User talk:AnonMoos/Archive3

Former talk archived to User talk:AnonMoos/Archive1, by popular request. AnonMoos 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now also User talk:AnonMoos/Archive2... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to The Guardian. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you were offended by my lack of edit summary, but since my edit consisted of inserting the word "anagram", I considered it to be not too far from a minor edit; I really don't see how anyone could have mistaken it for vandalism... AnonMoos (talk) 2:02 am, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the matter. My intention wasn't to appear slightly condescending, but constructive. I have "574 pages on my Special:Watchlist, not counting talk pages". When any of these is changed, I check the edit. If it's by a blue, registered a/c & has an edit summary (ES) then generally I won't go into the edit. And usually I don't bother if there's no edit summary but the 'm' (minor edit) flag has been set. (It should however be noted that consensus is still to supply a rudimentary ES even for 'm' edits.) However, in the case of the above edit, I felt I had to check the Diff, to see what had been changed. Then of course - but only then - I could see it wasn't vandalism. But I think the idea of the ES is to save editors the time to check each edit. I then looked at your contributions, and felt that this wasn't an isolated edit, so I felt what I hoped was a gentle reminder (a standard message from Twinkle) may be helpful. I don't mean to cause offence but, of course, as you may be aware, to avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, we can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of our user preferences - personally I find this useful as nobody's memory is perfect. Anyway, I hope you continue following consensus & having happy editing. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I have 5,997 pages on my watchlist, and I find that edit summaries by others don't save me much work, except for certain kinds of bot edits and vandalism reverts. I add appropriate edit summaries for major edits and insertions and deletions of material which for one reason or another has been controversial among some in the past; but being obsessive about edit summaries for minor edits and uncontroversial workmanlike semi-minor edits (moving a few words around, rephrasing for clarity, inserting the word "anagram", etc.) would significantly distract my attention away from actually making the edits themselves.

AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take your points separately.

You're a busy editor, with that many pages on your watchlist. I try to keep my list manageable, by unwatching any with >30 watchers.
You say that edit summaries by others don't save you much work. But rules are rules - for all.
You choose when & whether to add an Edit Summary ... but the guideline is straightforward Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary.
"obsessive about edit summaries for minor edits" - if a registered user skips the ES on an edit for which they've set the wp:minor flag, that personally doesn't bother me, but you had not set the flag on the edit to which I first drew your attention.
"obsessive about edit summaries for uncontroversial ... edits" - a point I made a few days ago was that other editors don't know the nature of your edit, unless & until they have gone to the trouble of looking at the diff. - this effort can be saved only by one's setting the Minor flag or providing an ES.
I trust you don't regard a standard, mild reminder Twinkle message as obsessive? It's simply a reminder of consensus.
Supplying ESs would distract you from your editing: there are small overheads in many things we do, to conform with guidelines.
To keep discussion together, please post any reply here - I'll keep an eye out.

Trafford09 (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:AnonMoos, you are being ridiculously pedantic - whatever the rules. Mike Hayes (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, everyone has their opinion. I note yours, and defend your right to free speech.

Your view, however, seems at odds with your own fairly good adherence to providing ESs.

I'd have thought you'd broadly support the sentiment expressed in the standard Twinkle message ({{Uw-editsummary}}) I first used here.

I think my use of it here was justified (with a fairly positive response). I'd like to think we all broadly support consensus, which I see in the TOTD below.

Tip of the day box

Tip of the day...

Please summarize your work using the Edit summary box

If you make anything other than a minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary. Edit summaries are visible in the page history, watchlists, and on Recent changes, so they help other users keep track of what is happening to a page.

If you use section editing, the summary box is filled in with the section heading by default (in gray text), which you can follow with more detail. You also can put links to articles in the edit summary. Just put double brackets around [[the article title]] like you would normally. The summary is limited to 255 characters, so many people use common abbreviations, such as sp for correcting spelling mistakes, rm for remove, ce for copy-edit, etc.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Taken it to RSN. I don't want battles on this, and I don't want to work on it alone. It feels like wading through treacle, for readers as well as editors, I fear. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Developing an article isn't bureaucracy

The sourcing on the page is very poor - you can't deny that. Therefore I've been working through it. I oughtn't to be getting hassle for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RSN isn't bureaucracy. It's getting advice from people interested in sourcing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we seemed to be unable to reach agreement. I regularly reply to questions on RSN and I go there quite readily when I need help. The collective wisdom is helpful to any article. Anyway, let's see what replies we get. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't bureaucratic. It's there to help. Referencing on the article is currently poor, I'm trying to work on it, can't do it all on my own. If you think I did something wrong, take out a wikiquette alert or ANI and I'll happily explain myself and take advice if other people say I was actually wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, P & UN

Please express your opinion about my splitting of the article in two, in particular, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues. I am not particularly concerned about the outcome, but you must agree that the article has grown unreasonably huge and messy. Thanks. Yceren Loq (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christianity

On that Christianity template pic, I just changed it to "Three crosses.jpg" since there's no consensus on the Jesus face and wanted to get it to something else while the discussion continues. I would, however, fully back you if you wanted to change the template pic to #4 in the gallery, the red cross with blue ichthys, and editor Gryffindor agrees. There's been to much talk on this and I'd rather we just pick a pic and be done with it. Thanks for your great contributions to this template pic discussion. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I wondered if you had any response to my response? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 17:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 09:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

That's how Twinkle does it. Take it up there. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 16:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament

In the past you've had discussions with an IP editor who added many entries to the Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament article. The issue has come up again, and is being discussed at Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament#Over 100 names/titles of Jesus deleted! Your views would be appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hos-Hostigos for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Hos-Hostigos, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hos-Hostigos until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, but the rules state (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS) that it would need to be reliably sourced to be included. Gran² 09:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary

I removed the comma because it looked like this: "that worshipped Mary, as a goddess".. I removed the comma so it said "that worshipped Mary as a goddess". I put Virgin Mary because that is her most common name, and i included the link so people who do not know who she was can click on it. Anyway, the article's entry looks fine now. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I didn´t use real as res or thing; this is an interpretation that can be made. But anyway here I was referring EL: IS(IS) -- RA -- EL. Do you the meaning of EL? As for goddess IFRI: means CAVE and the worship of the afra people for this goddess; the same for Reitia who is a potnia theron and the Venetic language meaning the worship of Venus, thus Venice. Lorynote (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not an expertise and I don´t plan to include none of these, I only mentioned a goddess related website. As for Venus (venice) and goddess Ifri (Africa)? Lorynote (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibitionists and scorching byclists

I've removed the archive box and restored the headers on the refdesk - there was no reason that I could see to close the thread on the Mikado, and also you changes made navigation harder. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

Thanks! I can never see obvious errors after Ive just made them. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my editing of History!

You wrote something on the Trinity page's discussion page, in regards to editing the history section. I shrunk it down significantly, check it out. I'm thinking about adding some information about the Pneumatomachi vs. Cappadocians there.Glorthac (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UTF-8 with > 6 bytes/char allows BOM sequence to appear?

I'm not convinced. First, you need > 7 bytes to get 0xFF in codes. Second, 0xFF and 0xFE could not appear adjacent to each other in any case: they appear only as lead bytes of multi-character sequences and therefore wouldn't they be separated by continuation bytes or bytes < 128? -- Elphion (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced. I've added a topic on talk:UTF-8. -- Elphion (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're removing material information without solid references. Please discuss on talk:UTF-8. -- Elphion (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've responded on my talk page, I've continued my discussion there. -- Elphion (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Yahweh

I don't advise you get involved in this, but there's a certain horrific fascination in the storm that's brewing over at Yahweh - appropriate for a "storm god". Personally I'm watching with amusement, which might not be the noblest of reactions, but saves me getting ulcers. 23:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you why I'm telling you this: YHWH might get dragged in. PiCo (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetragrammaton

Thanks for the note. My reason for the edit was largely because the existing section had no source - I imagine it's all accurate, but I thought it would be good to base the information on a scholarly source, and the DDD is a dictionary and therefore not trying to advance any particular view (probably).

As for the difference between HWY and HWY, in the DDD one of the Hs has a dot under it and the other doesn't. If this were Arabic one of them would represent the letter known as heh, which is the H sound we have in English, and the other (the one with the dot I guess) would be "hard" H, which we don't have. I don't speak/read Hebrew but I imagine it has the same two sounds. (And that's also why I didn't include Hebrew script).

Anyway, I'll leave it to you - have a look at the DDD article and see if you think it's useful (it's more detailed than our existing para, which I think is a good thing). PiCo (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fear, I'm not in the least insulted by having my deficiencies pointed out. I defer to you entirely. But do have a look at DDD's entry and see if it's useful. PiCo (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Merchant Navy flag.svg

This is what I am referring to. As you can see, the fact that your version has the cross and the blue field as separate objects creates a small gap between the two when the image is made smaller than its original size. This does not appear in my version, since the two are merged. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it any color you like, but the fact is it is created by the white background on the canton. The reason why the cross was merged with the blue background in the first place was so that the bug that creates a small gap between the cross and the background does not happen. By reverting to an older version, you bring back a design that is actually faulty, despite your coding, when compared to the newer one. --Philly boy92 (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buellton, California

Hi, I was under the impression that businesses are only added as external links if the business is the subject of the article. If this restaurant is of historical significance than it should be mentioned in text with an appropiate reference, not an external link. With no other mention, a stand alone external link to a business looks like a commercial external link which is why I removed it. I'm not familiar with the restaurant, but is the business itself notable enough for its own article? As for the advertisment comment, I meant no disrespect to anyone. An external link to a business in a city article comes across as an advertisement. Cmr08 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I jumped too quick. I always check the talk page before removing anything, just in case it has already been discussed, but I forgot to check and now see this has been discussed in the past. The site does have an about us section, which I suspect would discuss the significance of the business and would probably be a more appropiate link than the business itself since the commercial aspect is being bypassed. I have seen links like that in the past, so it might be worth checking out. Cmr08 (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polemical terminology on article Kerli

What do you mean? Occupation of the Baltic states: "The occupation of the Baltic states was the occupation sui generis of the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union..." This is what Kerli's article is referring to, why would it be written any different? ►Scarce ◄ 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand. She was born during the Soviet occupation of Estonia, no? It ended in 1991, when she was four years old, no? Are you saying it's not noteworthy? Not a lot of pop musicians were born during any Soviet occupation, and she frequently discusses the impact the Soviet occupation had on her childhood, hence making it noteworthy. ►Scarce ◄ 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gynocracy DRV

In view of these contributions, please comment at Gynocracy DRV if you haven't already. thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lee Hong-koo

The article Lee Hong-koo has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji 02:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Moraff

The tag was put there to indicate there was something missing. The article, as written, does not say where he placed the speech. I'm guessing it was to a BB, but it doesn't say so. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of Korea

First, regarding what you called "nonsense": Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taegukgi.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Korea_1882.svg are identical in shape, and placement/pattern of the outer emblem things, except for one being SVG and the other not. There's no need for both in this case, that's why i removed it. As for the Unification flag, no, it's not an official national flag OF either country, but it is an official flag in that it has been used as so at the Olympics, so to say it's not official at all is silly. Also, since the page is about BOTH Koreas, I feel it appropriate for that flag to be first. Fry1989 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you really need to adjust your attitude towards me. As I explained, the JPG and SVG are identical, they're the exact same flag, so saying that one's a modern recreation is what's really stupid. I didn't notice the text but I can fix it. As for the Unification/Sport flag, I just said above here that it's not an official national flag of either. Can you read???? I said taht since the article is about BOTH Koreas, and this is the only flag in modern times that has been used by both, that is why it should be at the top. Fry1989 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think that you may have exceeded the 1RR limit on the article. ← ZScarpia 05:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted a report on the AE noticeboard here. ← ZScarpia 13:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, please do participate in that Arbitration Enforcement thread. AGK [•] 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of existence of Arbitration remedies on Palestine-Israel articles

Further to this Arbitration Enforcement thread, please read the following:

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. AGK [•] 12:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logged on the case page[1]. AGK [•] 12:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at All Hail The Muffin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again :) All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 18:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Falk

I think your edit in the lead paragraph of the Richard Falk article should stand, it is the most notable aspect of this mans career and deserves prominence in his article. My latest attempt to restore it has been reverted however. Just FYI. V7-sport (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your edit in the lead, It seems to have resolved itself at the moment. Best luck-V7-sport (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was this edit I was referring to. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_A._Falk&diff=prev&oldid=410056747

On January 25, United Nations secretary-general Ban-ki Moon himself condemned Falk for such such conspiracy-theory advocacy, calling it "inflammatory rhetoric", "preposterous", and "an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack".

It now reads "United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and others have condemned remarks Falk has made suggesting that the George W. Bush administration, rather than al-Qaeda, was responsible for the September 11 attacks." but the rest is included in the text. Hope that's OK. V7-sport (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plato rocks!

Whoo hoo, AnonMoos! Thanks for your comments at the talk page for the Richard A. Falk article. I'm always delighted to run into someone else who admires Platonism's theory of forms. ( As you may know, it's quite important in mathematical philosophy and the foundations of mathematics, which I love, and, of course Plato was so important to the Schoolmen, particularly Aquinas, whose Summ. Theologica I deligted in, back in the Pleistocene - in college, that is. ) Maybe we can be pals despite our seeming differences of opinon? We Platonists are thin on the ground, after all. I hope you won't mind, though, if I suggest you might want to avoid "ultratechnicalistic". Don't want you to get into any trouble with that. ;-) Say, what's your interest in Plato, if you don't mind me asking? I'm a babe in the woods in linguistics; just read a little of Chomsky's stuff that applies to math. phil. Am I correct in guessing that his theory of forms has a prominent place in reasoning about linguistics, too? You can post any reply here, btw, as I always watchlist a page after I've posted to it, so I won't miss anything, and because I like to keep the continuity of a thread easy to follow. Best regards! – OhioStandard (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Goddess

Don't twist my words. I never said we "owned" the term. I said it was a name. And oh, have you read all of our laws and books? Have you read every single one of Gardner's texts? How about other Wiccan texts? I didn't say we owned or coined the name, all I said was that it was one of Her names in our faith. Don't twist my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclectic Angel (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/sandbox

No sir. I was not attempting to do that. I was just trying out some stuff and making it up. Do not fret.Scottiessoulja (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a simple mistake

Well, I didn't do it on purpose. I obviously was copying "ancient Gnosticism" from your text into my reply so I wouldn't have to respell it, and must have hit CTRL-X instead of CTRL-C. OK? It wouldn't make any sense for me to delete your citation of ancient Gnosticism since I referred to it my reply. So calm down.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being unfair to the article. I know it feels bad to have an article that you like getting run down, but that's life in the Agora. We have to have vigorous vetting of material to make sure that everything's up to quality, and we're allowed to make our arguments forcefully when its called for. Nothing personal. Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry, I paid attention only to the order in which your comment was placed, not your indentation. Mea culpa. I've struck my stupid remarks and made a briefer apology in the AfD. LadyofShalott 05:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Thanks for the alert. I found one quotation with four inline refs. How to report Hillel Neuer's speech at the UN needs a bit of thought, and I will come back to it. The New York Times inline citation should not be where it is, that much I know. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

free speech flag

AnonMoos

thanks for writing me.

I uploaded to english wikipedia, then uploaded to wikimedia commons separately, and put the appropriate "moved to commons" flag on the english wikipedia version.

now, both versions are gone. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg

Thanks again Decora (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can confirm the old commons version by doing this:

google for the PS 3 key, and put it in quotes, and also add the word 'flag'. the commons file was in the top 10 results. Decora (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AnonMoos,

I appreciate your insight into this. The closest thing I can find to a reason is in the history of the Playstation 3 article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_3&action=history . Note I did not put the key in, just the flag image. Of course the history has been erased too. Decora (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Office actions will be clearly indicated both during and after to prevent ambiguities." -- Wikipedia:Office_actions. So then does that mean it was probably DMCA? Decora (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, i appreciate your help very much. Decora (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the post in the media copyright questions section... i must point out though that i am a guy not a gal, sorry to dissapoint Decora (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha good point. but it comes from bamboo . ah well. Decora (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know. the flag has been undeleted and the Arbitration Audit Subcommittee has responded. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg Thanks. Decora (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SVG Help

Hello AnonMoos! It seems the WP:SVG Help board was abandoned recently and declared inactive by the watching user (I think it was Perhelion). After an invitation to revive it at Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab, I put it on my watchlist (and answered the request I found there). But I'm hesitant to remove the "inactive" tag before I'm joined by a user with more experience at SVG (e.g. you). This page is linked to at many different help pages, so it might be worth it to keep such help channel open, and I don't think it would add to our load more than Commons' graphics village pump. So what do you think? -- Orionist ★ talk 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like a big factor in the nature of requests, SVG Help requests are mostly for files on Commons. Probably because most Wikipedians are not active Commoners and Wikipedia is where they look for help, and WP pages are easier for them to follow. Most help pages are also on Wikipedia, and SVG Help is linked from those pages. I've had a look at the archives, and at Archive 4 you have 2 logo requests out of 16 requests, and at Archive 3 you have just 1 out of 30, and it basically says "how do I trace an image?". So I don't think logos or non-free images are a big problem here (actually the Graphic Lab is a big logo magnet, so you don't have to worry!) I'm only concerned that this would be an overload for you, at which case I'll stop my someone-somewhere-needs-help messages :P. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 10:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Let's hope it goes well. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk

INRI

The addition, Roman Catholicism, to this page (INRI) was not a extension of my personal belief systems about the origins of INRI but an addition to the literature on INRI and is historically acurate according to the Easton Press. The significance of the addition is relevant and is supported by a non-religious text, unlike the article itself, which is tagged as being unfounded. The addition does follow the Wiki guidelines and in no way resembles vandalism.

I'm afraid we can't let personal bias interfere with collected writings on the matter.

KJ Cruz 06:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ Cruz (talk • contribs)

You're right. I fixed the typos on your talk page, but you still haven't supported your reasoning for deleting perfectly good encyclopedic information from the article that supports the fact that the lettering is written in the the Latin Alphabet.

The info is written in those volumes under "The Alphabet"

KJ Cruz 14:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ Cruz (talk • contribs)

I have started a discussion on Talk:INRI where it belongs. Robert Graves fails WP:FRINGE in that he does not represent mainstream scholarship. Elizium23 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Passive Periphrastic

Probably bad source, 10x for review. Here is a link for The Passive Periphrastic form, which we probably talk about. The passive periphrastic construction in Latin expresses the idea of obligation -- of "must" or "ought". Stay well - Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Kenyon

Left a nice somewhat rudely worded reply to your thing about Kenyon on Talk:Kathleen Kenyon. Your move sir. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 18:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erte/Romain de Tirtoff

Yes, don't know where that came from. Thanks for the correction. Koplimek (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving posts.

We reply to whom we are replying, it is properly threaded.--Tallard (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDENT

3. A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies. The response should be indented relative to the adjacent replies:

You have been unwilling to adhere to polite conversation and adhere to wikipedia manual of style on indentation

You moved another's comment, not once but three times--Tallard (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted a 3R template, that was affixed to your talk page in response to you modifying another person's comment three times without regard for Wikipedia manual of style on indentation. I have been polite and clear throughout, you are the one screaming and throwing insults around. Please behave with civility.--Tallard (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AN3#User:AnonMoos reported by Tallard (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denial

I find it interesting that you are echoing some of the denials made by other Israelis. (It is like someone coming to wikipedia and saying that Palestinian denials of Jewish connection to the land is not denial but it is true). In any case, lets discuss this on talk.VR _talk 01:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Encyclopedia of Islam article very clearly mentions Jerusalem as the site of the Miraj. It says "The second explanation, the only one given in all the more modern commentaries, interprets al-Masjid al-Aksa as “Jerusalem”." It further says "The idjma [consensus] admitted both interpretations and, when the Umayyad version had arisen, harmonised the two by assigning to isrāʾ the special sense of night journey to Jerusalem."

I think you will have a hard time denying Islam's connection to Jerusalem.VR _talk 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to call you an Israeli, and regret the use of word "other". the rest should be discussed on the talk page of the article.VR _talk 11:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your page. I'm curious: how do you know Arabic and Hebrew? The only people I've met who do are my Israeli friends, but you said you're not Israeli.VR _talk 03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ symbols

Hello. I do not say that the rubber flag have any special connection to the LGBTQ movement more then the standard that almost every sexual "statistical deviation"(absolutely not in any negative meaning) is more visible in the LGBTQ movement and the same can be said about the leather flag. My opinion is that the sit could be renamed "List of Pride Flags and various symbols for sexual gropes" or something like that or the creation of a duplicate page under that title. P.S. In the mean time I will continue updating the site with other pride flags I find appropriate. Agge.se (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I post hear also because I don’t know if you are going to check my talk page and I hawent been especially active in wikipedia so I do not know the correct style for conversations I hope that you forgive me if I do something wrong. Agge.se (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copied from my talk page "Ops I hadn’t seen your file in commons before you linked me to the gallery and I had no idea that you had previously deleted a article about it. I found it when I was searching and compiling a list of "pride flags" and related symbols and thought that it cold be useful in that article and I added the link to give credit to wear I tock the text from. If you think that the section should be deleted feel free to do so if the section is deemed unrelevant. I have no connection to the bdsmrights site and added the flags only in a attempt to add relevant content to wikipedia. Agge.se (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)"

Misunderstanding

Thanks for letting me know about the image. However, the one that I've posted is, in fact different. Not only is it different, but the differences are very mathematically significant. A page will be up shortly that explains these differences and their significance if you are interested. Also the similarities between Marilyn's Cross and File:Brunnian-3-not-Borromean.png will be pointed out on this page, the colors were chosen for ease of comparison. The significance of the name will be explained as well.

Best,

LMcCormick (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Carlos

Nice work on the blazon of William Careless (Carlos). Thanks Urselius (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General barnstar

In passing have noted many helpful/mainstream edits on many articles in the last year. Just a general thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned message

The {{talkback}} template is a widely recognised Wikipedian tool, and it is integrated into Twinkle, which doesn't add a signature to it. If you object to this, you need to raise it with the tool's developers. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 07:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note – if I have need to leave you a talkback-template again (you've requested not to receive them in relation to your unhelpful responses on the Reference Desk, so I won't do that again, but in general) I will not hesitate to do so using Twinkle. They are designed to be deleted after being looked at, so feel free to continue doing that. But if you decline to request that signatures are automatically included with them, I don't think you really have grounds to complain about them being unsigned. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 07:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Hey AnonMoos,

Don't edit Box 5, I only kept that as a draft. Please have a look at this instead! User:Sodacan/Sandbox4/Box4 Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning you

That your vanity kills is all worng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.222.92 (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please request a CheckUser

I am no sockpuppet, and have absolutely no idea what sort of actions you consider objectionable - I looked over your contributions and know of absolutely none of those articles that I have ever edited, and cannot imagine how you even came across me. If you believe me to be a sock, please dispense with the threats and just request the CU from admins. Van Isaac_WS 14:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, talk:History of the Alphabet. I checked back farther and saw that one. That's where you've seen me. Please, CU me so you can dispense with the conspiracy theory and actually deal with the content of the discussion. Van Isaac_WS 15:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I had to look up Richhoncho, as I have never run across this individual before and have absolutely no idea why you think I think you are him. Van Isaac_WS 15:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I correct a misspelled word? I use a spell-check monitor to do some WikiGnomish edits, but since it only checks articles being saved, I sometimes end up covering the tracks of vandals. You've gotta actually look at the history instead of jumping to conclusions because I have never edited under another name, and only occasionally have edited under an IP. Van Isaac_WS

Wait a minute! Are you guys seriously engaged in an edit war over a one-month-difference in an unreferenced tag? Are you freakin' kidding me?!? What is wrong with you people? Just find a reference and remove the stupid tag!!! Van Isaac_WS 15:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just the unreferenced tag. Whew! I was just about to lose it there. Van Isaac_WS 15:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN Honor Flag

Apologies. Feel free to help improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding United Nations Honour Flag, see WP:MERCILESS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, your behavior has been perceived as laughable on discussion boards where I sought feedback. I start articles left and right and rarely run around looking for co-authors. You are the only person crying about not being asked. Other editors told me to point you to MERCILESS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created everything on this page. Feel free to count how many hundreds of pages that is. You are the only person who has gone to my talk page to throw stones based on your claimed ability to know my motivations for creating them based on looking at them. Truth be told, I was not doing opposition research. In fact, your comments were so out of sorts, I asked about another article whether I should be giving someone credit. They asked why I was being so ridiculous and I said that I got this crazy comment on my user talk page. Then, everyone told me to basically ignore your comments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Abigail and Brittany Hensel

Hi, please don't remove this text. First, it breaks the following discussion; second, the presence of the "engagement" discussion demonstrates that the issue has already been discussed, and so anybody who brings it up in future can be directed to it; third, see WP:TPO. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The remarkably uninformed and borderline-moronic rambling speculations about how Abigail and Brittany Hensel might hypothetically change their religions has absolutely no relevance to improving the Wikipedia article, and no place on the article talk page. If I had been aware of the comment at the time it was made, I would have instantly zapped it without compunction, and left a note on the relevant user talk page. You guys were more tolerant, which helped move the conversation along to a conclusion, maybe -- but now that conversation is over, and that means that the offensive idiocy needs to be GONE from the article talk page, perpetually and for ever, the sooner the better! -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini

Checking that bone of contention of paragraph again. Thanks. But, curious about the reference to the Archie comic cover in an earlier post. Sorry that I was mostly away and didn't enquire about it right away. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still curious about the image that you posted about. Pretty sure I'm missing something here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadiandy at Trinity

Hey, AnonMoos. I didn't want to bog down the Trinity article with a back and forth with Avanu. I did want to defend myself from his criticisms. His first criticism is that I am forumshopping. I actually didn't come over here until it was recommended I do so by a senior editor as it seemed to be a discussion which was more relevant here. His second criticism is that I only edit at "pro-LDS" articles. True, they are my primary focus, mainly because they are what I know. I have also edited and discussed at Martin Luther (respectfully with a concern over how there is linkage between Hitler and Luther which I believe is unfair to Luther, I even made the suggestion that it is unfair to identify his antisemitic writings without qualification as their increasing severity coincided with sever and chronic pain and other health issues), at Scooter Libby, at Paul Tsongas, and most recently I even dabbled in creating a new article on Thom Dutch an American innovator in hammock camping technologies (the page was actually frozen or reverted because I haven't been able to find "hard sources"). Avanu might not be aware of this because I have edited as both Canadiandy and Canadiandy1 (not sockpuppeting, just a mess up early on with my user name). I do not wish to discredit Avanu's other work. In the past he has edited rather fairly. However when he gets involved in LDS discussions it seems he has a strong negative bias (I'm not going to speculate on his religious context though he has alluded to it, that is for him to do) and is having a hard time seeing past it. I recognize I have an LDS religious context, but I also think I do a good job of only working from positions where it will not bias my input. In fact, when I consider edit changes I try to assume the article is about Judaism or Lutheranism and then ask if the treatment is fair. I am fully confident that if I was to see Lutheranism referred to as 'nonCatholic' I would have a huge problem with that as well. What is really frustrating is having an editor shadowing every input I make. The third criticism is that I do not have good sources for my proposed changes. This seems to be a mantra of some as a simple way to shut down further discussion. My first proposal to replace 'nontrinitarian' with 'non-Trinitarian' was not meant as an ideal, it was a compromise. And do I really need to find source for hyphenating a word? Clearly, 'non' is common domain as is 'Trinitarian'. It makes me wonder if I need a source to use the word 'the'. My second suggestion was to simply drop the term altogether until a fair or effective term could be found. My third suggestion was then to deal with the Church article the same as is done at Lutheranism, Catholicism, Judaism and others such that theology be broken out into the key doctrines. I presented 8 for with a goal to shortlisting, consensus brought it to 3 or 4. At no time was there any need for reliable sources as we were merely in the discussion stages about whether to edit the term, drop the term, or identify basic tenets (which I could find hundreds of sources for if Avanu would let that one see the light of day). I find it highly unfair that anytime an LDS person gets involved in the discussions they are quickly labeled as apologetics or POV. Thanks for your time and help in the past!--Canadiandy talk 18:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Missing map.png

A tag has been placed on File:Missing map.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 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. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Middle East Media Research Institute". 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. 11:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies!

Hello! Mike28968 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Middle East Media Research Institute, 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 [•] 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit summaries

You have been asked before to provide edit summaries, but your recent edit to Gregorian calendar failed to include a summary, and the diff does not make it apparent how you changed the article. I have therefore reverted your change. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit regarding to EOF

hi!! i'm prashant.i had edited about end-of-file as it has ASCII value 26. while removing you have said that it could be anything will you please explain me about that? Prashantgonarkar (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi Anon. I think you remember the first time we came in contact. It was because of transliteration of Arabic. I was angered because I felt that I was explaining the reasoning of using a strict transliteration while being mocked and not listened to. I apologize if you felt that I was being "rude" as you wrote it somewhere, but it's unfair to claim something untrue about someone with no proof and keep on repeating it without assuming good faith, making it appear to me as a type of trolling. There is no reason for the clash to grow bigger than this. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Trinidad-Anglican-Episcopal-Coat-of-Arms.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Trinidad-Anglican-Episcopal-Coat-of-Arms.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimidiation, yes a real howler!

I am embarrassed to have made such a basic error in my last post, corrected by you. I realised my error whilst reflecting off-line, but too late to correct it myself! I hope my heraldic credibility isn't completely shot!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

re Antisexualism

Well, it's good you've avoided getting into an edit war, since these are discouraged. The AfD result was to keep the article, but there was of course no mandate to keep unsourced material in the article. Since the unsourced material was essentially 100% of the article, a redirect is appropriate. (Forums, bulletin boards, most blogs, etc. are not acceptable sources per WP:RS.)

I'm not an expert on the subject matter, exactly, but I don't have almost complete ignorance of it either, having considered the article to some degree. I laid out my arguments for various edits at the talk page. It is there that you need to engage, and we can talk about this there. What you've been doing is just reverting my edits without offering any rebuttal of my points, or any comments at all, on the talk page. This is not how we get our articles into the best shape. If you like the article, spend some effort finding acceptable references, please. Herostratus (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, calm down, will ya? I originally redirected the article to The Politics of Lust, it was User:Vis-a-visconti who redirected it to Erotophobia; whether that's a better redirect I'm not sure. All I'm asking is that the article be up to quality. It doesn't have any references, to speak of. That's not OK. I get that you feel strongly about this, but the Wikipedia is not about one's strong feelings about a subject but about WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and so forth. Don't rant at me, fix the article. Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then how come the article only has three references? One is to Ince's book, which is fine, one is to a web forum which is not a usable ref, and one is in reference to H.P. Lovecraft, which is synthesis and original research to use. So, one ref. You've been working on the article for years and you have one ref? But OK, fine. let's take it to the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

A tag has been placed on Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Radicalized comedian victim of declining career

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

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 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. Truffo (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Please assume good faith, as you failed to do so at: truffo. It helps contribute to the atmosphere of this encyclopedic project.School district 43 Coquitlam^{Learn with us!} 17:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general advice is sound but don't feel too bad about it in this instance. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne. JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alternate account

Hi anamoos -I was wondering as you didn't seem to have commented or edited the article , is PromiseOfNY an alternative account of yours? Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch calendar

Hi AnonMoos. COuld you look at Enoch calendar again sometime? I went to read it and found it confusing, then saw on the talk page that you thought all the intercalcation stuff is only speculation. thanks. (talk) October 2 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A/O

Hi, was this [2] uncommented revert of my edit intentional? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's what I thought. Hope you don't mind me reinstating my previous edit then. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isa

What is a "Joshua-rabbi"? AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Me not thinking in English.. I'll fix it ;). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I don't know enough about Aramaic-to-Arabic etymology to know if the EncQur is correct here, from the Aramaic and Arabic it looks possible, but as you say Brill Academic are a reputable source. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brill Academic isn't a source at all, it's a publisher. PiCo (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gorges family

I note that you have replaced the hand-painted image of the gurges arms of Gorges with a computer-generated version. I must declare an interest in being the author of the former, and have no objection to the replacement of my artwork if for a good reason. Is it a WP policy re heraldry always to use computerised images where available? I think it would be a shame to entirely lose the artistic element of heraldry by replacing all images of arms drawn by human hand - assuming tolerably well effected. What was your rationale for the replacement? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page - should not your reply have been made here so the thread can be followed? Minor point, not a criticism. Your vector is an excellent reproduction of my artwork (made in watercolour with great care!) which was copied exactly from the image on the frontispiece of Raymond Gorges family history, which in turn was copied from the Victorian stained glass in Wraxall Church. (Probably too much info., perhaps to be added to image file for those interested.) I don't think your work is too narrow as you suggest; But it is clinical and perhaps too perfect. A watercolour rendering can never attain that smoothness of colour, nor does it desire to, which is what perhaps gives it some artistic personality. Is there a WP policy about preferring computer generated heraldic images over hand-drawn ones? I'm happy in this case to let your image supersede mine, but it's not perhaps a desirable precedent if applied accross the board automatically. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please cease your ongoing harassment and un-civil behaviour

As you provide no summaries for your ongoing harassment and un-civil behaviour, be assured your comments are well documented for easy finding. Need I say more. Thx ... talknic (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN. Please stop your un-necessary comments, incessant un-related dialogue and simply address the issues ... talknic (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned [3] ... talknic (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ibn taymiah

what does salafi mean in 21st century? Your argument is laughable. Wikipedia is not a website of ibn taymiah's descendents

ibn taymiah

what does salafi mean in 21st century? Your argument is laughable. Wikipedia is not a website of ibn taymiah's descendents. Zikrullah (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otium

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it more concise. Does it need more "fine tuning"? Good Article possibility?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Uniting for Consensus

I did not find sources that support these statements (even though, in some case, it seems fairly obvious). However one thing is for sure: Italy is opposed to expanding the permanent members of the Security Council, whatever they are, and it does not explicitly opposed to Germany. See the sources. --Enok (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takbir

Dear Anon,

I've answered you the best I can in the talk page, in a way you'll understand. Best, - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 23:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtar

Read Ezek. 8:14 in the bible and try and keep a straight face when you say that isn't Ishtar. I wonder how many pagans have deleted the section Ishtar in the old testament in the past. It's factual knowledge, just as much as anyone claiming Isis is Ishtar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedOwl (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Strange politics in Arabic Wikipedia

I am not an expert in religions. As far as I can see, the first article (ثالوث) is about tritheism in general and (after a rather philosophical and a bit numerological introduction) talks briefly about tritheism in hinduism, then, in detail, about Ancient Egypt, then a couple of lines about Christianity (where it states that Christianity is not triteistic, although not infrequently accused of being so). The article looks fairly descriptive, i.e. without any statements about the "trueness" of these beliefs.

The second article is completely unsourced and consists of "opinions" of different religions about, ughm, hard to say whether it's trinity of tritheism. Finally, the last article, imho, is written from Christian point of view, sounds somewhat apologetic, and is sourced near-exclusively from the New Testament, which is a primary source.

The history pages of the three articles suggest they are fairly stable, so I couldn't see what you meant by mentioning 'strange politics'. The problem, in my view, is that Arabic Wikipedia only has a few dozen active contributors, and Christians represent a minority of them (just as in real life); and not all the contributors are interested in religious subjects. I don't claim everything is fine, but I believe POV-pushing is likely to be reverted as soon as it comes to attention.

So, if you have any specific comments or are aware of any specific problems, you are welcome to write to me, and I will try to be of help. (Yes, my Arabic is probably better than yours.) :) And, just in case, I added the three articles to my watchlist.

Abanima (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, still I miss the point of your critique. This is how I see the subject so far: There were several articles of lower-than-acceptable quality related to Christianity on Arabic Wikipedia. Fine. Nobody (seemingly) was bothered to improve them. Not so fine, but beyond my control: although I tend not to ask or inquire about the religious, ethnic, educational or other backgrounds of contributors, I am aware there's only a handful of people in Arabic Wikipedia who want and able to improve Christianity-related articles. There is also a critical shortage in contributors able and willing to make constructive encyclopedic edits to articles about, say, public health, Soviet history, linguistics, biology, and even Islam or genealogy, to name just a few.

Then enter Rafy, improved some of those articles. Again, fine.

So, what was (were) the problem(s) (kindly, with relevant diffs) that necessitated contacting me here-and-now? I simply cannot research the complete history of every article and try to guess what you didn't like about it. I am ready to do my best to improve (or, at least, to prevent the deterioration of) Arabic Wikipedia, but, please, explain what you need! Names of articles? A quick look shows Rafy moved and/or changed the subjects of ثالوث and تثليث, and I am not competent enough to judge whether these terms are appropriate or not, so why not talk directly to him? Or الثالوث الأقدس ('the holiest')? This is considered a kind of peacock words, and applies not only to Christianity, but also to Islam, despite the discussions that periodically arise (especially those demanding that the article about Muhammad must be titled 'The Messenger of God Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him'). And, as far as I can judge, in the Wikipedias which I use as a proxy of quality (English, German, French and Russian) the title of the article about Trinity does not incorporate the word 'holy' or the like, and I don't see why Arabic Wikipedia should be different in this regard, given that الثالوث الأقدس is a redirect to the relevant article, and this redirect peacefully exists since 2007.

Re American flag, again: what would you expect from me personally? It is not among the 3300+ pages on my watchlist, and there are less than 30 people watching it. Concerning the naval jack, I cannot suggest more than to use a descriptive translation, e.g. 'flag of the navy'. I don't exclude there is no term for it in Arabic, just because no one wrote about it, and most Arabic countries, I think, don't have real military fleets and, consequently, the terminology/jargon and traditions (if they exist at all) are much less widely known to the public compared, for example, with England, the Netherlands or even far more "terrestrial" Russia.

--Abanima (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder pole

Nice. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at Rafy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Rafy talk 00:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Could you email me, if you have a chance? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try anyway, please? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure I understand -- you can e-mail me as easily as I can e-mail you, and you know what the topic will be, while I have no idea... AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried emailing you in the past, but apparently nothing has gotten through, leading me to believe that either your email isn't working, or there is some other issue (e.g. filtering). That's why I'd like you to try emailing me instead this time. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received your message of December 5th, but didn't have anything to say in reply to it, and didn't think that it was urgently in need of an acknowledgement; sorry if that was perceived as rude. Nevertheless, I will e-mail (which I could have done earlier if you had explained a little more). AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on copy editing

I was admiring your work here. Not sure where all those apostrophes came from!—but thanks for a job well done! // FrankB 04:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Mandate Palestine and British Mandate for Palestine

You were engaged in a previous conversation on this topic, please join the ongoing discussion here.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 8859

I was working with the uncategorized articles list, which does not offer a way to distinguish between articles which have nonexistent categories on them because somebody created them that way and articles which have nonexistent categories on them because somebody changed the name of an existing category without properly creating the replacement first. What I did was not "adding pointless and unnecessary drama"; it was a perfectly normal and standard process when articles with nonexistent categories show up on the list. And the list can have anywhere up to 300 articles on it on any given day, so I can hardly be expected to go through the list manually checking each and every article's edit history to see what happened. My job is to get the articles off the list as quickly as possible, not necessarily to know how each and every individual article got there in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to try working with the uncategorized articles list sometime, then by all means you can manually check the edit history on all 300, 600, 900 or 3,897 articles on the list one by one to your heart's content. But if you're not part of the project and don't plan to join in, then kindly don't presume to tell people who are working on it that you know how they should do the job better than they do. I do check the edit history when I can easily identify that something's off — such as a blank page, a page that just suddenly ends in the middle of a sentence or a page which has maintenance tags dated from 2009 at the top of the article — but the task is already boring and time-consuming enough (and I'd prefer not to have to do it at all, frankly) that checking every page's edit history one by one simply isn't a realistic expectation. If the tag really offends you that deeply, then next time fix the issue before the page gets to the uncategorized articles list in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they show up on the uncategorized articles list, then they have to be dealt with. So if you want me to avoid them, then you can quite kindly take it upon yourself to ensure that none of them ever show up there again; if they do, they'll have to be dealt with according to the standards and practices of that project, which may or may not coincide with your personal preferences. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America Symbol

Since you removed "America Symbol.svg", can you rename "America Symbol (Royalty Free, No Copyright)2.svg" to "America Symbol.svg"?

The whole reason I reuploaded it is because the name was too long. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College of Arms

Hi AnonMoos,

I have just added significantly to the College of Arms article. As you know this took me almost a year to research and write. Please help me to copyedit it, I am sure I have made many mistakes. The phrasing and some of the structure of the text sure needs a good set of fresh eyes to go through them. I think the article has really good potential, I am hoping to get it to GA or even try it out at FAC. At least I am sure you will find the article a good read. Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A voice of reason on WP

I was on Juice's page looking at something and I noticed your posts. You should get one of those barn stars. It's nice to know there are some on WP that are not lost in Fringe ideas. Keep up the good work! ~ty (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Grammar in a Talk Page

The discussion of the grammatical correctness of a sentence, a sentence which has been fixed with proper grammar, is inappropriate for the David Atchison:Talk page. I cited the Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages section Refactoring Overview and the section Pruning and you respond by putting on my talk page "You really need to learn about page archiving." I did not archive anything, nor do I think a discussion of parenthetical parentheticals is something that needs to be archived on a page about David Atchison. JoshNarins (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HMallison

I think it would be a good idea for you to ignore HMallison from now on. Von Restorff (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coin collecting

Thanks for your helpful response at WP:RD/H. After your response, I added a second comment: it turns out that my local public library had a copy of Krause's, even though it wasn't in WorldCat, so I'm using it as much as possible. Unfortunately, it's just 20th-century coins, and there are some 19th-century coins (and a few early 20th-century coins that aren't in this edition of Krause's) in this collection. Per Wehwalt's suggestion in the same RD thread, I'll try to upload photos and put a list of the photographed coins on-wiki. Thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange typo in image

I refer to this image File:Persian Empire, 490 BC.png, uploaded by your good self. Just to the West of Athens is a town named "Cornith". Presumably this is a typo in the original image? Do you know if there is any chance of getting it corrected? Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Danragnar

Hello, AnonMoos.

You deleted my update about Esus.

Firstly: Consensus seeking is for politics and creeds are for religions: it is not academic thinking to use phrase “academic consensus says…” as an excuse to block out dissentient ideas. If some self-claimed author declares that only idea X is approvable, then this X is not an idea but a dogma. We do not deal numbers in this topic: we deal interpretations. You cannot argue with quantitative numbers: but you do must argue with qualitative interpretations, because otherwise there is no progress in qualitative knowledge, but only dogmas. And dogma belongs to area of religion, not of science. If you cannot argue, then debate is blocked: blocked debate is not science but a sign of protection of dogmas, and of censorship. Assumption that Jesus is not Esus is considered as truth and fact only because “most of/all experts say so” — what is one of so called false deductions too. Well, after Mr. Virpiranta’s book there is at least one Black Swan in this topic. Also, it is a double standard that you approved Morgnwg as a reliable source but not Virpiranta, as both hold an opinion that Jesus was Esus.

Secondly: Wikipedia does not ban using self-published material as a reference material, only suggests one to be cautious about it. I was. Our task as writers is to write articles using as much direct data from sources as unbiased ways as possible. I did. It is not our duty to validate or falsify data in our Wikipedia articles. It is duty of a reader. But our duty is to make sure that we don’t put words into sources’ mouths so that the reader could draw his or her own conclusions from this neutral unbiased material according to limits of his or her mental faculties. We as editors are not responsible about views of authors of our sources: we as editors are responsible to our readers to make them understand that data is not ours but authors—we just selected and processed it for them as well as we could within limits of our own knowledge and understanding. But we as editors can select only from the material what we know of: your knowledge about the topic is different to mine and vice versa, but it is not your right to decide that some material should remove and blocked just because it does not fit into your perspective. Don’t use academic consensus or on-demand publishing as your excuse: that is not quality control, that is censorship. Reliability is reason for Wikipedia policy advice to quote as much as possible, so that our own conscious opinions or unconscious biases wouldn’t affect into our interpretations as editors.

Thirdly: Considering self-published material as automatically inferior, poorer quality, and non-academic per se is ungrounded, as it is common trend of academics to publish on-demand those material what is not written for student manuals where strict accuracy is paramount , e.g. pamphlets of controversial hypotheses what they want to offer to their scientific community for further research. Virpiranta’s book is one of these. The book is full of original views, perhaps because he is not a Brit but a Finn, not a Celtic scholar but globalization researcher, and therefore has fresh unbiased views of outsider to Celtic and Punic ancient culture. My opinion about the book of Mr. Virpiranta is that it fulfils academic requirements as a debate arouser treatise well enough. It is not a student manual, although it could be use as one, to give lot of interesting competing views to approved views of establishment of Celtic research. Without debate there is not progress, and competing views are wet-stone to sharpen prevailing views, too. In sum, to me Virpiranta is as a legitimate reference source although it is not published through traditional science publishing houses.

Fourthly: I will republish later my update "Virpiranta’s Assessment" to Esus page again. You shall have better excuses than on-line publishing next time if you intend to censor it again.

Yours sincerely, Danragnar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danragnar (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. When you recently edited Brown–Driver–Briggs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francis Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Israel

Dear AnonMoos, I respect your effective contribution to some of the Wikipedia articles, but that puts you in no authority to supervise me, and to advise me what kind of articles I can or can't edit. I can assure you that I do not in any way put my personal opinion in any of my edits, and even if we consider that i do, you are the last person to warn me about the issue since you personally have a somehow subjective approach to the matters you edit. Also you are right about the mistake I did concerning the "Israeli" and "Israelite", but I would like to point out that a large respectable amount of Israeli citizens acknowledge only the Israelite as the rightful true Israeli people. Therefore I stand corrected but on a subject that was not fully wrong and did not need a harsh attack, since I from many of the people should use my knowledge of the Middle East in its history, culture, politics or in any other matter, so this association can be improved. Thank you. Zeinoun Awad (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugaritic edits

Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ugaritic_alphabet#Number_of_letters_unclear.3F

Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peasants

Here you go - you'll need to crop a bit off the bottom, but less than this which is likely the original. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No English House of Lords after 1707

My Constitutional Convention (United States) edit's description was, "While the law and most of the history considered were those of England, by then the U.K. had been established, so, e.g., there were Scottish peers in the House of Lords". I agree that that ended up confusing, but that was all there was space for (I did try to rework it a bit, but failed). So I am afraid you rather missed my point there, and then your history got a bit off too.

On my talk page, you put: 'The British House of Lords (as opposed to English) does not have an obscure origin, so your change of "English" to "British" there was not really suitable. Also, your edit summary was very confusing, because the UK was not established in 1787 (only Great Britain).'

Each of those two sentences is at least a misunderstanding. Taking them in reverse order, because the first reply should make the second clearer:-

- There is a serious confusion in "the UK was not established in 1787 (only Great Britain)". Of course it was, and had been for generations. The U.K. was actually established seventy years earlier, in 1707 - the Union of Scotland and England (including Wales). That was the United Kingdom of Great Britain (the main island), and it can be and was called either the U.K. or Britain (or other variants). Ireland was added some years after 1787, and then most of it was removed many years after that, but the term "U.K." and the sovereign state were already of long standing in 1787.

- It's not about clarifying an obscure origin. It's about whether there was a contemporary (to 1787) reference or not. So, I left "English Law" because that was still distinct in 1787, and "English history" because that was a reference to a period extending well before 1787 and to largely English events, but I changed "English House of Lords" because there was no such thing after 1707. When the U.K. was formed, the separate Scottish parliament was abolished and the former English (and Welsh) parliament, still sitting at Westminster, was extended; Scottish M.P.s began to be returned to the House of Commons and Scottish peers elected representative peers to sit in the House of Lords - it was no longer an English House of Lords.

So my change was no quibble but corresponds to actual facts on the ground that mattered, e.g. the Bute government that had greatly affected developments in the colonies was headed by one of these Scottish peers, and the last colonial governor of Virginia was one of them. Not to mention that it is offensive to people of my ancestry to be lumped in with the English... So I am going to restore it. PMLawrence (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, before we get into an edit war or a flame war or anything like that, I'll try to address your concerns and show you why an article relating to 1787 should have certain references to "England" and "English" changed to "Britain", "British", etc. Since you put your reply on my talk page, I'll do so there. Fair enough? PMLawrence (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have clarified your concern on my talk page, I have put up a draft there that I hope addresses it. I will leave it there for a few days in case you want to comment or work on it before I alter the main article. Or you can do that if you prefer. PMLawrence (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Latin translation

Thank you for the help with the Latin translation. I'm quite pleased with the Semper Sarciens Nunquam Fidicen and am putting it on a rubber stamp for our boat.

When we first started sailing SE Asia, another cruiser said that I absolutely needed to make up an official boat stamp, as stamping customs, immigration, and harbor-master paperwork really impresses the officials. I thought that sounded a bit condescending, so I didn't bother and had no problems in Thailand and Malaysia, but Indonesia was a different story. When we checked in there, each of half a dozen officials wanted our "chop" on their forms. When the first asked and I informed him that we had no stamp, he looked crestfallen. After a minute of not seeming to know what to do, he let me pass. When I told the second official that I had no stamp, he didn't hesitate at all before having me place a thumbprint on his forms, so when subsequent officials asked for our chop I just showed them my blue thumb. I then tracked down the first official to show him my thumb. He cracked a wide grin and pulled out the completed paperwork to receive my improvised chop.

In an effort to avoid future inky thumbs, I'm making a stamp, but it seemed a bit bare with just the boat name, country of registry, and official number. Adding our new motto really fills it out. Thanks! -- ToE 12:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turning it around

Hi again.

We had Semper Sarciens Nunquam Fidicen for "Always Fiddling (tinkering/repairing), Never a Fiddler (stringed instrument player)". How easy does this turn around? Pattern matching but knowing no Latin, I might guess "Always a Fiddler (tinkerer/repairman), Never Fiddling (playing a stringed instrument)" would be Semper Sarcen Nunquam Fidiciens, but I doubt it could be so easy.

ToE 23:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC) It's time to stop procrastinating and have a "chop" made, as we'll soon be headed back through Indonesia.[reply]

Response by AnonMoos

I'm confused. In the original Semper Sarciens Nunquam Fidicen, was Sarciens explicitly a verb and Fidicen explicitly a noun, or were they both nouns? -- ToE 00:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response by AnonMoos

OK, and I understand that Fidicen in Nunquam Fidicen is a noun, giving "never a string-player". My question is whether this noun can be easily "verbed" to yield "never string-playing" (as in "never fiddling"), or is such a construct too awkward? -- ToE 09:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response by AnonMoos

Good enough. Thanks for all the help. -- 203.82.95.126 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted

[4] can't believe you were the only one who noticed this since 2008, nominated for AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss flag

Hi. There are currently two different versions of the Swiss flag used across the English wikipedia, so I started a discussion at WT:CH#Swiss red to see if there is one better version that we could use consistently. In case you have any comment or suggestion (as a contributor to File:Flag of Switzerland.svg), you are welcome to join the discussion. mgeo talk 22:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Legislative Exchange Council again

Hi, AnonMoos. Would you mind taking a look at a particular section (permalink) on MastCell's talk, since you participated in the previous discussion that's documented there, as well? Many thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing baby girls

Some months ago, you gave a helpful reply to my question at WP:RD/L about "bouncing baby" being applied much more to boys than girls. I've just encountered "bouncing" being used for a girl in a printed newspaper article; it's the first time I can ever remember seeing it. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	It was a real hoot waking up to your message on my talk page. I wish more people were able to make me laugh as they pointed out my mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Phonotactics

Thanks for your comments at the WP:RD/Lang Reference Desk! I've remade the chart in the style of yours, and I think it looks much better now. What do you think? Inter change able 01:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a technical margins fix. As for substantive issues, I strongly doubt whether "tl" and "dl" occur as basic clusters, and you should indicate in some manner that "first element of a geminated consonant" is an allowed coda... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this on your talk page, where the discussion was started, per the notice at the top of my talk page. Anyway, the article Italian phonology states that "f, v, or any stop" may occur before /l/, and that includes the clusters you mentioned. I'll make the other change soon and notify you when I do. EDIT: The Italian Wiktionary doesn't seem to have any words that begin with ⟨tl⟩ or ⟨dl⟩, so I'll assume you're right and remove those clusters. Inter change able 15:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed the problems you mentioned. I think it's ready for the article now, and I have added it there. Inter change able 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed reply; I have no objection to the image being added to the article, but the non-[mnlr] coda section could be clarified further. It might be good to parenthesize or put into a different color (or distinguish in some other way) the non-[mnlr] coda consonants; while the wording in footnote 3 is convoluted and doesn't use accepted linguistic terminology (which is that such consonants can only occur in a syllable coda when part of a doubled or geminated consonant).

By the way, it will probably be more difficult to come up with a reasonable diagram for English syllables while sticking to a rigid "C1-C2-C3" format... AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; I'll rework that footnote. And if you have any further comments, please post them on your talk page, where this discussion was started, per the notice on the top of my talk page. Inter change able 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for comment

As the subject seems to be of your interest, you are invited to this, as yet, non-consensual and critical talk. Excalibursword (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insha'Allah

You have made substantial contributions to the above article in the past, and I would welcome your input on the substantive changes in it by an IP recently. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anona Moos

They were some images in the Detroit Race Riot 1943 article i added and i don't know how to provide a copyright information since i'm new to Wikipedia and some of the images did not meet the criteria of it. Also i tried reading it but most of them are hard to understand. BTW how do you add image with a proper license? I trying to do it on a Watts Riot article. http://thegrio.com/2010/08/11/slideshow-1965-in-watts-a-city-on-fire/#s:watts8-jpg XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

humanities

My comment is the newest on the thread and not a response to anyone's. It goes at the bottom. What makes you feel entitled to "make mine associated" with someone else, if that's what you think it is, by moving it? Feel free to indent outdent or nodent it as you like, but don't move it. You can even put a second post below your last one saying that my response is not related to yours. But do not touch mine or move it again or this goes to 3rr. μηδείς (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hunters of Gor

	Hunters of Gor
	Tal, AnonMoos ... I received your email about the "Hunters of Gor" cover ... you may also have seen me as Morgus on CoG ... be well ... Tarnmaster (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thoughtful interjection kitten!

I don't see you often at the reference desk(s), so please have this thoughtfully interjecting kitten as a sign of my appreciation of your thoughtful interjection pointing out the Oxford Union debate that typified many people's attitudes towards war in the inter-war period. (Being a member, I was dimly aware of the debate, but didn't think to mention it.)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar on Curiosity rover

For Wikipedia purposes, and in normal grammatical rules, the word "whose" is only used to describe the actions of people. In all other cases, for animals, inanimate objects, and robotic instruments, the correct words to use would be "which" or "that". For this reason, I have reverted one of your recent edits to the Curiosity rover. Let me know if you have any questions. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.

Research: The most recent DR data

Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey

Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums

DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August

Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate

Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->--The Olive Branch 18:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that
Sometimes I try to work to quickly and don't pay enough attention to what I'm doing. Thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zess
Thanks for answering my question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zess. And by the way, I quite like the Initial Teaching Alphabet article to which you contributed. It is always interesting to learn about new things. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:U5974-History.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:U5974-History.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Living children of American Civil War veterans
I respect your edit but I will likely get no answers since most contributors will not see the new question, don't you think so? Iowafromiowa (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Svgtranslate
Hey AnonMoos. I'm afraid I've not been giving svgtranslate the love and affection it deserves, hence this (and all sorts of other problems). Thankfully, I have been working on a new project (an extension to MediaWiki) that replaces svgtranslate (cunningly called translatesvg), that, if deployed, with understand tspans properly. I realise this is ideal but alas I don't really have the time to update both projects at the same time. Sorry to not be more helpful, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Congressional Progressive Caucus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Head Start (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian Authority issue
Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [5], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Base 24 to Quadrovigesimal
I read in my talk that you thought Base 24 shouldn't be changed to Quadrovigesimal; I think that it should stay as Quadrovigesimal because people who have edited the page have also used that term AND Base 24 is a redirect to Quadrovigesimal so if people search Base 24, they can still get to Quadrovigesimal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEpicQ (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I guess Quadrovigesimal isn't a good name. I'm sorry about that. But, I did read the list of numeral systems, and I saw Base 24 was called Tetravigesimal on the list. Is it ok if I change the name to that? Please reply to me in my talk. T E Q 00:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noinclude
Thanks for the information. -- yabancı ^m 19:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gor#External links
Per the question you posed on my talk page: I made that particular edit not only because it seem unnecessary to divide such a short list, but also because neither of the so-called "official" sites make any claim to be official. (In fact: the Chronicles of Gor site specifically disclaims any connection to John Norman, and that Norman "has no ownership interest" in the website.) Looking at the four links more closely, I now see one is dead. I'm making a new revision based on this information. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 22:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're making a case about specific aspects of these external sites (and not posing a question to me), I think the proper place for any further discussion is Talk:Gor — HipLibrarianship ^talk 07:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AnonMoos
Did you know the name Jesus is just the same name as Joshua? Joshua is a corruption of Yahshua and Yahshua is not the true spelling with is Yeshua. In the Hebrew there is a constinant letter there denoting the W which most people are dropping so therefore it should be YESHUWA. Note that the long form of YESHUWA is YEHOSHUWA. It is awe inspiring that the name YEHOVAH the name of the Father has the same letters as the name of the Son. YEHOSHUA just has the inset SHU and the H dropped off the end. As you know the Hebrew letter W and V are the same letter in Hebrew. In the Strong's Concordance the real root word of YEHOVAH is listed but no claims are made that it is the root or YEHOVAH. That root is HOVAH. For an explination of this see the take page of "Jehovah". 2602:306:C518:6C40:4847:F737:9567:4593 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm green with envy - you get all the best kooks! PiCo (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo
Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how to speak the the alphabet
theban alphabet --06:31, 23 February 2013‎ 70.197.192.234
Talkback

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at Alex3yoyo's talk page.
Message added 01:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
alex3yoyo (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Liberators-Kultur-Terror-Anti-Americanism-1944-Nazi-Propaganda-Poster.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Liberators-Kultur-Terror-Anti-Americanism-1944-Nazi-Propaganda-Poster.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
commons:User:Velde about Commons image discussions
geb. am 3. Aug. 1868 in Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland, gest. am 5. Jan. 1943 im Ghetto Theresienstadt, Tschechoslowakei/heute: Tschechien, Pädagogin, Klavierlehrerin.

(2008, aktualisiert am 24. Jan. 2012)
http://www.lexm.uni-hamburg.de/object/lexm_lexmperson_00002993
geb. am 3. Aug. 1868 in Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland, gest. am 5. Jan. 1943 im Ghetto Theresienstadt, Tschechoslowakei/heute: Tschechien, Pädagogin, Klavierlehrerin.

(2008, aktualisiert am 24. Jan. 2012)
http://www.lexm.uni-hamburg.de/object/lexm_lexmperson_00002993
hh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.176.6 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The words that came from Africa!
I wrote about them on User talk:Garik page (see "Cognates" on that page...) Not just Mama&Papa, there are many words that came from Africa. Regards, Böri (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
flag of syria
here is what was done in libya http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Libya&oldid=441902580 -- 18:55, 30 March 2013‎ User:Alhanuty
Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, AnonMoos.
You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbutas looniness again
"such as the glaringly obvious fact that many scholars accept the basic parameters of an an overall "Pontic-Caspian steppe" origin theory without swallowing every last detail of what Gimbutas came up with in the later part of her life."
So 4% Kurgan Theory = 100% Kurgan Theory? Nice math! Not ironic at all. Me obtuse? Okay. Sure, boss. I mean, are you really rooting for a neopagan revisionist tale?? Are you a Wiccan or just undiagnosable? To reiterate just in case you lost attention: Pontic-Caspian homeland => within reason; Kurgan => petty modern gender politics. Anyways, I know you're just trololollin' on WP but when you're ready to learn linguistics and archaeology for real, I will be more than happy to help you out, you hilarious neopagan. Until this intellectual drought of yours passes, I still rather enjoy this dialogue for more immature reasons, I admit. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Istanbul (Not Constantinople)
Perfect word selection - Thank you. Jmg38 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image resize
Hi and thank you AnonMoos for resizing the image File:BSicon uexAKRZ-UKo.svg that I created. I would like to resize it again if possible to take the icon right up to the borders, but am not sure how. Could you point me in the right direction of how I would do this. I am using it in Template:Bristol Supertram map that I have created. Many thanks, Nostalgic34 (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for modifying it again. I will have a go with the text editor next time. Nostalgic34 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback

Hello, AnonMoos. You have new messages at Numbermaniac's talk page.
Message added 00:30 May 3 2013. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Numbermaniac - T - C 00:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Article does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
new flag request
Hi, i like your work on the golden dawn flag can you please do a flag for Party of the Swedes thanks Peterzor (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i posted two links from the sveriges radio then more specific crwflags see my talkpage Peterzor (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]