User talk:North Atlanticist Usonian: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:30, 19 December 2011

Can i help you? Just leave a message in the orthodox fashion below. Please remember to sign.

"what you got's to say? ...... HUH?!?" "oh, gotta go then .. pumpkin", ...... you better pass a method

Recent Change on Shia Page

I have reverted your changes because you have introduced typos and eliminated too much contents. Can you please use the discussion page to discuss your intent behind these changes. Thanks much! Xareen (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EL

Hey, EL=European Leading so the best european time in the year so far. Kante4 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PassaMethod (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Kante4 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My English

†

Thank you for complimenting my English :) I basically studied English as a foreign language for about 10 or 11 years in school. Also, when I was a child, cartoons channels like Cartoon Network were not dubbed in Romanian (now they are), and movies are still subtitled instead of dubbed over, so I got to hear a lot of English while watching TV. Also, I think the fact that I come from a bilingual Hungarian/Romanian family made me more receptive to other languages. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think about how pleasant a language is. They are how they are. I can appreciate how a language sounds when I do not understand it, but if I understand the words, I can't judge weather it's pleasant sounding or not. Each language has its ups and downs. I can tell you one thing I find quite unpleasant: English spoken with a thick Romanian accent Example. I probably have that accent when I'm too lazy to pronounce correctly, but it annoys the hell out of me when I hear it in others. I don't know why, as other accents don't bother me. Except maybe English with a Hungarian accent :) - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting --Smart30 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Gfoley4's talk page.
Message added 14:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Colour

If you want your name to be a different colour then I suggest that you use this method.

This is your signature. Please make sure that the custom signature box is checked, otherwise you'll be left with a looooooooooooong blue link. Also make sure that your sig complies with this guideline. Alternatively, you can check this colour information page.

Any problems let me know.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy this code into your preferences (note: this is only an example)

[[User:PassaMethod|Passa]][[User talk:PassaMethod|Method]]

Which should look like this:PassaMethod

Thanks PassaMethod (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My text is red.. [[User:PassaMethod|Passa]][[User talk:PassaMethod|Method]] (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know; don't know how it happened. Did you copy the code above? Just highlight the text, right-click and select "Copy" and paste into the Signature bit into your preferences. Also make sure that the custom box is selected (I'll get an inspiration pic in a min).--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 16:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nightmare. Can you consult someone more experienced than yourself maybe? Everything is red now. [[User:PassaMethod|Passa]][[User talk:PassaMethod|Method]] (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it exactly as you said. [[User:PassaMethod|Passa]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|Method]] (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the picture.

The old Preferences page, containing the **Signature** section .

Please note that this preferences screenshot is outdated.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When i try to select custom box it says There are problems with some of your input [[User:PassaMethod|Passa]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|Method]] (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." [[User:PassaMethod|Passa]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|Method]] (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use the alternate codes- copy and paste into the preferences. Alternatively, experiment in a sandbox.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the code exactly like this (without the nowiki tags) into the Signature box and select the "Treat the above as wiki markup"

[[User:PassaMethod|Passa]][[User talk:PassaMethod|Method]]

That should be the final nail in the coffin. If you're still stuck then don't hesitate to contact me or place {{helpme}} on your talk page (a.k.a here) --^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im just going to stick with the original. PassaMethod (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example: [[User:MassaMethod|MazzaMethod]] [[User talk:MassaMethod|talk]] Enter this in the sig box and pick the colors/fonts you wish.

Then hit the "Treat above as Wiki markup" button if you haven't already. —GFOLEY FOUR— 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Tahoma for the font in the first part, papyrus in the second part. Try maroon for the first font and orange for the second font. —GFOLEY FOUR— 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if it works..... MazzaMethod talk 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see if it works now.... PassaMethod talk 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, it works!! Except for the talk part which is defunct PassaMethod talk 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, any link that links to the page that it is on will appear bold. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deism

Please stop adding deism distinction headers. They aren't "confused" with atheism or agnosticism in any way, they're totally different concepts. Don't add them without consensus, please. Thanks. GManNickG (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on Sharia law

Hello. In the article Ban on Sharia law you wrote "...support the creation of federal legislation that would ban the application or implementation of of Islamic law (Sharia) in courts in any jurisdiction in the United States or elsewhere." (emphasis mine). The references only mention a ban in the United States. Are you planning to expand this to cover bans in other countries? Thanks, Shire Reeve (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox modelPlease stop adding blank or almost blank copies of {{Infobox model}} to articles. Infoboxes should only be added to articles where they are relevant and blank infoboxes should never be added. Articles should generally only have one infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]I echo this comment. For example, Megan Fox is more of an actress these days than she is a model. Therefore, Infobox person suits her better. When you added this, you should have put all the information that was in Infobox person to this infobox as well. If you had, I would not have been as inclined to revert partially on the basis that Infobox person is more informative. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]EditWell, sure. There's a couple of ways of to explain it. One is, this would constitute fairly contentious material, I think. I didn't see any discussion beforehand, and we would need to have to considerable discussion and perhaps an RfC showing a clear community consensus before we want to go down this path. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]InfoboxesIf someone is primarily an actress but has done some modeling work, that is not an adequate rationale to change the infobox just so you can add hair and eye color. Please use the model infobox only for people who are primarily models, such as Cindy Crawford. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]LOL. Basically what I just stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Okay then. Pass a Method talk 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]Hayden PanettiereIf most of the work someone does is acting; if a person becomes very well know for acting, but does some modeling work in addition; if most of the Wikipedia article is about the person's acting: that person is primarily an actor, not a model. Hayden Panettiere is an actress. You have to use a little judgment. This isn't rocket science. I would suggest putting aside you focus on hair and eye color unless it is very obvious that the person is a model. Cresix (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] yeah you tell him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.214.75.99 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]RE: WhatNo, not really but I dont care. My friends know as well as my family. There is a huge community of irreligious people is MENA and many muslim countries. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]I havenot told my parents nor my GF parents but the rest knows. The reason I havent told them is because I dont feel like I need to share nor make a statement about my lack of belief in a personal god or afterlife. They are also old and might have a heart attack when I tell them. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Angelina JolieHi, you recently add a quote to Angelina Jolie which I reverted because the reference was not specific so couldn't be verified. I'm sure as a reviewer you are well aware of Biographies of living persons policies. If would like to add the quote please find a specific page link that can be verified. Thanks. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Edit to African-American articleHi, PassaMethod. I can't figure out the sequence of event or edits that led to your undo, but I had made two changes to wording, yielding this paragraph: << In this same period, a smaller number of people favored Afro-American, a common shortening (as is 'Anglo-American'). However, after the decline in popularity of the 'Afro' hairstyle in the late 1970s, many blacks began to be offended by the term 'Afro-American' because of its association with the hairstyle and the time period. ^{[citation needed]}. >> I think "decline" is better than "demise" -- the Afro isn't dead -- and I think my change to the end of the sentence is appropriate as well. Let me know if you agree, and if so one of us can put my two changes back. Thanx/Jo3samplBahrain protestsExcuse me? Why did you revert my edit and accused me of vandalism? I was highly offended by your accusation. My edit was properly sourced and you accused me without reason. Please explain. EkoGraf (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]I did not mean to revert your 1st edit. Your second edit for 36 deaths was false, as the ref did not support the claims. Your ref was also unpunctual. The ref dates to March when we have newer sources. Pass a Method talk 17:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] It was not false, I added three sources for those 36 deaths, the first confirming 31 protestors died, the second four policemen died, the third a Saudi soldier died, that is 36. But I understand why it could have been confusing. So now I have added them in a way it could be confirmed that 36 people died. So please read my last edit. If you have a problem with it please discuss before reverting. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] You should have expressed it simpler. You said there were 36 deaths, but then i see an outdated March source that says 20(something) deaths. What am i suposed to assume? I did not mean to cause offense. Btw, that should be 35 deaths as that Saudi soldier is among the security officers i think. Pass a Method talk 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] The Saudi soldier was shot and killed. I added a source that specificly says the four policemen were killed when they were run over by protestors with their cars. The Peninsula Shield Force is specificly a military force, not a police force. The sources don't say for one moment that the Saudi is included among the policemen. And like I said, new source I added specificly says the way those four died which is highly different than how the Saudi died. At this point you would have to add a source which explicitly states that the Saudi was counted among the policemen. The Bahrainis were only stating their own casualties, which were separate of those of the Shield Force. EkoGraf (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Yes, but they were officially tasked with securing and protecting key infrastructure meaning they were carrying out police duties. Thats where you became confused with terminology. I would still appreciate it if you self-revert, unless you can find distinctive refs distinguishing police deaths from soldier deaths Pass a Method talk 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] I admit though, i could be wrong Pass a Method talk 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] I understand very perfectly. The sources are already quite clear. The refs already distinguish police deaths (all four runned down by cars) from soldier deaths (shot and killed). One source states that four policemen were killed, a source which was talking about Bahrain casualties exclusivly. It doesn't mention even in one moment that the Saudi was counted among them. It doesn't make mention of the Saudi at all. In addition, one more source is provided that torpedoes your theory totaly, and that is that the four policemen reported killed were confirmed to have died after protestors ran them over with their cars. The Saudi was shot and killed. I think that makes it preaty clear that the four were killed by cars while the Saudi was killed by a gun. You cann't be more clearer than that. If you have a source where it is explicitly stated that the Saudi was counted among the four, which would be strange since he died from a bullet and the four died from cars hitting them, than please add that source. In the meantime everything is properly sourced at the moment and I would urge you not to remove properly sourced information. Thank you. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Could you please specify which source says that "all four were run down by cars" ? Thanks Pass a Method talk 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Sorry for the delay in the reply, watching Game of Thrones on HBO. Here is the source [1]. Will quote it: According to authorities, four police officers were killed after being struck by cars during protests led by the tiny Sunni-ruled kingdom's Shiite majority. Hope it clears it up now. EkoGraf (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]The first paragraph in that ref indicates the four police officers died in seperate events (with two police officers mentioned for 1 court case). So, doesn't this crush your theory? Pass a Method talk 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] That Saudi soldier was probably hit by a car and then shot. I've seen youtube footage, but i can't be bothered to find sources though. Pass a Method talk 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] OK, right now you are not following Wikipedia guidelines on verifibility anymore but simply twisting everything so it would seem you are right. Nothing crushing my theory, you saying that the soldier was probably hit by a car and then shot is your personal opinion and could constitute original research since you don't have any sources to back up that claim. I am asking you nicely, please refrain from making up unsourced claims. The sources are clear on the situation. Four Bahrain police officers were ran over by protestors with their cars and the soldier was shot and killed, the sources don't say anything about the soldier being included among the four or even that the soldier was first hit by a car and than shot. I have provided enough sources for my edit, it is now up to you to provide sources for your claims because, like I said, Wikipedia is based on verifibility. My edit has been verified, your claim has not. If you have a problem with that please talk to an administrator for a neutral opinion, but I am telling you you cann't make an unsourced edit. EkoGraf (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Re: TempI think that that template is quite flawed in categorizing Humanists, Deists, and Pantheists as necessarily Irreligious. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] See also: Template talk:Irreligious people --Cybercobra (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:Irreligious peopleTemplate:Irreligious people has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cybercobra (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Re:April 2011In my talk you questioned my actions as, " Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Next time, instead of constantly asking for sources as you did here and here why don't you use the google search engine to find refs yourself? Thank you." Let me add my points here, as also in my talk: in Talk:Alawi I asked "are Alawis syncretic?" not as a general discussion but as a question that, if mentioning Alawis as syncretic in article lead is valid as there was no citation. Now I see a ref is been added. It seems OK now. I would have expected a reply in relevant talk instead of here though. :P You confused my review request as forum discussion. So In here I really disagree that the hadith is authentic and I even not asked for source there. I found that the description source, (i.e. the order of who descried the hadith) is not a very strong one and this hadith may be considered as a weak or non-auhtentic hadith to many Islamic scholars. So, my suggestion is to remove this disputable hadith. Only finding a hadith do not make it authentic, there are method of classifying hadith in regard to authenticity. In case of Alawi my first try to find a good source has failed. It is not others duty to find citations but the editors who introduces some information which requires citations. According to Wikipedia:Five pillars "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." Next time instead of constantly adding information without citing sources, I think it is better if you, please try to add sources; and as you search engines you already have the sources. It is better not to advise (or advertise) any specific search engine. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 08:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]CenkStrategy: Find a copyright compatible image by searching for the exact term. It must permit a) commercial reuse and b) modification. If a compatible image cannot be found, ask photographers/uploaders if they are willing to change the copyright. Repeat with less exact terms.Search termCenk UygurStep 1: Google images search - advanced search - license = labeled for commercial reuse with modification [2]result: [3] nothingStep 2: Flickr image search - advanced search - only search within creative commons licensed content, commercial reuse and modification [4]result: [5] junkStep 3: Flickr image search - advanced search - only search within creative commons licensed content, commercial reuse (not modification) [6]result: same as aboveStep 4: Flickr image search - advanced search - only search within creative commons licensed content, modification (not commercial reuse) [7]result: [8] and [9] either are possibilities, though not ideal. The Flickr photographer has to be contacted and asked to change their license to not prohibit commercial reuse.Step 4: Flickr image search - advanced search - only search within creative commons licensed content, (not modification, not commercial reuse) [10]result: [11] and [12] both appear to be taken from MSNBC's website and thus are 'flicker-washed', not compatible because the original copyright was not compatible before it was changed.Step 5: Flickr image search - regular search - (do not search only creative commons licensed content) [13]result: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] several look great but they would all have to have their license changed to allow both commercial use and modification.Search termThe Young Turksresult: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] last try, good photos again, but none with the right copyrights, photographers have to be contactedOcaasi ^c 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Conclusion?So whats the conclusion? Pass a Method talk 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Conclusion is, barring further search, there are images that look good but are not copyright compatible. The photographers need to be contacted individually through Flickr and asked if they will change their licenses. Ocaasi ^c 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually the best approach would be to contact either Cenk's press agent, The Young Turks information line, or MSNBC, and ask them for a copyright-free photo that could be used on Wikipedia. They'd probably be happy to provide one. They just have to realize that once they license it, others can sell or modify it (and so can they). Ocaasi ^c 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Arianne Schrodel Station 26 arianne@station26la.com tel 310.584.1207 fax 310.584.1548 cell 213.200.8240 (TYT website). Ocaasi ^c 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Copy-rights are so annoying. I'm not going to go through all that just to get 1 picture. Google should probably install some new tools to make non-copy-right more accessible because this is useless. Thanks for all the help though. I appreciate it. Pass a Method talk 19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] They're annoying, but I've come around to them a bit. Some people make their living taking photographs, and for the photographers at least, copyrights are meaningful. Also, Wikipedia's license is so radical--anyone can reuse it, mix it, sell it--that it's really important to get copyright correct. It's often worth the effort; don't forget that once an image is included properly, it will be viewed by tens if not hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. There's a lot of leverage there which makes the research worthwhile. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks again. I've learnt quite a bit from you. We're all volunteering anyway. Cenk Uygur is a guy i look up to, thats why i thought a pic would look sweet, but not neccessary though. Pass a Method talk 20:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] No problem. Yeah, he's a cool dude. He cracks me up. Try his press agent... I'm sure she wants a photo to be on his Wikipedia page. It's first on the google search for his name [30] and was viewed almost 30,000 times last month alone. Ocaasi ^c 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]A few emails, but one came back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenk_Uygur . The graphiclab is working on the background and lighting, since those are not great. He's not exactly smiling at his best, but it's an image and he looks decent. Ocaasi ^c 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thanks so much. It looks great. I was too lazy to do it but i guess you have more patience than me. Cenk Uygur is a rare voice of rationality in the media, especially coming from such a conservative background. Pass a Method talk 22:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]SectarianDo you know any reference which states what percentage of deaths of the entire Iraq war consisted of sectarian conflicts? shia/sunni etc. Pass a Method talk 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]I moved this here to keep it in one place. I do not know of any reliable info on percentage of deaths of the entire Iraq war from sectarian conflicts. This discussion might be moved to Talk:Iraq War and Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War. Others might be able to help out. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]bin LadenHiya, I accidentally reverted both of your recent edits to the article, when I only meant to revert the second. See the FAQ on the talk page for why we shouldn't call him a terrorist, and also WP:WTA. I didn't mean to revert your edit about his children, apologies! I have restored it with this edit. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]No problem Pass a Method talk 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Block threatI was highly offended by your assertion that I post unsourced information and took more offensive at your threat of blocking. I have done nothing but trying to establish a neutral figure on the number of dead. The number of 10,000 you are currently forsing was claimed (note claimed) by the rebels, and has not been verified independently by any government or non-goevernmental group. The number of 3,800 I am adding is based, like I said in my edit summery that you probably didn't read, on the verified reports of killed in the table of the article Casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war. If you would read it you would see that me, user Lothar and user Zenithfel have established that despite the rebel claim of 10,000 killed, only a summed up total 3,800 people have been reported killed since the start of the war. The lower toll must be presented so the balance of dead could be presented properly. I am not advocating the removal of the rebel's claimed figure, but I am insisting that a lower toll, which by all acounts is more realistic, be presented so we could remain in line with Wikipedias policy on neutrality (NPOV). I will expect a reply and a proposal so we could try and find some common ground here and a compromise. But, please in the future don't start and threaten people with blocks from the start. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Your assertions are a violation a Wikipedia:No original research policy. Pass a Method talk 07:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]What assertions? EkoGraf (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]WP:NOR states that "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research", which is exactly what you did, when you said you yourself "have established" the lower figure. Please thoroughly read WP:OR policy to see where i'm coming from. Thanks Pass a Method talk 07:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]That article does not contain original research, the fatalities table that has been established and updated by me and two more editors is highly properly sourced. There is nothing made up or unsourced in the table, it's properly sourced. What's the problem? EkoGraf (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You have till now, not provided a source that specifically gives the 3,800 figure. Pass a Method talk 08:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Ok, than. You want to talk about verifiability. You have not proposed a solution to the grately unbalanced and POV figure that is currently in the article on the Arab uprisings since you are now only letting the rebel figure stand there, which has not been independently confirmed and there is a high probability of it being inflated for propaganda purposes (and the number of deaths that has been reported - 3,800 - just goes further in confirming this). The 10,000 figure is highly unreliable and unverified (and this has been stated in those same articles that report the number - not independently confirmed), and as far as I know, Wikipedia has a rule on reliability and verifibility. The number is neather reliable or verifiable. If you won't include the lower figure than remove the higher figure all together and state in the table something like number of killed unknown, ranging in the thousands and in the totals section put number doesn't include dead from Libyan civil war. Because the article needs to be balanced. I am trying to compromise here. EkoGraf (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Instead of unconstructive arguing here, i think it will be more productive if we used google news: past month results and looked through all the sources. Another useful link for sources is libyan death toll: past month. This might take a little while. Pass a Method talk 08:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]I have already found several sources giving a death toll of 30 000 : [31], [32], [33], [34]. Pass a Method talk 08:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]In fact, on closer inspection, most recent sources give figures between 10 000 and 30 000 Pass a Method talk 08:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]I already know about those. 10,000-30,000 is based on the 10,000 claim and 30,000 claim. I give up, going to bed, however whatever you do (leave or don't leave the 10,000 figure) do not, and I repeat, do not put the 30,000 figure. Because that one is even more unreliable than the rebels claim since it was given was given by a US government official only a few days after the rebels 10,000 claim. 20,000 dead in three days? I don't think so. EkoGraf (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Once again, do not put 30,000 because than it will be strongly in violation of the NPOV and Verifiability rule, because how come the rebels (who are in the country) claim one day 10,000 dead, than two-three days later a US politician (who is nowhere near Libya) claims 30,000 (20,000 people died in a couple of days)? EkoGraf (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] All of the sources originate from that US politicians claim of 30,000. Multiple references originating from one source don't constitute several sources. Again, one US politicians claim is even more unreliable than the rebels claim. And I am asking you again, 10,000 one day than two days later 30,000? Logic? And that politician himself said maybe which means he isn't sure himself. EkoGraf (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Actually, the official is from Tripoli. Its getting quite obvious you are ignorant of wikipedia policy, hence you keep repeating the same lame arguments. I (once again) urge you to read Wikipedia:No original research policy, because you're arguments are textbook violations of wikipedia policies. Pass a Method talk 08:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]If you disagree with certain sources because of "propaganda purposes" (as you put it), you need to go to WP:RSN. Otherwise, your claims are null Pass a Method talk 08:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]I should reaffirm that the 10,000 figure does not exactly mean KIA. You should also keep in mind that every day people die in Misrata, Zintan, and Nalut, and most of the deaths like in this week have not been reported by rebel spokesmen. You should also know that the 10k to 30k difference didn't just happen in 2 days worth of fighting, the 30k difference is what nato was keeping track of including by air, and on a specific date they decided to release it. Much like how the Egyptian revolution was originally only 365 deaths at its end, doctors and human rights researchers discovered after investigating more reports from very city in all hospitals, that 854 had actually died. 8.5/3.5 x 3800 = 9,200 would be an egyptian proportion. But we know that Libya is a hell of a lot deadlier than egypt, so its definitely higher than 9000. Zenithfel (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Don't tell me, tell EkoGraf. He's the one saying calling for the 3800 figure Pass a Method talk 13:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]I am saying again, the news reports that are stating the 10,000-30,000 are all based on the 10,000 figure stated by rebels and 30,000 figure stated by the US politician. They are all coming from those two sources. And they are not from the last two weeks like you said, they are from two weeks ago when it was first reported. There have been no reports on an updated toll in the last two weeks. And again, the 30,000 figure was stated only two-three days after the 10,000 figure was claimed by the rebels (a jump of 20,000 in two days). The official who claimed it is not in Tripoli (like you said), he is the US ambassador for Libya, but he is no longer in Libya, he was expelled. At this point I would be more for keeping the 10,000 figure than including the 30,000 figure, because the rebels are certainly better informed on the number of dead since they are on the ground there in the country unlike the politician who is not even there. Plus, the rebel's figure is at least a semi-official figure, while the politicians figure is not eather semi-official or official (it was his personal opinion). And, unlike the politician's figure which was not backed up by anyone, the rebel figure was at least backed up by the French (not surprising). Also, the sources don't say anything about the 30,000 figure being a NATO figure and it was not released by them. In any case, like I already said this morning, I was already dropping the case for the 3,800 figure. Leave the 10,000 figure, but the 30,000 figure is by all accounts unrealistic and is not backed up by any other independent sources, unlike the 10,000 which was backed up by the French government. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]the 10,000 figure was also backed by Iranian sources, Arab sources and several other sources. It is however still obvious you have not read wikipedia guidelines and policies however, seeing how you keep making the same null arguments. Whether content is true/logical is not how wikipedia policy works. Its all about VERIFIABILITY. I dont know how many more times i have to repeat this to you. I have already repeated myself 10 times. Pass a Method talk 17:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Like I already said three times now, I don't have objections anymore to the 10,000 figure and dropped the 3,800 argument (10,000 wasn't backed by Iranian, Arab and other sources, they reported on the rebel claim, there is a difference, but whatever). The point is I don't have objections on the 10,000 figure, my objections now are on the 30,000 figure which fails on Verifiability more than the 10,000, because it has not been confirmed by anyone except the politician who stated his own opinion based on what he heard and he didn't confirm it but said may be. Also, please watch your language, calling me ignorant is in breach of Wikipedia's policy on civility, I never said for one moment anything to you that could be offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]No need to repeat 3 times, i acknowedged it. However, it seems you are making up your own rules on what WP:Verifiability means. If you want me to take you seriously, please get a decision/consensus from WP:RSN. Pass a Method talk 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Stellas4lunch's talk page. Message added 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]WP:Verifiable states that 'the principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources'. If you buy the Eastern Daily Press on the 30th April, you will be able to verify the story. I believe you are confusing verifiability with the ease thereof. I will revert both articles AGF. Stellas4lunch (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Nomination for deletion of Template:Personal beliefsTemplate:Personal beliefs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cybercobra (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page. Message added 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Gangsta rapPlease do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Gangsta rap. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Also, please cite sources properly with your future edits, adhering to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Dan56 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. There is nothing explicitly stating what you have added to the article, so please explain. Dan56 (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Talk:Gangsta rap. Message added 16:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.QuranismHi Method Man, I have altered the template as you suggested. Happy editing, Neelix (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Cheers Pass a Method talk 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Ebikeguy's talk page. Message added 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]TemplateThis template is open to discussion and modifications.

Beliefs Atheism Agnosticism Deism Apatheism Pantheism v t eNew

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at J8079s's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.May 2011Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ball (disambiguation), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]IdeaCreate a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]No but thanks for the invite. Pass a Method talk 05:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Ok, thanks anyway. * Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out if you're interest changes.... Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Paraceratherium skullHi, PassaMethod. I think you intended to ask commons:User:FunkMonk about the skull. The image was not uploaded by me. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Political position of UKIPHi PassaMethod - the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. In that debate, an array of sources describe UKIP as "right wing", and the only one produced to defend the "centre right" (which appears to be a relatively recent change to a until-then stable section) label is research into how the party's supporters view themselves - which is no statement about where the party actually is. Thus my support for the better sourced description. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Re: Why did the US hate Communism?Hello. You have a new message at Σ's talk page. Message added 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page. Message added 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Pontificalibus (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page. Message added 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Pontificalibus (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page. Message added 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Pontificalibus (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page. Message added 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Pontificalibus (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Why didn't the Japanese surrender with germany?The japanese surrendered a few months after germany. Why didn't the Japanese surrender at the same time as Germany? Pass a Method talk 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Oh wow! Simple question, but a thorough answer would fill pages. Very short answerThey didn't surrender at the same time because they didn't have to.Short answerRemember that Germany and Japan were but two members of "The Axis" - there were quite a number of other members. None of the Axis members wanted to surrender - they all intended to win the war. Each surrendered when they were no longer willing/able to resist the various onslaughts of the Allies. i.e. Not every member of the Axis surrendered at the same time.Slightly longer answerThe Germans surrendered when they did because they could no longer withstand the Soviets/etc from the one set of fronts to the east, and the British/British Commonwealth/Americans/etc from another set of fronts from the west and south. As this was happening in Europe, the Japanese were still resisting the onslaught of the British/British Commonwealth/Americans/etc the in the Pacific. The Japanese had a neutrality pact with the Soviets, so "their borders" in East Asia were "under control". So much so that when the going got tough for the Japanese in the Pacific theatre, the Japanese steadily relocated their best resources away from East Asia and into the Pacific theatre. With the surrender of Germany, the Soviets were now able to divert their resources away from Europe. And so they did! Vast numbers of troops and vast amounts of resources were relocated to East Asia. At the various conferences of Allied leaders, (i.e. Cairo Nov 43; Tehran Nov/Dec 43; Yalta Feb 45; Potsdam Jul/Aug 45), various "promises" were made between "The Big Three", in particular, that three months after the surrender of Germany, the Soviets would enter the war against Japan. So, to the day, three months after the surrender of Germany, the Soviets broke the Neutrality Pact and invaded Manchuria. If the Japanese weren't already having enough troubles in the Pacific theatre, they now had the Soviets advancing VERY quickly from the previously "safe" north and east. And "to put the icing on the cake", the Allies had started dropping Atomic bombs on the Japanese "home islands". Also, it was obvious to the Japanese that invasions of the "home islands" had been planned and preparations for their execution were occurring. Thus, Japanese surrender eventually followed. (But it was not immediate, and it was not without all sorts of "Palace coups" and "goings-on" within the Japanese "Big Six" and other Japanese powerbrokers ... )I hope that's useful? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Proposed deletion of Guru Nanak Darbar GurdwaraThe article Guru Nanak Darbar Gurdwara has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:Fails to meet WP:N. We do not have articles on every church, gurdwara, mosque, synagogue and temple in the world.While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpgI was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]sorry i dont delve into images Pass a Method talk 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Completely new abortion proposal and mediationIn light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted. To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for your quick contribution. However, I must apologize, for I'm not sure that I made clear the purpose of the mediation. Your preferred choices (which also happen to be my preferred choices), are not going to fly. That boat has sailed. The question is, would you therefore prefer to have the titles of the articles be "pro-life" and "pro-choice", or would you prefer the mediator's suggestion? I see you end saying you wouldn't mind the mediator's suggestion, but could you possibly make that clearer, if indeed, you would be okay with it? HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]If those are the only choices then i go with the mediator. Pass a Method talk 23:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Pic of the dayPicture of the day Artemis I was an uncrewed Moon-orbiting mission that was launched on November 16, 2022. It was the first major spaceflight of NASA's Artemis program and marked the agency's return to lunar exploration since the Apollo program after five decades. It was the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, and the mission's main objective was to test the Orion spacecraft in preparation for future Artemis missions. Artemis I was launched from Launch Complex 39B at the Kennedy Space Center. After reaching orbit, the upper stage separated and performed a trans-lunar injection before releasing Orion and ten CubeSat satellites. Orion completed one flyby of the Moon on November 21 and completed a second flyby on December 5. This picture shows Artemis I launching from Launch Complex 39B.Photograph credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky Archive – More featured pictures...TitlesMy main objection to the moves before was that it was done without discussion and was never completed. It needs a central discussion as to the common name, Sura Al-Fatiha, Surah Al-Fatiha, Al-Fatiha, Sura 1, Al-Fatiha or Surah 1, Al-Fatiha. I'm not sure if they need the number as well as the name nor where the best place for the discussion is. Also if they are going to be at Surah Name then Sura should be moved to Surah as well. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Don't forget that WP:Common name would apply. Also Al-Fatiha is the first hit on Google and Sura 1 is the second hit when searching for sura or surah 1. The best place to discuss it would probably be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]IslamWhat do you mean by "wp:v" on your removal here ? "University of Arkansas" is not verifiable to you? It was an introductory sentence, followed by the root of the name. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]WP:V and WP:N Which means verifiability and notibility. You should provide me a page number or a link in order for me to verify the claim. The reason why i think it might be non-notable is because religions such as Sikhism and Jainism are not linked to a particular person, race or locality, so its an unencyclopedic entry anyway. Pass a Method talk 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] @AdamRce, you edit is so odd and unusual. Its not needed, add it somewhere else--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] No-one is talking to you here. I fixed the concerns anyways. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]SaulSorry, a Google and a Flickr search showed no copyright compatible images. I'd contact his publicist directly and ask if s/he is willing to license a photo under a creative commons license which permits commercial reuse and modification (allows us to use it, reuse it, mix it, sell it). Good luck, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Ah, forget about it. I'll find a pic for Saul Alvarez some other time. Thanks for the heads up anyway. Pass a Method talk 21:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]References

Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. We typically uses review articles. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. Additionally, the diberri tool will aid in the formatting of references; all one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific? I quoted 3 refs, which one is unreliable? Pass a Method talk 22:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]It is not a good idea to go round asking umpteen people about this issue on their own talk pages, as you have done. I have given you some guidance on my talk page and that points you to the correct place to make your query etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]AbdiUnfortunately, Google and Flickr searchers turned up no creative-commons compatible licenses, including the photo you suggested. That was an Asics advertisement, which is definitely under their complete control. I found a few images which might be open to re-licensing if you contacted the owners and confirmed they are the original photographers or owners:http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletics-heroes/displayhero.asp?HeroID=7698 http://www.flickr.com/photos/burhaan_dahir/4406903366/in/photostreamSorry it's not better news, good luck. -Ocaasi 13:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.41.54 (talk)PuntHi Passa, sorry I'm no expert, but yes I believe the only active oil exploration in Somalia at the moment is in Puntland. The only stuff I've heard of anyway. TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page. Message added 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Alzarian16's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.3RR on 2011 Norway attacksI don't have time to list the diffs, but your repeated removal of the term Islamophobia and similar terms from 2011 Norway attacks, against apparent community consensus, appears to be way beyond 3RR. Please desist, and take the matter to the Norway article's talk page if you wish to pursue it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]There was no conensus. I have invited you to speak on three different talk pages, but you have not bothered to reply. Pass a Method talk 11:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I have previously replied to you on my talk page. 3RR applies, regardless. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]The same seems to apply to your repeated addition of Stop the Islamisation of Norway. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]MessagesHi, I've left some messages on my talk page. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]I don't understand why, but that user you mentioned (User:Pigsonthewing) has nominated it for deletion. Its neutrality can't be disputed now that you and I resolved the problem and came at a consensus. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]I saw that too, but i'm most likely not going to vote as i dont have a really strong opinion on it. Pass a Method talk 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Anders Behring BreivikPlease don't start an edit war over the inclusion of Zionism in the lead. Keep it to the talk page and wait for a consensus before removing anything you don't like. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Also do not edit war over sourced text from the body of the articel based on commetns like "Please find a non-jewish newspaper" as this reads like a kind of anti-Semitism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]PAThis comment looks a bit like a PA, please remain civil http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&diff=441560118&oldid=441559809http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&diff=441560118&oldid=441559809.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Sorry, i started getting confused by your writing. Pass a Method talk 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]ReliableCoasterThere was no reason to report ReliableCoaster at AN/I. He had not violated the 3RR rule, which at this point was the only thing he could have been blocked for without notice. The other items would have required continued warnings up to a final warning, after which a repeat of the behaviour sees a block done, often for 24 hours for a first time. CycloneGU (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anders Behring Breivik, 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. Please do not revert the work of many editors (including me); if you dislike certain material, go into the article and edit just that content WWGB (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Gobonobo's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 23, 2011. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]2011 Syrian uprisingThe previous version of the intro placed WP:UNDUE emphasis on the phantasmagorical "reforms" of the Syrian government while whitewashing the scope of the security crackdown over the past several months. I do not favor reverting to that version. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Kudzu1, also it was me which changed the intro 30 mins ago. Sopher99 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Just having a lookI just had to see what kind of person believed the riots in England - a leading news item in every major media organisation around the world for the last 3 days - are "not notable enough" to deserve a Wikipedia article. While I realise you made that idiotic nomination in the early days of the riots ... when you get it wrong, you REALLY get it wrong. Here's a clue: Next time, look before you leap. Deterence ^Talk 05:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)English Defence LeagueCan you explain here or on the talk page how the material you removed was improperly sourced? But on the same matter, you added here that Breivik's manifesto supported Serbian paramilitarism, when in the source, I can find no such thing. Can you explain that too? Christopher Connor (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]I will now add a source for the sebian paramilitarism [35], [36], [37].As for the EDL, I will respond on the talk page Pass a Method talk 07:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]I'd like you to respond to my points. You reverted, so now you have to explain your position, as I did. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Re edl membership: Just returned an edit that you reverted with a clearer reference; you describded it as unsourced but don't seem to have actually noticed or read the reference which carries academic credibility. I'm slightly bemused — Preceding unsigned comment added by S ellinson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]3RRhi, You have touched 3RR WP:3RR in the List of the oldest mosques in the world‎ page. Please discuss before you revert again. Wasif (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Also, your edit here said in the summary, "No secondary sources", when clearly there was. You also gave a warning to the other editor for original research. Did you check their edit at all? Christopher Connor (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is not a secondary source. In fact it is impossible for there to have been a mosque in the 620s in India, unless you're saying Muslims took a boeing 747 and landed in Delhi. Ridiculous Pass a Method talk 17:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] My computer is acting really strange right now. Please wait so i can give a proper response. And please do not defend comical edits such as this. Thanks. Pass a Method talk 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] If it's not a secondary source, what sort of source is it? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] that is a WP:PRIMARY source Pass a Method talk 19:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] No, it's a secondary source. Was Raja Valiyathampuram directly involved in the construction of the mosque? No, he couldn't have been, because he was born several centuries after it was built. I see you've now re-added the original research template and removed my comments. This is bizarre, because even you said it was sourced, so how can it also be original research? Think about what you're doing: you agree an edit is sourced, but nonetheless still add an original-research template to the editor's talk page. Also, removing another editor's comments is a violation of the talk-page guidelines. You say your computer is not working properly so you can't yet reply to my comments, but you can still edit war and make several other edits. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] my computer is working again now and i have thus replied to you. Pass a Method talk 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Your defense of the mosque built in India is the equivalent of saying that man landed on the moon in the stone age. Or like saying that Christianity reached the Amazonian jungle before it reached the outskirt of Jerusalem. Your defense of an Indian mosque in 629 is mind-boggingly unintelligent, and i hope you're joking when you're defending this claim. How the **** could there have been a mosque in India when a mosque has not even been built in Mecca, the holiest site in islam?! Please stop wasting time with this nonsensical tirade. If you really want to continue this debate then lets take it to WP:RSN so you can embaress yourself some more. Pass a Method talk 20:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]I don't like conversations being spread across multiple pages. Do you mind if I put your comments on my talk page on your talk page so the conversation is intact? Christopher Connor (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]go ahead. Pass a Method talk 20:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Done, based on the timestamps. Note that I've never defended or commented on the reliability of the source, so your accusations are false. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Please go through article Cheraman Juma Masjid for more sources and the history of the masjid. Don't be childish like saying ..........a mosque in the 620s in India, unless you're saying Muslims took a boeing 747 and landed in Delhi before going through all the related sources. Wasif (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Somalis in the United KingdomHi. You didn't leave a summary for these edits to Somalis in the United Kingdom. What was your reason for removing that statistic? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, North Atlanticist Usonian. You have new messages at Cordless Larry's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Please be carefulHello. Please be careful when reverting edits. In this edit you actually added vandalism back into the article, which I assume was the opposite of what you were trying to do; fortunately someone else caught it and reverted back to the non-vandalized version. Thanks, BMRR (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, i did not see the second vandal. I should have reverted both of them. Pass a Method talk 18:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Islamic divorceThanks for helping to clean up these articles. They were a mess. Unfortunately, the Divorce (Islamic) article is still a bit confusing. Is there any chance that you know the answers to any of these questions:What does the word talaq actually refer to? Divorce in general (including secular)? Just Islamic divorces? A specific procedure of divorce used by Islamic men but not by women? The lead of the article implies that the word talaq can be used for all divorces, but the talaq section makes it sound like a specific type of divorce. Are the words talaq and khula used by non-Arab muslims? What are the rules for khula? Is khula only possible in Sunni Islam? If so, how does a woman get a divorce in Shia? If an Islamic couple wants to get divorced in a secular state, what do they do? Do they typically do both a legal divorce and a religious divorce? Do they refer to the two with different words?Thanks for your help! Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]Im not finished with the divorce (islamic) article so dont worry about the confusing state. Heres the answers: Talaq is a verb directed from a man to his wife meaning a divorce. Talaq is an arabic word, so i guess it couyld be used by non-muslim Arabs. Yes Talaq is used by non-arab muslims but not always, sometimes their own language is used. Sunnis and Shias are not completely homogenous groups. They have further sub-sects and thus further varied disagreements. In a secular state, A man simply says Talaq three times, a woman finds an imam in a local mosque to do the procedure. Shias require two witnesses who overhears the couple and then bears witness to the divorce. But you have to understand that controversies always exist among muslim scholars who often disagree, sometimes even from within the same school of thought. This has a lot to do with hadiths and which hadith is viewed as authentic or weak - which is suject to a lot of interpretation. Pass a Method talk 17:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the information! I managed to track down a book on Islamic jurisprudence, but it had very little about divorce and didn't even mention khula. In fact, I've had a very difficult time finding any consistent information about khula. Some people say it is a type of talaq, and other people say it isn't. And I can't find any information on what schools allow khula and which ones don't. Any clarification you can add to this article would be greatly appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] Im a bit busy at the moment but i will get back to it this evening or tomorrow. Note; i am collabborating with other editors here. Also, here is the pre-redirected version of khula. Pass a Method talk 18:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]Random talk page coment on my page)copy from my talk page- Norway has a very large territorial claim in antartica despite not having any overseas territories anywhere near Antartica. On what basis was their claim in Antartica granted? Pass a Method talk 20:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Yes it does, but what prompted you to tell me this, and why right now, did I do somethign wrong, somewhere? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thank You, sorry.– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]Al-Aqsa Mosque94.168.150.103 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Reliable sources have been cited, would you kindly stop undoing the changes...[reply] historians and travellers of the early period confirm this such as al-Maqdisi and Nasir Khusru. Also great geographers such as al-Istakhri and Ibn Hawqal, clearly set this understanding and this is carried throughout different periods. In the Late Ottoman and modern period this understanding is still previlant with an new name al-Haram As-Sharif. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.150.103 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] 08:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC) thank you for the message but I have cited reliable sources and this is the case in all early, medival and modern historical/ geographical primary sources. Please review your undertanding from secondary sources. Thank youOctober 2011Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Lisa Lopes. Thank you. [38] Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]ReplyIn regards to the Syrian uprising I AM using specificly referenced death tolls, where we have definetly precise numbers determined by independent health organisations with a breakdown between military and civilian. However, the case with Libya is totaly different. There, since the start, the numbers floated about the death toll have specificly come from eather the rebels or the US (both anti-gaddafi so not neutral). With the US claiming 30,000 dead three months ago, than the rebels claiming 50,000 dead a month ago, than the rebels again claiming 30,000 dead a few weeks ago and now a few days ago the rebels claimed 25,000. And all of that are summed up numbers of both civilians and combatants. Except at the start of the war there have been no independently verified numbers on Libya. To any person watching this you can figure out its simple propaganda. So we need to get to a specific independent number of killed among rebels, loyalists and civilians separately, because the whole war (including the NATO bombing) was based on the accusations of mass murder of civilian protesters. But now, as it seems, since we are getting a more clearer picture, more combatants have been killed than civilians. At one point even a rebel spokesman claimed 15,000 loyalists were killed, which would be more than half of the currently stated number. What motivates me is the truth. EkoGraf (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Like I said, specific, not rounded, numbers have been published by newspapers for Syria. The 2,981 was published through media outlets, don't know whats so retarded about that. As far as the Yemeni 1,638 number goes, we came to it based on various numbers published from different phases of the uprising (protests before street fighting, street fighting, protests after the street fighting). Users Lothar and Zenithfel have been helping me in regard to the casualties in Libya. I realy don't understand why you find exact, not rounded, numbers published my the media or the ones that we have been able to acertain so strange. EkoGraf (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Cousin marriageHello. I have replied on Talk:Cousin marriage. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Edit summary redirectI'd suggest starting an new WP:RFD discussion if you want to override a decision to enforce the no cross-namespace redirects rule, instead of just reverting the results of an earlier RFD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Your query at Insect talk-pageThis seems a pretty accurate overall description of Silverfish. (Just FYI, this kind of query is best placed at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, thats definitely the insect i was looking for. Pass a Method talk 13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Al-QaedaAl-Qaeda Please explain how doing one revert is edit warring? You are on three reverts on this article, the content I added is reliable sourced and accurate. Use the talk page, there is a section there for the content I added. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] You just broke WP:3RR self revert. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]i haven't broken 3rr Pass a Method talk 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]You have been reported for editwarring.[39] The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please keep an eye on how many reverts you have been making on that article. I noticed you have reverted two editors within a period of 24 hours. An edit warring report has been made by another user here. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the 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. Revert again and you might possibly get blocked from editing for the first time. Minima© (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]WQAI've hatted your ban proposal at WQA. Please see the top of that page: WQA is not for bans or sanctions. You need to go to some admin noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]Current capitalI undid your change to State of Palestine. According to current Palestinian legislation, Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine. That is the current status. How can you say it is not? Icarus^talk 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]November 2011Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article 0 (number)‎, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Asking for evidence of SufismHello PassaMethod. Thank you kindly for your comment. There is no issue of inconsistency. Many Sunni Muslims listed on Wikipedia already have citations or other internal evidence clearly demonstrating that the are Sunnis (90% of all Muslims anyway), but very few alleged Sufis have citations or other internal evidence demonstrating that they are Sufis (who constitute a very small minority of Sunni Muslims). I would indeed like evidence for both. I trust you don't think I have a problem with Sufis. I do not have a problem with them, or with any faith choices anyone might want to make. I am also very grateful for the excellent third-party and neutral references you have added. Thanks. Great job. Best wishes,GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]The Article on Said NursiHello PassaMethod. I just realized that you made a change in the article on Said Nursi. I am trying to improve the quality of this article and am knowledgeable on this topic. I couldn't figure out your contribution. Can you state what you did and can you advice sth to do? Thank you for your contribution.rinduzahid

(talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDLI noticed you had reverted my edits to the English Defence League page. 1. ... is a far-right street protest movement which opposes what "some believe" to be a spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England. I had edited it to "opposes the spread of Islamism, Sharia law..." which is basically their mission statement. What does "some believe" even signify? Isn't that a tad POV? Half the references provided are dead, by the way. 2. "EDL members have clashed with counter-demonstrators, including supporters of Unite Against Fascism (UAF)" I had added "and the extremist group Muslims Against Crusades". Why does the UAF deserve a special mention and not the MAC? Ecthelion 8 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]The UAF deserves special mention because they are not discussed in the lede, being an "antifascist" group. MAC is already covered with the first sentence on "sharia law, islamic extremism etc." MAC is not the only unique islamic group targeted by EDL. EDL also targets other groups such as Hizb Tahrir, MDL, pro-palestine muslims etc. Therefore adding MAC constitutes WP:UNDUE weight. Pass a Method talk 18:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]I get your drift, but the point of the sentence was clashes. As a NPOV, I thought it would be suitable to include that they have clashed with Islamic extremist groups (violent clashes are NOT covered in the protesting against "sharia law.." etc) and not just the UAF. I can't think of a reason NOT to include ".... supporters of Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and extremist groups such as the Muslims Against Crusades". Considering that they HAVE clashed with those groups. Protesting against sharia/islamism etc does not imply they clash with them (violently so as well) at their demonstrations. Just seems fair. And about 1? Also, can this be moved to the Talk page? Ecthelion 8 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]The lede has been stable for a while now, so i'd prefer to keep it as it is. You can move it to the talk page if you want. Pass a Method talk 19:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]SDL articleHi. I have started the SDL article as I felt it was inappropriate to have nothing more than a redirect to the EDL article. I accept that it is still small but don't you think you are premature in proposing deletion? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]I stand by my decision to delete it. Every SDL demonstration has had EDL flags plus EDL members. SDL mostly consists of an EDL base. If we create SDL we will also hae to create NDL, DDL, WDL, FDL, GDL etc. I think a redirect to EDL is sufficient. Pass a Method talk 15:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please stop undoing my work while I'm trying to improve the article. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your message and I apologise if I have caused you any offence - that was never my intention. However, I was not aware that Slaversten had expressed an opinion on whether the SDL should have a separate article or not and I didn'y "disregard" the opinions of the established editor Sean Hoyland...I disagreed with him and wanted to discuss the point further. I never regard improving articles as a "waste a lot of time and effort which could be spent in better ways". Far from barely replying to any issues you raise, it was I who first contacted you by personal message to discuss why you were proposing to delete an article I had just started, and then it was I who initiated discussion on the talk page. I don't claim to know anything more about the Scottish Defence League than anyone else and you are correct that I have not edited on this subject before, though you will notice that I edit widely on political issues in general as I actually teach politics for a living. I am now approaching 10,000 edits over a four year period and, to my knowledge, have never before been reported to a noticeboard. I take from your very strong reaction that you are indeed angry so, once again, I apologise. I trust that we can continue this dialogue. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm up for a compromise if it truly serves both sides of any dispute. In this case, I see that you feel strongly that there should only be one article as the SDL is an offshoot of the EDL. From my perspective, I would want any reader that is searching for Scottish Defence League to go straight to the key information being sought. Could I suggest that a better solution might be to have the detail from what I have added to the Scottish Defence League article placed in a separate subsection within the English Defence League article? That way, we could redirect Scottish Defence League straight to the subsection. The subsection could also make clear that the SDL is an offshoot of the EDL and that the suggestion is that EDL members often outnumber SDL members at any SDL event in Scotland? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks - I will. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Categories for discussion nomination of Category:EDLCategory:EDL, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Merging SDL info into EDL articlesHi there. Thanks for letting me know what you are doing. Quite happy except you have missed out several of the demonstrations I had listed. Is that for a reason? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Jamey Rodemeyer. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Can you help meI am new at this, and am having problems with Rangoon11, who is deleting my edits on the Occupy Movement page. I noted that you were talking to him also. I place a piece that Occupy Edinburgh had been officially recognised by the Edinburgh Council. He thought that was unimportant. He seems to think that police removing protestors is significant (bad news). I think the article is biased. I mentioned that on the discussion page, and he said "sofixit". He won't let me. Thanks. :) OccupyLink (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Park51 in WTC TemplateReverted your edits, because Park51 is two blocks away from the WTC. The Template is for topics relating directly to the WTC, not those that are tangentially. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]that is an iffy asertion, but i will take your word for t. Pass a Method talk 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]Accuracy of your editsIn this edit I explained that your own source states that your statement is less than reliable, however your edit presented it as doctrine. Please edit more carefully and only add facts that represent correct information. I noticed that you have also added the same unreliable statement to the page on Child marriage and I suggest you correct that. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Okay, i will reword it. Pass a Method talk 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]No, not ok, when you make a 1 line section in a page with less than reliable information. It seems that as in WP:POINT that edit is making a point about child marriage, while there is absolutely, absolutely no historical basis for the year of birth of Mary and that statement would have established her year of birth as 12-14 years before 5-2BC. Not accurate. Per WP:STATUSQUO you should have discussed this on the talk page before re-insertion, bu I modified it to make a long story short. But the category certainly does not belong there. Please edit carefully. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Stop misquoting the text! Catholics and Orthodox consider Apocrypha unreliable, but Protestants don't. Pass a Method talk 22:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Exactly what is your reference about the reliability of that sources a) on historical grounds and b) among specific groups of Protestants. In any case, for it to be reliable it must be reliable among "historians" in general, not some groups of Protestants. So what are your WP:RS references for the reliability of that statement apart from your own assertion? History2007 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]I have reworded it to state exactly what is in the source. What dya think?Pass a Method talk 22:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]I think Much ado about nothing and a total waste of time. You make a statement in the article that is already disqualified in the same sentence as less than reliable! And that edits reflects a total lack of understanding of the field. According to New Advent will make people chuckle because New Advent is just the website, the "source" is the Catholic Encyclopedia which is also available within Wikisource. May I suggest that you edit "those pages that you know something about" so everyone's time does not get wasted explaining these basic items to you? History2007 (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]whatever, im not touching that article again Pass a Method talk 22:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]IslamCan you please stop putting false information in Islam, if you didn't know I have explained my reason for reverting your nonsense at Talk:Islam#Wrong percentage given for Sunnis. The CIA factbook is usually not the best source for certain things because it is not always upto date, and I believe that you missinterpreted it's usage of "over 75%". CIA states that Shias are 20% so that obviously leaves behind Sunnis at 80%, and it doesn't mention any other sect.--Kiftaan (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]re Friendly adviceHey. I replied at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Speedy deletion nomination of Brandon Byram

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.A tag has been placed on Brandon Byram requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pass a Method talk 01:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Responding on phoneAs long as the sources are cited, I don't mind the change. I'd recommend citing in article rather than on talk, perhaps with small notes for each figure, so noone can deny that the 75 - 80 range isn't sources properly. I'd do it myself, but I'm currently getting my grandmother moved into hospice and won't be near a computer until later this evening. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Talk:Sexual intercourse#Restrictions on sex information in the leadYou can explain there why you feel this information should come so early on in the lead and/or doesn't fit with the religious paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Pedophilia articlePassaMethod, discuss major changes like this, which I reverted, on the talk page first. I can tell you now that such a section will not go over well with regard to including it in the Pedophilia article and that you should try to gain consensus on the talk page before reinserting it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I see that you have worked your way over to the pedophilia article. Can't say I'm surprised, with what that other IP accused you of being. 193.107.17.51 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]You must live a sad existence if you spend your spare time following the edits of strangers on wikipedia. Is your life really that dull? Also, why are you so fixated on anyone who edits a topic related to pedophilia/age of consent and similar subjects? Why dont you follow people who edit about economics, history, politics, religion, science, sports etc. You sound obsessed. Can you explain why you have this obsession? Pass a Method talk 21:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Who says I'm the IP who called you a pedophile? I'm the IP who challenged your edits on the human article and defended Herostratus. Since then, I have followed you because you have a tendency to add unsourced or poorly sourced things and because of what you said that IP called you. I gained an interest in the topic of users who may be pedophiles that way, and then started to follow Herostratus, which led me to Rind et al. controversy. Radvo seems like he may be someone to keep an eye on, and you do too. As for fixation, some people fixated on pedophilia/age of consent and similar subjects on Wiki are obviously fixated to make sure certain editors don't try to skew things and add in their controversial POV. 193.169.145.49 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]I have edited wikipedia for a long time and rarely ever interact with IP users. Then i edit this article and all of s sudden im constantly talking to several IP's. I sometimes dont trust what IP users say, because they dont have a stable account. This is why i suspect you might be a fishy sispicious individual. I dare you to open an account. Pass a Method talk 22:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]By my count, only two IP users have recently been talking to you. The other one, using different IP addresses, and myself who has a changing IP address. And I only started talking to you after you made those edits to the human article. I'll register with Wikipedia when there is a need to do so. There may later be a need to get an account just to battle your edits on semi-protected articles, but I'm content with watching you and reverting you as an IP for now. You and Radvo are in my sights. 50.16.108.39 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:29, 19 December 2011 edit 50.16.108.39 (talk) Undid revision 466606961 by PassaMethod (talk) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:30, 19 December 2011 edit undo 50.16.108.39 (talk) →Pedophilia article Next edit →
Line 757:		Line 757:

	: I have edited wikipedia for a long time and rarely ever interact with IP users. Then i edit this article and all of s sudden im constantly talking to several IP's. I sometimes dont trust what IP users say, because they dont have a stable account. This is why i suspect you might be a fishy sispicious individual. I dare you to open an account. [[User:PassaMethod\|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod\|<font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 22:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)		: I have edited wikipedia for a long time and rarely ever interact with IP users. Then i edit this article and all of s sudden im constantly talking to several IP's. I sometimes dont trust what IP users say, because they dont have a stable account. This is why i suspect you might be a fishy sispicious individual. I dare you to open an account. [[User:PassaMethod\|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod\|<font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 22:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

			By my count, only two IP users have recently been talking to you. The other one, using different IP addresses, and myself who has a changing IP address. And I only started talking to you after you made those edits to the human article. I'll register with Wikipedia when there is a need to do so. There may later be a need to get an account just to battle your edits on semi-protected articles, but I'm content with watching you and reverting you as an IP for now. You and Radvo are in my sights. [[Special:Contributions/50.16.108.39\|50.16.108.39]] ([[User talk:50.16.108.39\|talk]]) 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)