edit summary. If it bothers you, I apologize for using the word "mindless" in my edit summary, but it touched a nerve. Perhaps you can simply explain what your objective was. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have decided not to be too aggressive with reverts, as this user has already been reported. After the block, I may return to clean up a bit. Thanks for your suggestion! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed this recent source where Weller discusses some Robocop stuff, don't know if it would be of use to you for the article or not.

http://collider.com/robocop-hero-complex-peter-weller/167614/

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello, my friend.please stop reverting me.I am really going to commit suicide and i have already overdosed luminal.look in the tomorrow's new york times.please let me vandalize wikipedia one last time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.82.191 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J.D. Tippit. Since you had some involvement with the J.D. Tippit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Location (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actuallty, Paul Cameron uses "pay to publish" journals, its not the same as ordinary peer reviewed journals, and the ones he uses normaly only checks that the paper is on the subject, not that anything in it is correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.231.230 (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I loved what you did when you cleaned up the External Links section at Philip K. Dick, but when I first saw all the unexplained deletions, I almost hit the Revert button. It would be really helpful to us recent-change watchers if you'd include an explanation, even is it's as short as "Rm spam links".

Thanks again for the good cleanup work, though! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your input is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (4th nomination), per your previous comments at the third AFD. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/Harizotoh9

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Female Hysteria. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the one that added Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race, I figured I'd remind you that the target date is tomorrow. There isn't a prompt up yet. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Deus Ex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skybox (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) 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the verb "believe" instead of "assume" is in error as regards an edit of mine. This required some explanation, which was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.180.93 (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use full edit summaries to explain the rationale for your changes. This edit, for example is not vandalism but a good faith addition. We are asked to assume the good faith of other users and work as a collaborative community. Thank you. Span (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit summary, and read the section I deleted, you will find the entire section is in the article on relativistic mechanics. Also the article (special relativity) is far too big (103.589 kB). I have undone your reversion. Please don't re-revert for the sake of it, you are duplicating content and making the article unnecessarily big. Thanks. Maschen (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Optimal tax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equity (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) 14:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Great White. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Harizotoh9

Hope you are well,

I noticed you deleted a contribution I placed on the abiogenesis page. Although this is my first contribution to wikipedia, I just wondered if you could give any further advice as to how this contribution could be changed in order for it to be accepted?

Regards

Bret — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bret palmer (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bret. I am adding a remark on the abiogenesis talk page. I hope it proves helpful. JonRichfield (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking to hear your reasoning for removing my edits on the Quirinius Census page. I have been researching this issue in detail this week and all of my assertions were backed up with valid references. The only rationale you gave for removing them was that the main article I refer to is "only opinion" but, may I humbly suggest that that is only your opinion? I have interacted with Answers in Genesis extensively over the last three years and every bit of their commentary is backed up by solid research and fact (as evidenced by the sourcing I gave from Chaffey's article).

I will admit that one of my references was mistaken and I will be happy to correct that piece (Varus, who was governor of Syria during the 8 BC Roman Census, lost 3 legions of soldiers in Germany and his own life in 9 CE, so that was obviously not something Caesar would have weighed in 7-8 BC, but it does reveal a possible deficit in his judgment and leadership abilities that Caesar may have been aware of. Similarly, Varus had 2,000 Jews crucified in 4 BC after Herod the Great died (this from Josephus), revealing a level of harshness that Caesar may have wanted to temper in taking a census).

Please let me know your thoughts - I think this article needs to be balanced with a conservative argument. Thanks, Darin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goteamanderson (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Hoodwinked! from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests? I get that it had negative points, but so does Gender Bender (The X-Files) and Luke P. Blackburn and you did not remove those. Yes, they both had supports, but it took Gender Bender five days to get its first support and Hoodwinked! had only been up for five days when you removed it. I would understand if you had added another article in its place, but I don't see the purpose in removing it and simply leaving two blank spaces. --Jpcase (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harizotah, I disagree with adding the Sesame Street infobox to History of Sesame Street. According to the MOS (WP:IBX, "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". This infobox does not summarize this article; it summarizes Sesame Street. For that reason, I don't think that it belongs in the history article, and I request that it be removed. I'd appreciate it if this issue was resolved by Nov. 10, since it's likely that it will be on the main page for The Show's 43rd anniversary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been several days since I wrote the above, I'm going to assume that your silence signifies assent. If this issue doesn't get any further discussion by the end of the day on 11/8, I will remove the infobox. I'm setting this deadline because this article will indeed be on the main page on the 10th and it needs to be as featurey-article as possible. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse the response to myself, but I think that I solved the issue. The article has been updated with the "Elmo the Musical" info, and I renamed the "2000s" section to "2000s and 2010s". I don't think it's necessary to create a whole new section for a line of text. When enough has happened to fill a section, we'll move it to its own section. What do you think? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John McAfee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (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) 12:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great work in shortening the lede on the Paul Kurtz article. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teleological argument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism (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) 11:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your reversions of RS material and deletion of dubious tags, at psychiatry - Your edit summary for reverting, "too strong", is not a WP policy or guideline for reliably sourced matErial you do not like, or for which you make unsourced claims of UNDUE, nor for removing construction tags, or for removing dubious tags from MEDRS false unsourced statements.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. ParkSehJik (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of 3RR. I only reverted your edits twice. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to go on Wikibreak. Noting your Barstar above, I am going to hyper-WP:AGF, and let you WP:ENEMY argue to keep my edits at Psychiatry and Forensic psychiatry. There is related discussion here and here. Other editors gave these to me, but I am on a diet and only drink caffeine drinks that look like mud, so here is some sugar and caffeine to work off of -

ParkSehJik has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

 :) ParkSehJik (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following what you're asking of me. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's asking you to try to represent his point of view when you edit the article. Looie496 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I've posted a message at WT:MED. In my experience that's the best place to ask for help with medicine-related articles. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted anther editor at Participatory action research. The edit you reverted were the first, good-faith contributions of a new user. I hope you'll agree that we should welcome and encourage new editors, and offer them support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "credible" to "known" in smallpox. That sentence is immediately followed by a reference. Did you check the wording of the reference before you changed it? It may have implied other non-credible sources were to be found. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it then. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the ((as of)) template from Sandy Hook, Connecticut with this edit? ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please wait until consensus is established before reintroducing the list of international reactions at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article as you did earlier today here [3]? There is currently a discussion on the talk page that should resolve this soon. Thanks for your help! - MrX 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the template you added:

The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Joel Gilbert" with "page=Joel Gilbert (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination.

Hope this helps.--Auric 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your sending a 1084 characters (183 words) unsourced stub to AFD.[4] However, in researching the topic and editing the article, we now have a 5832 characters (956 words) start or C class article.[5] So far... a 5x expansion. Perhaps you might consider a withdrawal? Merry Christmas. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your undo at Transitional fossil. It wasn't accompanied by a reason, so I'm unclear why I was undone. Can you explain, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Kon's reference to Akira Kurosawa is indeed in Paprika, not in Millennium Actress, why did you undo my edit? Jill-Jênn 11:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harizotoh9, when you add an AfD to a delsort page such as you did with Nanto Seiken at Anime and manga (step 1), you need to tag the AfD by adding the relevant tag (step 2), in this case ((subst:delsort|Anime and manga|~~~~)) , which will inform editors that it has been listed there & avoid it possibly being listed more then once. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that several recent attempts of mine to correct poor grammar on the raw foodism page, plus clear out some previous claims not backed by refs were deleted by you without afterwards discussing the changes on the raw foodism talks page, which doesn't seem in line with wikipedia guidelines. I'm not bothered by all the changes you made as some corrections of yours are possibly(?) OK. At any rate, I'll try again later on, and this time mention the changes in the talk page along with why they are needed. I trust you will not arbitrarily delete such without a decent explanation. Vorlon19 (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Hideaki Itsuno. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the statements already made in the Jung Myung Soek talk page. The articles being cited is not sourced to ProvidenceTrial.com. The original sources are Korean news articles and news magazine articles. The reason there are links to ProvidenceTrial is because there are supplemental translations available to assist those using google translate to read the original sources. Macauthor (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In recent edit , you removed reliably sourced material. I understand that "Providencecentral.com and nocultnews are not reliable sources," as you stated in your edit summary, but you also removed content that was sourced from Yonhap News, the Associated Press, and The Korea Times. Removing reliably sourced content without any apparent valid reason is considered illegitimate blanking, and is categorized as vandalism. While it is essential that BLP articles adhere to policy, and stay far away from libel, when content is negative but relevant and reliably sourced, it should usually be included to comply with NPOV. If you do have a good reason for removing the content, I would be glad to hear it, but I would regardless advise you that your edit summary was confusing, and could be interpreted as an attempt to divert attention from a non-NPOV edit. I will not make that assumption per AGF, but in my personal opinion, a bad edit summary is worse than none at all, and you should be careful that your edit summaries are more accurate and less misleading in the future. I have already restored the sourced content, without undoing your edit, since some of the content was poorly sourced and should have been removed. I also removed a paragraph to which you added the ^{[citation needed]} tag, without realizing it already had a citation. It's a little unusual to solicit additional citations with ^{[citation needed]}, but there's not really anything wrong with it, and you're welcome to reinstate that paragraph if you wish, with or without the tag. Consider this an official level 2 warning for blanking, though I will withdraw it if you have a valid reason for removing the content. —Rutebega (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. You have new messages at Talk:4chan.
Message added 05:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you did well to zap the many long accumulated links on the CMT page. The references section may need clean up and right now it is just a really old jambalaya of items, mostly unused in that article. I am not sure what to do about it, and have my hands full with other fixes, but if you trim/delete many it will be nice. The ones used in the article don't need to be listed anyway, as you said. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Comment has been called at Talk:Watchmen. As a registered editor who has edited that page over the past year, you may wish to comment.    --Tenebrae (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of an infobox to the John Le Mesurier was reverted—and quite rightly too! There is nothing that reqiuires an infobox to be present on any article, and your comment "How can this get to FA status without an infobox" shows that you know little of the FA process and the MOS. See Help:Infobox: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". The consensus at the JLM article is not to include a box that is unnecessary and pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!

I don't have a problem with the edit, but such a large removal of content (blanking) really deserves some kind of explanation. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "bbc-bbc_titanic" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "youtube-6IFdWBPRrxo" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "news-Titanic_theme" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "telegraph-Titanic_theme" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "MAIL2012JAN18" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "ibtimes-Titanic_2012" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page). Cite error: <ref> tag with name "dispatch-Titanic_comparisons" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).

Please correct it. Thx. --Frze (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is plain nonsense.

We are more notable than any other emulator on app stores - and we have an ideological stance that makes us superior to any.

Frankly, you do not have the clout to just pull our article like that and all it betrays is that you must be politically motivated to pull the trigger like that.

'When it's notable enough' - you are not an arbitrator that decides that. As long as a piece of garbage like zSNES is still allowed to have its own Wiki page (when it's dead and nonexistent), then we deserve at least ten Wiki pages - never mind one.

Next time you decide to vandalize our page like that I will do everything I can to ensure it has consequences for you inside your wiki sphere.

BTW, me and my userbase (which is in the thousands by now) will just reinstate and 'de-vandalize' any and all 'edits' you do from now on concerning 'redirections' - so if you want to make your little political squabble, at least try to get some people behind you - because the way you are going about it now is never, ever going to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.85.169 (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I think I've made some progress with this person (who is apparently now at a different IP), and I've asked him to issue you an apology for this. While I had my own comments on the redirect itself, this post above is clearly an overreaction. But in discussion, it appears that he genuinely thought you were part of some rival project who has it in for him (at least, that's how I interpret the discussion at this point, applying my good faith filter). I think I've gotten him to realize that you, to the best of anyone's knowledge, were simply trying to participate in good-faith cleanup efforts, and honestly had I seen the article in the state it was in at the time, I might have been tempted to do the same.

In any event, no idea if he'll actually follow-up on my request, but I wanted to let you know. See the discussion in Talk:RetroArch for context. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I want to indeed apologize. I presumed too much when I saw the page redirected to this 'list' and made this response based on that. I did not make the initial page and I claim no right to ownership at all. At the same time, it is not an emulator, and I hope we can make this more clear in the future. On that same note, another user is working on making a page for 'Libretro' - which is the underlying API (made by us) that RetroArch depends on. When that page has passed through a few milestones perhaps it might be a good idea to redirect the RetroArch page to that since it is really the API we intend to promote and not so much the reference frontend. Anyway, for now a major reworking of the RetroArch page could make it clear what it is and what it isn't.

I want to apologize to people I alienated - I'll try a different course of action in the future and I did not intend for it to go down like this.84.26.108.111 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - mark this issue as not having been resolved. I just found out this very same guy that pulled our page with a note saying 'Not notable enough' is making 'helpful contributions' to the Higan page - to the effect that it betrays a certain level of community knowledge that frankly isn't there outside of #bsnes/#higan. Let it be known that there is intense rivalry between #bsnes/#retroarch and that therefore for any one of those persons to delete our page with a note saying 'Not notable enough' while not holding their own favoured 'rival project' to that same standard is definitely a clear-cut example of 'Conflict of Interest'.

For the sake of neutrality I will continue staying out of this but I just felt I had to point out that - despite my apology - once again it turns out my suspicions were right - while you (KieferSkunk) did not adequately do your homework and did not see that this guy DID in fact had such ties to a 'rival project'. So really, I shouldn't have apologized over an this in the first place - since I was right.

If you don't believe me - here he is 'helpfully editing' the Higan article - way before he tried pulling this little stunt on the RetroArch page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higan_%28emulator%29&diff=561289569&oldid=545619797 Well, I'll tell you what - if 'RetroArch' isn't notable - then what the hell is higan/bsnes exactly? You don't even have a 'presence' outside of high-powered PCs.84.26.108.111 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harizotoh: I'm treating this as open harassment. You have been contributing to Wikipedia since September 2011, and you have never been blocked for any reason. Regardless of any involvement in emulator projects you may have, there is no evidence that you have been causing any trouble here on Wikipedia or that you have been violating any policies, and this IP editor has no right to be harassing you like this. I am reporting this to WP:ANI . (He was already reported for disruptive editing yesterday and appeared to be backing down at that point, but this is over the line.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved with the Bsnes emulator, or any emulation project. I just keep up with gaming and emulation news. I only moved the bsnes page because I noticed the name was out of date. He's making a much bigger deal out of that than seems warranted. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't honestly think you were, but just the same, it doesn't really even matter that much. There's no evidence that you've done anything in bad faith. Thanks for your patience with all of this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while the IP editor is clearly harassing you, he does have a point: The article you're contributing to at higan (emulator) has several issues that should be addressed soon: Just like with RetroArch, "higan" does not appear to meet WP's notability criteria - there are currently no secondary or tertiary sources, and at least one of the sources violates WP:SPS. I've added a couple of templates to help steer things in the right direction, but if proper sources can't be found, we will likely be nominating this article for the same kind of merge as RetroArch was. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this should be taken to the Video Games WikiProject talk page for further discussion. I'm not opposed to turning it into a redirect. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harizotoh9, as much as I'm sure you'd be happy to see the back of the above discussions and IP editor, I just thought I'd make you aware of a forum post about the Wikipedia article over on their forums by him/her. I have sent a reply hopefully clarifying the issues and thought you might want to take a look. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just took a look at that forum post - that guy truly is paranoid. Looks like no amount of reasoning or explaining how the Internet works is going to convince him that he's gone totally off the deep end. I was tempted to register and reply, but honestly it wouldn't do any good. I appreciate your efforts, tho. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that the forum post has been removed. As one might expect, it was just more irrational ranting about how evil we are and how we can't be bothered to fact-check things. I imagine that the guy is not actually an admin on that board, and perhaps one of their admins took the post down. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the thread before it was taken down. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has it been removed but I was banned, hooray! Not a great loss. The poster was an admin and was almost certainly the same 'lead developer' who was posting here. He/she seemed utterly convinced of some grand conspiracy to silence them by this other emulator team, and I could tell from the first post that anything I replied would be entirely disregarded, but I thought it was worth trying if for nothing more than the rest of the community on that forum, who would have hopefully understood the situation as it actually is. Never mind anyway he seems to have given up here now. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harizotoh9, I see that you have been adding ((Geology2)) to several pages. You have clearly put some effort into making a nice sidebar, but the subject is too broad. The guidelines for navigation templates state that the topics in sidebars should be tightly related (see especially point 3, "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent."). A horizontal navbox at the bottom of the page might be acceptable. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is already a ((Geology)) navbox on some of the pages. All the more reason not to have a sidebar on the same subject. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the ones you don't think fit (indeed, I fully expected several of them to be removed). I don't care too much for the horizontal navboxes, since they're tucked away at the end of the articles and I suspect people rarely click them.

Could another other option be to create a few more navbars, that are more tightly related? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly potential for creating more tightly related navbars. I do wonder how often people use navigation boxes; I almost never do. Ironically, on Geophysics you replaced a ((Science)) sidebar, so at least it was moving in the right direction. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, on lots of articles you have removed ((science)) and left...nothing at all, and not explained anything...this surely deserves a non-blank edit-summary. Especially problematic are the first two I saw...Biology and Chemistry, where the articles themselves are listed on the navbox (good symmetry to have an article in a navbox include that navbox). In fact, those articles are the main ones for their respective subsections of the navbox, as a heading for the cluster of detailed articles on the topic. The navbox thus illustrates how this main branch of science fits in the hierarchy. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the ((science)) navbox from lots of articles? Without any edit summary, and incorrectly marked as minor edits too. — Reatlas (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I I noticed you undid an edit I made on Historical Jesus. Why would you undo that edit saying the section on controversial opinions is for scholars? Because Leo Tolstoy is not a scholar and Leo Tolstoy is in that section too. If you do not provide a logical explanation, I will assume that the edit was not done in good faith. I think you have two options here: one is to remove also the Tolstoy reference from the section. 2 is to undo your removal of my submission. Looking forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, Greengrounds (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You assume a bit too much. I typically don't even read most of the pages I have on my watch list. I am a bit of a lazy editor. I did not know Tolstoy was even in that section. In this case I have no problems removing Tolstoy as well, and have in fact done that. Wikipedia articles should ideally focus on scholarly opinion.

I've given that section a quick glance over (a very quick one at that). Alvar Ellegård appears to be an English professor according to his page. That might mean that ancient history is something outside of his area of expertise, and that his opinions on the historical Jesus, however interesting, perhaps should be removed from that section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Nikki Thomas page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High school dropouts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in [[San Francisco]] found that 94 percent of young murder victims were high school dropouts.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Tough-solutions-for-high-school-truancy-rate-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Historical reliability of the Gospels may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not familiar with wiki policy why not refrain from disruptive editing? Ask someone more well versed than yourself like richwales for help!

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page. Thank you. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just added back the image on Internet Screamer that you deleted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Screamer&diff=586401493&oldid=574854784

I agree with your deletion of the reference, as it is not notable, but why the image too?

Thanks! Newyorkadam (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

What makes that image notable? Is the article even notable? Also the Image is used for vandalism for the Vlad Tepes page and I'm looking into having it nominated for deletion for that reason. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. You have new messages at Talk:Spearfish, South Dakota.
Message added 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Since you are the editor in question, I wanted to discuss this with you instead of potentially sparking an edit war over it. Thanks! – TCMemoire 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a conversation taking place at Providence_(religious_movement) about the merging of the two articles. Three of the editors there, including myself, would like to know if it is possible to adopt the former Jung Myung Seok page as the main page since most of the discussions and editing took place there over the past year. Could you lend your opinion on the subject since you were the person to merge the two pages? Macauthor (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harizotoh, I hope this finds you well, AFAIR our paths have not crossed before. I don't think it makes sense to redirect EXODUS (NGO) to Providence (religious movement), and I have restored the article, but I'd love to hear your arguments on the talk page. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 22:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Talk:List_of_video_game_emulators#2013_merge_discussion the results, specifically for Higan (emulator), were:

That appears to be 4 votes to merge and 4 votes to keep, which doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus. In addition the original nominator for merge elected to remove the Notability template from and voted to keep the article. The notability issue, which you mentioned as your criteria in summary, was never added back to the page as an issue, so how would any editors know to address it further?

It's apparently notable enough for Wikipedia in other languages (fr:Higan and pt:Higan (bsnes)) to which it hasn't even been translated. It's been mentioned (under its previous name of bsnes) on Lifehacker and been the subject of articles on Ars Technica, OS X Daily, and Tested. 71.105.132.152 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Euronymous page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was lot of verified text and a better summary in the lead. A lot of text in the body of the article is also missing. I think the lead contains too much misleading text and original research. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This discussion should be held at the talk page for Chiropractic. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Boston Marathon page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit you made was unhelpful - for reasons in my edit summary. How do you know that these texts are still not used today?

In any case - you seem to randomly delete or propose to delete content. Please get consensus on talk pages first before taking action. Thanks, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by user:Maschen above seem to apply also to Silent Spring. I am glad you are engaged in the discussion of your own additions, but removing a quantity of cited materials without discussion has weakened the article. Please see the talk page for suggested actions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just my style. I've written a long post on the talk page discussing those edits. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Edwin Egler may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and environmentalism in the science of ecology <ref>http://www.atonforest.org/Eight6.htm]</ref> <ref>[http://atonforest.org/Ten3.htm])</ref>.
• </ref><ref>[http://www.atonforest.org/Five2.htm]</ref><ref>[http://www.atonforest.org/Five3.htm])</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help on this article. I am trying to make this article read like an encyclopedia and remove the sensational claims such as 1000 women were recruited for exploitation. Please continue to help as you have in the past.MrTownCar (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. Did you really write all that just by yourself? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is you deal with deleting bands and artists? Do you hate knowledge? How are they not notable enough? Any album or band should be allowed on wikipedia so that people may easily find track lists and artwork. When you delete this knowledge people cannot find this info. The ninja sex party page is staying, I am an avid fan of this band and they deserve to stay like any other band. Please message me back on why you are doing this... YoshiYogurt (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment on the wikipedia ANI can you tell me what material I keep reinserting? as you wrote "Myself and others have been trying to remove these sources. For instance here we see User:Shii remove the sources in December 2012. But MrTownCar and Macauthor continue to insert them"

Even better can you explain why you just reverted an edit that YOU made on February 27, 2014 regarding an anonymous source claiming 1,000 women were recruited for exploitation?MrTownCar (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I notice you've been adding some infoboxes to sf magazine articles; could you pause and discuss on the talk pages? I don't think they're beneficial and would like to remove them but wanted to discuss first. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love infoboxes. They're useful and very easy to get information from. I think all articles should have infoboxes of some kind. They present information usually found in the lede, but they are very useful if a person just wants to quickly get a few bits of information, such as when something was published or by whom. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes you've added just give genre and country of origin, both of which are in the first sentence in (I think) every case. My main concern with infoboxes is that either they give information that is just as easily available in the lede, or else they provide more detail, which is often misleading as it summarizes without nuances. Most of the fields in the magazine infobox can't be easily filled in for any magazine with any sort of complex history -- frequency is rarely constant, for example, and editors change often. The few fields that can be filled in are usually available in the first sentence. I'm not opposed to infoboxes in general -- I think there are articles where infoboxes are very useful; species articles, for example. But I don't think they add value to magazine articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the text about franchises that started on the Saturn was more appropriate as an example of its "Legacy" as opposed to its "Game library". I got the idea from the Nintendo Entertainment System's Legacy section. Why do you disagree?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I may have been wrong to confront you here. I'll start a discussion on Saturn's talk page to see if anyone else cares to chime in.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel O'Brien (comedian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secret Service (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) 08:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... I'm not really sure why you think all the section intros needed to be merged with the article intro. As it is, what you've done results in a rather bloated intro that sort of conflicts with WP:SS. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for "synopsis", or "overview" sections, as that is what the lede is for. The current lede completely summarizes the entire article. Ledes are to be no more than four paragraphs in size, which it is. WP:LEAD. It could be trimmed or organized a bit more. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, in this article it doesn't really create any issues since it's relatively short. And I have no problem with four-graf intros (although again the article is on the short side). But your sweeping insistence that "there's no need for synopsis or overview sections" seems to be a personal preference that doesn't have any MOS support (at least not that I could find). Other editors might get a little testy about that—just letting you know. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harizotol, I appreciate your input to this article, but I disagree with what you've done, and let me tell you why. First off, this article is a FA, and the reviewers were fine with how the lead was structured. Secondly, it follows the structure of the article; the section you moved is about the book's themes, which appears almost at the end of the article. This is why I think we should restore the lead to its original version. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Silent Spring at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever changed the titles of articles on generations of video game consoles (like changing History of video game consoles (fourth generation) to Fourth generation video game consoles), then comment here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Articles_on_Generations_of_video_game_consoles }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 20:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why did you change the name of an article like History of video game consoles (first generation) to First generation video game consoles. You did that without any talk page consensus. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 20:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, it appears you have made some good contributions to the The Prisoner page, I intend to improve the article and articles related to it (schedule), and have suggested creating a taskforce in order to achieve this goal (if you have an opinion on this, I'd love to hear it, proposal page). Would you be interested in helping out? --Music26/11 19:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Castlevania: Symphony of the Night at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for RoboCop at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! JudyCS (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re System Shock, which you (or someone else) listed at WP:TFARP as a possible TFA for 22nd September – just to let you know that suggestions can now be made at the TFA requests page for September, so feel free to nominate the article. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 10:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for giving me a heads-up on the nom. Even though the article shows its age, here's hoping it goes through. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harizotoh9, I wonder if you have any views on this page: Tom Harpur? I came across it a a few days ago while looking for something else and was rather puzzled by it given the nature of its subject - I also added the BLP Unsourced tag as it seems to be entirely unsourced. I'm not at all sure it meets notability requirements - certainly I don't think it does in its current form. I'm only a very amateur user of wikipedia (hence no account) but I have come across your work on doubtful articles before and I thought it might be worth bringing this one to your attention. I think it would at the very least benefit from an overhaul. I've no particular agenda on this - my field of study is modern European history - but I'm wary of hagiographies with no sources about people who appear to be fringe characters. Hope it is of interest.31.52.239.219 (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christopher McCandless may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Carl McCunn]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Electric Youth (band) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpHLyAssN9wUx6-NyTfT2Dg Electric Youth]] on

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of Mosul, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://library.kiwix.org/wikipedia_en_wp1/A/Mosul.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this article. I'll give attribution on my user page. Cheers! --Seduisant (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harizotoh9/archive! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Please read with respect to section ordering. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your vote of support for Tintin in Tibet over at WP:TFAR and for your true statement about the number of comics articles submitted here; much appreciated. Say, as for your minor edit you made to the article, the thing is, the previous heading name and formatting is consistent with all Tintin articles. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cobra (1986 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fair Game. 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) 09:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Buchwald v. Paramount may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to ensure that it is mathematically almost impossible for any movie to show a net profit.{[cn}} Specifically, the net profit formula in authors' contracts does not correspond to the net profit

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armored Trooper Votoms may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Armored Trooperoid VOTOMS: Finder'' ([[w:ja:ボトムズファインダー|ボトムズファインダ]]) - spinoff OVA set in AU ([[Alternative universe]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I replied to your remark. --Psychiatrick (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armored Trooper Votoms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternative universe. 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) 11:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. You have new messages at Talk:Bath School bombings.
Message added 05:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

See also the 2.1 subsection: Bath School bombings Shearonink (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding this edit, how exactly is the source not reliable? While I was working on the Katy Perry article over the past several months, nobody objected to its use. I'd simply like to know your rationale. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best source. Religious newspaper. Better to use aa mainstream news source. There are two other references for that bit of information which are better. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeee the other two references were better. Thanks for explaining. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you're on a roll, removing skeptical sources and skeptical opinions, some of them quite notable ones. Keep in mind that just because the word "blog" appears, does not make it an unreliable source, at least not anymore. It's been several years since you should have gotten over that allergic reaction, which is a leftover from the wiki stone age. Now the blog format is used for many very legitimate purposes, including corporate and organizational websites, politicians' websites, and journalists' columns.

What gives? When it comes to fringe subjects, aren't you aware of WP:PARITY, which allows for such skeptical sources, since the mainstream pretty much ignores fringe subjects? Without their use, the only sources left are fringe sources, and such one-sided and promotional coverage would violate NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dunning is, as far as I know just some guy with a podcast. He isn't an expert on anything. It's WP:UNDUE to give his views much attention. And there's much better sources critical of the paranormal and pseudoscience. He is also used in articles like Roanoke Colony, Nuclear winter, Stanford prison experiment which are in fact heavily covered by mainstream sources and do not need his views at all.

For Natural News, personal blogs should be avoided. There is a some amount of coverage in mainstream Reliable sources already, including several controversies. The article should stick to the major controversies. There are likely more standard WP:RS out there. I will search for more. the article also used some NPOV language, and sourced only to a blog. Example Novella's quote that he is "a dangerous conspiracy-mongering crank". This is a pretty strong view that would require something more weighty than a blog to justify. It's also not really needed. The article in general needs a lot of work.

For WP:Parity, then it would make more sense to use a source such as Skeptic Magazine or Skeptical Inquirer, which at least has gone through some kind of editorial overview as opposed to simple blogs. Or some published book. Many of these fringe topics have been covered by those. Relying on self-published blogs is not needed and done usually because they're the easiest sources to get online. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a very large amount of articles that link to Skeptoid in the External links. It's not needed and seems to be borderline promotional spam. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you slow down. Your opinion is not shared by skeptics and deleting such sources without replacing it with better sourcing leaves content without sources in some cases. I see you have a list on your user page. If you start deleting QW you'll be in for a nasty surprise. Be very careful about making such mass controversial deletions. You need VERY strong reasons for each one. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted most of your edits. You need to make each case in turn. Many of the articles from which you removed Dunning are on WP:FRINGE topics and therefore by WP:PARITY, we don't need credentialed expertise to document the issues (since the conflict is in the realm of amateur argumentation). You may have a point oon certain articles for removing fringe argumentation and therefor podcast rejoinders, but you can't just driveby remove all skeptoid sources with the link search. You have to be more thoughtful. jps (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple edits have been done in a short period of time that lack edit summaries. As an editor with some experience, I expect you are aware that edit summaries are appropriate. A campaign to remove a particular source from multiple articles without discussion is not in keeping with policy. A lack of edit summary and discussion on talk are not appropriate. If an editor feels a particular source is not reliable, discussion at RSN before removing that source is appropriate. EL's to expanded content on the subject of the article are appropriate, so long as the content at the EL is of quality. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harizotoh9,

I saw that you removed the edit I applied to the Providence article, with the reasoning: "seems pretty tangential to the purpose of the article."

LoL, maybe I'm a little confused... can you please state on the talk page of the article why you feel that this edit does not fit with the purpose of the article? What do you believe the purpose of the article is? Just so we're on the same page! :)

If the purpose of the article is to provide an academic representation of the subject, then being a best-selling poet/writer who was included in an anthology of 100 years of Korean poetry is very relevant, right?

I'm going to re-post the edit--remember we have to go by the facts and provide a complete picture of the subject, even if it is a subjec that is controversial or unpopular.

blessings, GIOSCali (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tutelary (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Catherine Wayne, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Catherine Wayne and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Catherine Wayne during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clock Tower (1995 video game), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English, Korean and Turkish. 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) 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Third World may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[United States]], [[Western Europe]]an nations and their allies representing the [[First World]]). The [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], and their allies representing the [[Second World]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Regarding your edit on Mosquito (which I'm assuming you found from reddit). I don't really agree with your removal– rather than removing it entirely, why not put ((Citation needed))? The person who put it there originally probably wasn't guessing. By putting "I would have imagined Smallpox would have killed more" in the edit summary, you're doing the same thing as the sentence removed– making a statement without evidence. I'm curious what you think.

Thanks, Newyorkadam (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

I have no idea what the intention of the person who put it there. They could have heard it from someone they knew, or were just guessing. Or it "seemed true" to them. Anything without proper citations can be challenged or removed. When a citation is found about an estimate of those killed by mosquito related illnesses then that can be added in. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing RfC about the title for the entry "Bath School bombing/disaster". -The Gnome (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a while ago you added December 1964 South Vietnamese coup to WP:TFARP as a possible candidate for "Today's featured article" on 19th December. If you're still interested, you can now nominate it at WP:TFAR. Any problems, please let me know. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 12:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First you removed the "Fictional Underbosses" section without giving a reason, when I reverted back, you removed it again. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but I really have trouble understanding why this section is bothering you. People can't picture original mafia families, but when they see examples of fictional mafia families, they have a clearer understanding of what underboss is. Everyone knows The Godfather, and example of Sonny Corleone helps people to get the concept of underboss. Gezginrocker (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Great job on 2014 Russian financial crisis. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bubblegum Crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terminator. 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) 09:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that Majungasaurus, which you nominated at WP:TFAR, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 18 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw that you recently removed some external links from The Thing (1982 film). Per MOS:FILM, we've got a more-or-less standardized set of external links that we generally list in film-related articles. This includes Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, etc. On the talk page, there has recently been some dispute over linking to fansites and blogs, and I think that right now it's best if we don't link to tangentially-related blogs without further discussion. A personal blog by a producer on the film seems more appropriate to me as an external link on his own biography, rather than an external link from one individual film. I also removed a unsourced writing credit from the infobox, as it was labeled as uncredited. Generally, if it's uncredited, that means it needs a source, as credits are assumed to be sourced to the film itself. In any case, I'm not entirely sure that it's important to highlight that a director has made uncredited changes to a screenplay, as that's not really uncommon. Still, it could be mentioned in the production section, which discusses early drafts and rewrites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest some changes to the wording of the Main Page paragraph, because the Main Page gets a lot of casual readers. I'm not sure how many of them will still be reading after "Majungasaurus is a genus of abelisaurid theropod dinosaur". (This article was promoted to FA in 2007.) How about something like "Majungasaurus is a genus of carnivorous dinosaurs with flattened snouts that ran on two legs"? We could push abelisaurids and theropods to the fourth and fifth sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crash Canyon. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. You have new messages at Talk:Crash Canyon.
Message added 22:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "In popular culture" section includes items related to film and television, but also magazine articles and a book. "In popular culture" is a standard heading for biographical articles where it is not necessary to break the items up due to number into different types of media. I reverted your edit to the heading to read "Film and televisione" (sic). Dwpaul ^Talk 12:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your summary: Then we will need to be on the lookout for WP:TRIVIA, but we should not mislabel the section to avoid it. Dwpaul ^Talk 12:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dirty Pair (television) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bardo National Museum page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits to that article. It's nice to see that I'm not the only editor who understands and supports NPOV. JoeM (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bubblegum Crisis (series), and it appears to include material copied directly from https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8923717/Bubblegum_Crisis_Collection_(Crisis__Crash__Tokyo_2040__AD_Polic.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dirty Pair (light novels), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Horse. 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) 09:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was such a complete re-write of the article that it's hard for me to figure out what you're doing here. I've opened a thread at Talk:Wacky Races#re April 6 2015 edits where you can make your case for these edits and we can discuss this. Herostratus (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you have any long term plan with these articles and are starting a long process or have simply made a franchise article to link them. I did take a look at one or two of the articles a few days ago as I have magazine sources for them. A franchise article probably is needed, but I'm not yet convinced that means we need separate pages for each Bubblegum entry of if they could all file into a single article covering all 3. I'm especially not convinced by bundling them together with related series which are largely established as separate entities. If they are loosely related then they could go as See Also's, and would need information expel;raining their links.

However I'm not very knowledgeable about the series myself so I'm just curious as to the aim. If you are planning to work on these articles than I will provide you with magazine sources and then see how you get on with improving the articles.SephyTheThird (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly that anime pages on Wikipedia have no idea what they want to be. Are they series pages, or are they pages about a specific work of animation? They are often cluttered messes that are difficult to navigate, read, and get relevant information.

So the page for Bubblegum Crisis featured a list of all the sequel series, then all spin offs, comics, rpgs, figurines, and so forth. It leads to pages that are cluttered messes. So to simplify that, I made the Bubblegum Crisis page focus on just the original OVA, and then move all releated merchandise to the series page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well for your first point, this is where the difference between a properly written article and a bad one comes in. There isn't any difference between that and any other type of article. The solution is to improve articles. I'm don't really see how this improves things. Instead it seems to add another messy page that arbitrarily links titles that are only partially related with the context being minimal. Instead of simplifying things and organising them you have instead done the opposite and created a bigger mess. The titles may be related, but sticking them together in this fashion doesn't make a better set of articles. You've actually created an article that is exactly what you are complaining about. Do you actually have plans for these articles or are you done? I would like to be helpful but I really can't see the improvement here, and these titles all have the potential to make far better articles if handled properly. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Berserk (television), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.movier.eu/series/128106-berserk.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverting to older version for now" Uhhhh....why?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the "opinion of morality" section can probably go for WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV reasons, but the charity stats and the bus campaign seem good to me.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this back as I could not see anything that warranted removal. Normally I question self-published information, however, when the organization itself publishes its views on morality or any other topic or point of view, I find it disturbing that somehow that information should not be included in an article about the organization especially if it denotes a significant point of view of the organization itself. Not real sure how such can be construed as WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV when it's the organization's own point of view. Now, we could seek out information that is critical of the orgs point of view to attempt to maintain NPOV but none the less it's not like the editor(s) are making the orgs point of view up; it's on their own arguably "self-promoting" website.167.131.0.194 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Astrobiology isn't a fringe source of course, but an argument about Intelligent design has no place in the AIG article. The IP doesn't seem to understand or care about such things. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not so sure. We have an entire section criticizing AIG from a scientific point of view and we are reluctant to include a minority point of view from a peer reviewed work? That seems to fly in the face of the goals of WP:Weight/Undue/Due and WP:NPOV. It's not like much can be said about the minority point of view so I find it difficult to anticipate the minority point of view will receive undue weight.167.131.0.194 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is from the list of journal articles that discovery institute claims supports Intelligent Design. From the quote used, I have no idea how that supports ID at all, since it specifically mentions life evolving. I question the entire relevancy of it to the page. I also don't know the quality of the journal or the quality of the article. I know Tipler has dome some weird sorta mystical thinking like the Omega Point. A lot of the articles in that Discovery Institute list look to be creationists publishing legitimate if minor research just so they can gain credibility. There was also that other article that was only published by going around standard peer review. Using any of those papers would be WP:UNDUE at the very least, especially since none of them specifically seem to actually prove any creationist ideas directly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are we saying any theories on Wikipedia must be accompanied by "proof?" I don't think we want to go down that proverbial rabbit hole. Simply because you or I don't understand the science behind the theory doesn't mean we should delete it. In reading the abstract, it looks as though the researcher of the peer reviewed work is stating that an intelligent design would be necessary for an ever expanding universe. His assumptions must be valid or it would not be published in the journal. Sounds like a compelling argument, albeit a minority one, but valid none the less. My advice is to err on the side of providing more information than less information and allowing the intelligent Wikipedia readers to draw conclusions from that information.167.131.0.194 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We don't have to give equal weight to every idea out there. It's not uncommon to have low quality obscure journals publishing questionable quality research. Or in this case, I'm not even sure if its even science. It doesn't mean we have to pay attention to it or devote paragraphs to it in articles.

My advice is to err on the side of providing more information than less information and allowing the intelligent Wikipedia readers to draw conclusions from that information.

Uh, no, that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't give credence to fringe views and pretend that they're mainstream or scientifically valid.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ryōsuke Takahashi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Cockpit. 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) 11:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Armored Trooper Votoms (TV series), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.yifymovies.org/tv/32377/armored-trooper-votoms-1983.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bubblegum Crisis into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Armored Trooper Votoms (TV series), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Trooper_Votoms, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Armored Trooper Votoms (TV series) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Armored Trooper Votoms (TV series), in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Armored Trooper Votoms (TV series). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Armored Trooper Votoms (TV series) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Armored Trooper Votoms (TV series) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have chosen to ignore the request immediately above this. Copying Wikipedia content without proper attribution is a violation of copyright. Please don't do it again. If you need help using the ((copied)) template, please ask. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know why Casliber didn't finish the requested copyedit, but it may have something to do with the fact that several other editors are working on it already. Trying to copyedit an unstable article is an exercise in futility, and copyediting is difficult to do by committee. We may have to decline the request until the article stabilizes. All the best, Miniapolis 02:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Marie Stopes at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"useful and very easy to get information from"
Thank you for quality articles such as Hideaki Itsuno and Evolution of tetrapods, for a clear user page focused on "to do", for gnomish work in deletion, TFA and project tags, and for "How can this get to FA status without an infobox?" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1217 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for your edits on the Shenmue III. I've done some pretty significant changes to it myself. Please feel free to modify anything I've submitted. TopHatProfessor1014 (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently thanked you for an edit. I don't mean to be rude, but it was an accident. I meant to thank the person who reverted you. Probably well-intentioned on your part, though, it's just that they're right, we can call untried people suspects, just not criminals. Anyway, carry on! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, you're both right. Hadn't noticed the perp/susperp switch. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page June 2015 Kobani attack should be renamed to June 2015 Kobani massacres

94.187.115.11 (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article June 2015 Kobani attack 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/June 2015 Kobani attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. George Ho (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dual! Parallel Trouble Adventure, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Non-Dropframe _talk 14:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Space observatory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• such as [[light pollution]] and the filtering and distortion of [[electromagnetic radiation]] ([[Scintillation (astronomy)|scintillation]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Rodger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moroccan. 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) 08:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB, MobyGames, Gaming Historian, most Hardcore Gaming 101 authors are not reliable sources. The video game reliable sources custom Google search is helpful for finding non-blog sources that have been vetted for accuracy. – czar 07:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

imdb and mobygames are reliable for credits, but not much else. It's just a start. I'm going to read "The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers" which has interviews with a lot of people and discusses a lot of early Capcom. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB and MobyGames are listed as unreliable for anything, including (especially for?) credits. And where did you read "All officially released games get wiki pages and don't need to pass notability standards"? That's not what WP:N says. – czar 07:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Takashi Nishiyama

added links pointing to Hiroshi Matsumoto and Fatal Fury

Street Fighter

added a link pointing to Hiroshi Matsumoto

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cocoron 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/Cocoron (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – czar 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geology2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Umpqua Community College shooting does not have an edit summary. 95% or more of your edits throughout Wikipedia lack edit summaries. Be a sport and include a brief yet descriptive summary with each of your edits. Cheers! This does not appear to be your first notice

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 10:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to alert you that 2015 San Bernardino shooting is under discretionary sanctions, with a WP:1RR limit. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Berryman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. 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) 09:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tina Fontaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red River. 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) 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Super48paul. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Necromancy without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hello there: into my humble opinion some examples of popular culture should be kept in the article: see my remarks on TP. Cheers. Super48paul (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've brought up the problematic single purpose accounts editing Canadian Association for Equality up at the COI noticeboard - the discussion is here. You're one of the few editors apart from the spa's who has edited the page recently, just thought you might appreciate a heads up. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Treated as" does not mean it "is" Kevin McE (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Your recent edits seem to have violated the WP:1RR restriction of ISIL-related articles GreyShark (dibra) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of disruptively editing, please join the ongoing RfC at Talk:List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#RfC:_Should_the_Orlando_shooting_be_included_in_this_list.3F. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 23:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single revert is not "disruptive editing". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghostbusters (2016 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isometric. 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) 10:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hariz, if you want to remove or shorten the section on jihad, please start a new section at Talk:List of common misconceptions. I strongly object to your wholesale deletion of most of that content. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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) 09:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a VPP discussion about distinguishing between terrorist attacks and non-terrorist attacks, if you would like to participate. Parsley Man (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...why didn't anybody follow-up with your 2012 comment in talk of Census of Quirinius that it seemed reasonable to include Mark Smith's 2000 proposal that King Herod in Luke is actually Herod Archelaus? 168.88.65.6 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about any confusion. I copied you and a number of other editors who had their edits reverted by by Niteshift36. He or she's been scrubbing the GEO Group page via massive deletions for almost four years, removing most negative information about the corporation. When confronted, he or she typically responds with threats and vulgarity. I see he or she's been involved in Noticeboard incidents 984 times. I've discussed the problem on the article's TALK page. I'm not trying to upset you or anyone else, but I'm at my wit's end in how to deal with this recalcitrant editor. I've spent hours laboriously trying to improve the article only to have all my work deleted with a single keystroke. There's no need to involve yourself in this, unless you're interested. I think the behavior is adverse to Wikipedia comity so I hope some reasonable solution might be had. Activist (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bring in third parties and noticeboards to examine the issue. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went to request assistance at ANI, exhaustively sourced the problem, and after some time, my request was rejected as having been sent to the wrong board. Can you suggest an arbitrator who might be helpful in dealing with this? Niteshift's most recent vulgar rant, after I reverted a recent deletion by him, one of 78 he has made of disfavorable but well-supported edits to this corporation's article made by many editors in the last four years:

Today I noted:

@Niteshift36:, @Parkwells:, @C.J. Griffin:, @Lockley:, @Ctaylor661:, @WhisperToMe:, Restored details of chronic and extreme mismanagement at Walnut Grove, unjustifiably deleted by Niteshift36. This editor has made 20 removals of text added by many editors this year, yet no additions or corrections. In the past four years, Niteshift has made 77 removals of negative information about this corporation's behavior, what have usually constituted massive amounts of well sourced edits by other Wikipedians, and made only four miniscule additions to the article. This seems to be the quintessence of POV, IMHO. Activist (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

:*First, stop pinging the crap out of everyone who ever supported anything you said once. Second, enough with your "unjustifiably" removed nonsense. There was plenty of discussion. Third, regarding your "look how many edits he made" crying, when will you get tired of your paranoid nonsense? Lastly, you should examine your own issues, like your attempted WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, your chronic casting WP:ASPERSIONS and your activities as a WP:POV warrior. You've been asked to stop with your false allegations, yet you insist on continued dickish behavior. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

::*Activist, I have cautioned you about your allegations of "scrubbing" or similar implications that imply that I'm doing anything on behalf of anyone else. And yes, I;ve commented at the ANI 984 times.....usually participating in discussion. You act like I was the topic 984 times. Harizotoh gives good advice....try using the process instead of canvassing people who made an edit or two, 2 years ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

*How do you arrive at that conclusion? When this started, you have a big entry about this case. Now there is a single reasonable sized paragraph. That's exactly what I have contended all along. I never tried "whitewashing" or "scrubbing" it. I simply made it reasonable sized and consistent with other articles. If anything, it was your version of the Mississippi Hustle entry that was rejected. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Any assistance would be appreciated. Activist (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you noticed but here's a vigorous debate on Talk about this. A WP:SPA chiropractic fan wants to cut out the fact that chiros' use of x-rays is unethical, and one admin (me) and two long-term users are trying to coax him down off the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't notice a debate over the image. I noticed a debate over the rules. See WP:CAPTION. QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undoing that. I appear to have misread the URL. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please come participate in the discussion on what should be included. Thanks! (Placing this here in case the ping doesn't work) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. At your earliest convenience, could you please share your thoughts on the 2015 San Bernardino attack talk page regarding the inclusion of the "Raheel Farook, Tatiana Farook, and Mariya Chernykh section"? Thank you! [6] --Djrun (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're annoyed by Jezebel as a source for an article while you have Gawker's websites on your user page. I'm failing to understand your stance on Gawker websites that you have things like "Kotaku and Gawker media RS for WP Vidya" on your page. GamerPro64 18:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Silent Hill 2 has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good work. It is very much appreciated. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Social contract at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harizotoh9 - I've done the best I can. I have two concerns.

1) In some places, particularly in all the sections of Social contract#Critical theories, the prose is so dense – so difficult to understand, possibly because overly academic – that it may need to be simplified for the average Wikipedia reader, that is, made less academic and/or made slightly clearer by someone who both understands the subject matter and is a good writer. Perhaps one of these editors could take a look at it: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Rothorpe, Iridescent, among others.

2) An editor added some material recently (see this and subsequent edits). I have two concerns about it:

(a) The material seems so different from the rest of the article that, if it is indeed appropriate, I think some effort needs to be made to make the connection to the other material clearer; and

(b) the editor may be a non-native speaker of English, so the prose is just short of being truly comprehensible. Because I couldn't quite figure out what was meant, I decided to leave it alone, but it definitely needs some work. Perhaps Joshua Jonathan could help out here.  – Corinne (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it; it seems to be original research, and it is indeed out of place there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete my edit again I will seek third-party assistance. deisenbe (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]