User talk:A Sniper

Re. User_talk:MrWhipple#Thank_you, I'm glad I could help. I've been out of the Wikipedia Mormon editing community for some time, mainly because of the frustration of dealing with people who create their own POV edits and then "camp out" to defend them. If we can pull together more editors knowledgeable in Mormon history (and historiography), I think we can turn a bad article into something helpful and balanced. --MrWhipple (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with your criticism of the subjective list in the Jangle pop article. I relocated the list to a "List" article, because it undercuts the credibility of the article. Some Wiki editors seem to think that lists are exempt from the Wiki rules, but they are not. Some lists have a lot of random additions.,..... To improve the article, we need a few good sources. I'll see if I can track one down.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some guidance regarding a article in which minor emancipation is being discussed?

We know that once a minor marries he/she attains emancipation by default (this would apply for example, to a minor that gets married with parent's consent). The question is actually this: If a minor wants to get married and his father is dead and the mother is unreachable, is it not the case that the minor needs to go before a court to request emancipation by filling a petition for emancipation so that he can then obtain a marriage license?

Could you please confirm this is the case? My understanding is that the Juvenile court judge assess proof of financial independence, adequate housing arrangements, and sufficient maturity to grant emancipated minor status to the applicant.

Your help would be much appreciated.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished. I'd like to fill in some blanks and see if it makes any difference to your opinion. Here are the Colorado statutes that appear most relevant:

• 14-2-108. Judicial approval.[1]
• (1) The juvenile court, as defined in section 19-1-103 (17), C.R.S., after a reasonable effort has been made to notify the parents or guardian of each underage party, may order the county clerk and recorder to issue a marriage license and a marriage certificate form:
• (a) To a party aged sixteen or seventeen years who has no parent or guardian, or who has no parent capable of consenting to his marriage, or whose parent or guardian has not consented to his marriage; or

• 19-1-103. Definitions. [2]
• As used in this title or in the specified portion of this title, unless the context otherwise requires
• (45) "Emancipated juvenile", as used in section 19-2-511, means a juvenile over fifteen years of age and under eighteen years of age who has, with the real or apparent assent of the juvenile's parents, demonstrated independence from the juvenile's parents in matters of care, custody, and earnings. The term may include, but shall not be limited to, any such juvenile who has the sole responsibility for the juvenile's own support, who is married, or who is in the military.

Finally, here is the account of the judgement from the Associated Press:

• The guru needed a court order to obtain a marriage license since he's too young to be married in Colorado without parental permission. Juvenile Court Judge Morris E. Cole issued the order and the license was obtained Friday from the city clerk's office. Cole interviewed the couple for 15 minutes in his chambers before issuing the court order May 7. The guru's father is dead and his mother couldn't be reached in India to give her consent. Cole said the boy "makes quite a bit of money and he seems quite mature—much older than 16." "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune

It's my contention based on these sources that the judge ordered the issuance of a marriage license to a minor. The minor subsequently married and as a result of being married became an emancipated minor. He would also have been emancipated if his living parent had given consent. So the emancipation was an outcome of the wedding rather than being a precondition of the wedding. Is that correct? Your responses in this matter are appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (PS: You may respond on Jossi's talk page if you like, in order to keep the conversation orderly. -W.)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful response. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For exhibiting several acts of editorial bravery and courage in defense of NPOV. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		"For adding 'special flavor' to the community by acting as a sort of wildcard." I realized after our latest round of volleys at Fanny Alger (which might be deleted anyway, but that is a different story) that the article is much better after the pressure and friction between us (not to mention several other articles we have edited over the last few months). Sometimes we don't see eye to eye, but I think that the Wikipedia is better for it - especially as you are able to remain civil when edits and consensus doesn't go your way. Thanks for challenging me to be a better editor! (and forgive me if I get frustrated with you in the future ;) ). Descartes1979 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sniper. I am writing in regards to the Joseph Smith discussion page. I started a discusion titled 'historians?' three quaters of the way down. Can we get your point of view on this, as you seem to be pretty NPOV. thanks (Captain hoek (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I just want to throw in a comment about JFoxe, the main "editor" of this article. A while back he said to you, "If you've like to see what Joseph Smith could (and in my opinion, should) look like, check out my handiwork at Fawn Brodie and Billy Sunday. And yes, there there was a considerable amount of "sniping" in the process of getting those articles together. But now they've been basically stable for more than a year." Well, I am the major "sniper" who disagreed with him about the Billy Sunday article. I am still displeased with the article. It definitely reflects JFoxe's interests (Sunday's conservative theological credentials) and ignores Sunday's importance as a cultural figure. The only reason the article became "basically stable" is that I finally quit--I just gave up fighting with him. I consider him a bully. He is tenacious and very focused. I just wanted to let you know that you probably cannot win your edit war, and you may as well just decide how much of his POV you can live with.--Rocketj4 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year.

On the subject of Rosh Hashanah, is this edit right? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got a few of my grad school applications done, and had a couple of lazy evenings so I couldn't resist :). Best, --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maybe it was an understandable temptation considering the campaign for the Jesus picture, which I suspect was more about annoying people than actually getting his picture into the article. I suppose that any average Christian reading the talk page wouldn't bother getting the Hebrew translated anyway, so the potential for offense maybe was low. Perhaps it is best to not take the risk and resist the powerful temptation to mess with such captions. The harmless fun is over I guess.

You seem to have been here longer than I, so I have a question. I wanted to mention in Will Lee that he is Jewish (since I am pretty sure he is), but I couldn't find explicit mention of it in any news articles or on his Sesame Street profile. I know this place is big on using sources, but honestly this would be fairly uncontroversial. Do you suppose I could add it anyway? Chedorlaomer (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding a source. I guess I got lost in references to Mr. Hooper's Jewishness and somehow missed those that discussed Lee himself. By the way, I like the new caption on Talk:Jew's personal Jesus. Thanks again, Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was going to give it a few more days then email you since I hadn't seen it yet. Yeah, grad school apps are killing me right now - I am applying to 5 schools, and I have three of them done and submitted. The last two are due next Tuesday. Add that and the fact that we are in busy season right now and I don't have a ton of time on my hands. Yet somehow, I manage to log in to Wikipedia...Ironic isn't it ;). Can't wait for the book - catch you later.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can take a look to Talk:Arabic Wikipedia? about it's restrictions. regards. --Riyadi.asmawi (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again, just to read the talk page in full, nd comment on it, better (Also with a bunch of Friends) , try to put what's been said about the arabic wikipedia..too fundamentalist. thank you for ur time. --Riyadi.asmawi (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on MJ. I think I will take a breather. I just can't understand why SkyWriter has such a vendetta to push "clarifying" the article as "Christian" at the expense of marginalization of many Messianic Jews who reject the label not only nominally, but behaviorally and doctrinally as well. inigmatus (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the ongoing edit back and forth on the Reform Judaism page, I tried to be a neutral party adding additional info on Reform Zionism, correcting some HUC facts, and making the American Council for Judaism note have an "ending" - as it was it implied the Council was just as big and powerful as it was once upon a time. I took the wording that you fact-checked from the ACJ Wikipedia page where it seemed unchallenged and therefore ripe for copying. Before I go out and get other facts, I am curious what your goals/intentions are on this area so I can make sure my efforts might find a conclusion. Many thanks for your efforts to edit the various Jewish and Reform Jewish pages JerseyRabbi (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put BNR metal on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. IF you want, you can try and contribute to the discussion.75.159.18.67 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at it as a shining example of OR. I've told the editor that he can expect it to be deleted. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your revision. I am new to editing :) Ninja247 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I've done almost the same thing myself twice in the last 10 minutes... Harland1 (^t/_c) 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking this as a sincere question, not as a challenge. Why was my edit "incorrect"? Unschool 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Sugarmonkey.jpg states that it is a "public domain photo of sugarmonkey live, taken by Jen Owens, available for download at the band's myspace page (www.myspace.com/sugarmonkeyonline)". I can't seem to find Jen Owens' public domain release of this photo? Can you point me towards it? Thanks. (Feel free to respond here, to keep the discussion in the same place.)—C45207 | Talk 08:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, in the real world, granted Owens the right & ability to take the photo in the first place, and the notice was up at the previous version of sugarmonkeyonline.com when the band was in existence, which (sadly) is no more. This is the only reason the photo was used by me at Wikipedia...and you can see I am a long-time, bona fide Wikipedian. The final version of the web site stated only that content was the property of sugarmonkey limited. If the only way to put the photo in the Commons is to re-edit the photo page with new info, just let me know and I'll do so. The point is that I have the authority personally to allow the photo free usage, as the proprietor and representative of said photo. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is probably to send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the image's talk page. —C45207 | Talk 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Sniper,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a wikiquette alert concerning your unilateral removal of a POV concern tag at Ashkenazi intelligence. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i forgot to include the link. I decided that ANI was not the right forum as I hope there will be no need to use any administrative tools once input from other users have been heard. Here is the link Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Ownership_issues_at_Ashkenazi_intelligence.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, THAT went nowhere! ;) A Sniper (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sugarmonkey.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --εω (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less. Delete it. Don't delete it. The band doesn't exist any more so the argument is more or less moot. A Sniper (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your release of File:Eric Greif at right, '85.jpg into the public domain is very generous. Thanks for doing that! —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 04:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the version of 12th September as this seemed to be the only stable version (it had sat for about a day unchanged, thus seemed to have achived some kind of consensus).Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Garlasco article was nominated for DKY on Sept. 10 and is under discussion.Historicist (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can built quick consensus around Golda Meir and/or Anne Frank if you want. More, Ashkenazim also made great contributions to American society and their history in Israel can't be ignored-so we have to include at least one American and/or Israeli-preferably by me both. If you agree we can make things faster.--Gilisa (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now we have to pass it on the talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the support. As I recall, you've helped fend off his POV pushes before. I recall (I hope correctly) that he was issued a topic ban, or at least article ban, for this exact same set of anti- 'Ethnic Jew/Secular Jew' attitude before. If so, can you help me find the links, I think we will need to renew that ban. I genuinely cannot tell why he's a POV pusher, but the antipathy towards Jews who aren't in accordance to his perspective of 'orthodoxy' is palpable. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note, and have replied there, it's the same old 'Only Orthodox Jews are the real Jews' attitude as our other POV pusher. It'll be another equally long hassle. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's repeatedly admitted a POV< but she can't understand it's a POV, because it's HER view, I think she's trapped in the WP:TRUTH. ThuranX (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments to the IP editor who is using many different addresses on that page and Talk page. I asked about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page#Editing_with_an_IP_address and was told it is ok, and that editors should not be harrassed to get an account. I seems problematic to me. Millmoss (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what policy you feel I am in breach of, but I find it puzzling because you say you are familiar with policy and have removed tags four times in a day and inserted potentially libelous material in to a biography of a living person. For self-disclosure purposes, I'm not part of a cabal,I'm actually trying to improve the article, and I'd like to work with others to do so.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You following the herd in diminishing the reliability of NGO Monitor with such statements, coupled with your reluctance to create a single user account, just acts to frustrate - cabal or no cabal. A Sniper (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the talk page and I see absolutely nothing BUT people stating it should be included, I see no "general consensus that it be not included." You might as well take my information as professional original research, I've been in the extreme metal scene for over 15 years now. I know almost everything there is to know about metal. I was there when brutal death metal first began to form, and it is most definitely a real genre. I don't have any magazines or publications to cite for it, but I am sure I can find some online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anathematized one (talk • contribs) 02:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not requirement to "go slow" in Wikipedia policy so far as I'm aware.
Please read the cited sources before reverting.
If previous editors choose to use ambiguous terminology that leaves the reader wondering what they mean, that's not my problem. Encyclopaedic articles tend to be explicit in defining what they are about.
If you have an interest in the article, then where were you while it remained unreferenced for at least a year since the last time I looked at it? No article while it remains unreferenced can be considered encyclopaedic by Wikipedia quality standards, as I'm sure you are aware.
As I said in the edit summary, if you disagree, use talk. If you dispute the source used, please find an alternative one, preferably accessible online. Thank you--Meieimatai? 05:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the reversion you made. As before, it has been done is sections so you are able, should you wish to do so, to engage in discussion of any content you find a problem with...on Talk first.

Your assertion that I present an orthodox-biased POV is something you will have to convince me of since, if this is the case, it was not intentional. However, that can be evaluated on the merits of your argument and proof.

Please note that calling in an administrator is a threat when delivered before any discussion has taken place. Please do not threaten me. It is counter-productive to say the least--Meieimatai? 00:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Joseph Smith Jr. Article revision that you undid Good morning, you just undid my revision to the Joseph Smith article and threatened to block me from Wikipedia. However, the only comment you left in your edit summary was: "(Undid revision 322684358 by Wmgcf (talk) rv vandalism)". In your edit summary you failed to respond to the content of my previous edit summaries explaining why I was making the change. You are the third person who has undid my revision without responding to the reason for my revision. I am very game for discsussion and debate, but if you are going to undo my revisions then please first respond to the content of my revision and edit summaries - perhaps even offering alternate edits. If you feel passionately about Joseph Smith's treasure hunting you could make a Joseph Smith peculiarities subpage.

For the record the Joseph Smith article had a very lengthy section about Joseph's early treasure hunting days, but no mention of the event that made him who he was: his first vision where he says God and Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him. Nobody hates or loves Joseph for being a treasure hunter, and his treasure hunting activities stopped as soon as he got responsibilities. Therefore, treasure hunting is out and the vision is in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmgcf (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying hi. Still listening to the Morbid Saint you sent me every once in a while. Thanks again for that. Hope all is well. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 09:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments on my page, that sounds exciting! As far as me I'm just fine. Quite busy with college and work. Always struggling financially. Life is pretty good, though, for a number of reasons. By the way, tahnk you for your support on Judaism's talk page. I'm not sure what they don't understand. I get their argument that Judaism is a religion AND ethnicity. But there IS an article for the Jewish ethnicity. The article I edited to say "religion" is the Judaism RELIGION article. Two different articles. Not to mention I'm just trying to put "religion" in the intro sentence. The article states that Judaism is a religion about 5 million times in other places, so I don't get the fuss. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism article. There seems to be some argument again. I posted a bunch of evidence on the talk page. Your thoughts and comments on the discussion would be much appreciated. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - you started quite an interesting few days of debate. It was a lot of fireworks, and for a day or two, I was the only editor sticking with the word religion. It really defies logic. Then again, you have a few Orthodox (from their talk pages) editors who have agenda-pushing POVs. Slrubinstein referred to you and me as a "tag team". Hardy har.  :) A Sniper (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seem like your edit is the last for now. In a case of further attempts to change the status quo I will be there to assist you. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance of the name changing for Who is a Jew? I've read through the circular arguments that seem to constitute what people on the talk page consider a "strong consensus" but the name is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, is it? It's rhetorical. Jim Steele (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's so wrong about it? You've removed the categories a few times now and I'm confident that they're real genres. Hell, if deathcore is a sub-genre of death metal, brutal/slam should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithon (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's an article for it on the French Wikipedia, and ask any fan, they're say it's a genre. There's no way that Devourment is the same type of death metal as Possessed is. It's a genre. Why would you say it isn't? --Vithon (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably read the comment concerning the edit that I made to the List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. page. I am not refuting the fact that women were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, but the source referenced did not support the claim. Hence why I only removed the citation. If you know of a proper citation that supports the fact that Joseph Smith had multiple wives sealed to him after his death, then your contribution would be appreciated.--Shemseger (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you did not leave a comment with your recent revision so I only noticed that you had "undone" the revision that I had made. Thank you for fixing the citation.--Shemseger (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you've written about Joseph and Emma being "legally wed" is certainly true. It just sounds odd. We'll see what the other folks say. All the best,John Foxe (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a question, you didn't respond. "And why is this more notable than an article about a couple of folks saying Africans are dumber? I'm asking a question to question the validity of this article. Why is this important? Why are positive physical attributes more notable than negative ones? Assuming all other factors are equal (citations are just as valid for an article on Africans being dumber), how is this more notable?" Slrubenstein also brought up some points, you didn't address them either. Are you going to contribute to this article, or are you just concerned with making sure no one deletes it? ScienceApe (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I presumed that's all you were concerned about. None of your comments addressed my questions, you're just deviating from my points. Why are positive physical attributes more notable than negative ones? Assuming all other factors are equal, how is this more notable? I'm sure you don't care about an article on African Stupidity. How about Ashkenazi stupidity? Or Ashkenazi nose size? Or Ashkenazi hair length? Or Ashkenazi penis size? Tell me why intelligence is more notable than other other physical characteristics, and why positive characteristics are more notable than negative ones. ScienceApe (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it's pretty obvious that you are just ignoring my points, and arguing a red herring. I'm not even talking about science, I'm asking you why are positive physical characteristics more notable than negative ones. Or even better, you can address Slrubenstein's questions about why do we care about intelligence more than other physical characteristics? You have done none of this. You aren't improving the article, you aren't improving wikipedia, you just want to preserve this one article. I feel that you just have this single purpose. I opened up this discussion with you because you are the single most vocal user currently on that article who is in favor for preserving the article as is, and not merging. I'm asking you these questions so you can find sources which address them, and add them to the article. You're not doing that, you're just repeating the same irrelevant rebuttal over and over again. I don't like how you aren't taking my questions seriously. I'm adding a merger tag to the article. If this article is important to you, participate in the merger discussion, and address the questions that I, and other users raise. ScienceApe (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any personal attacks what so ever. I asked you to address my questions, and you refused to do so. That's absurd, I'm asking a legitimate question, and you are throwing out the argument entirely. I didn't say you are a single purpose account, I said you just have this single purpose. You admitted it as well, you are only concerned with whether the article gets deleted or not.

Removing my merge tags is completely unacceptable. Don't remove the merge tags in the future, or I will have to contact an admin about it. We are having a discussion, contribute to it in a civil way, or abstain, but don't remove tags until the discussion has concluded. ScienceApe (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not cooperating with me at all on this. Work with me, not against me. ScienceApe (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ScienceApe (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of the claims of his death were accompanied by a source, and the vast majority were made by anonymous users, which is why I protected the page under the "vandalism" banner (nothing personal). If someone can direct me to a reliable source that confirms his death, I will unprotect the page. ... discospinster _talk 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. If true (which I hope it is not) it will be in the news soon, and then the appropriate changes can be made. Right now all I can find is an announcement on "Metal Underground" but I can't seem to access the page. ... discospinster _talk 06:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're in the news. So am I, indirectly. Cool? ... discospinster _talk 07:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A Sniper, I've noticed you doing a lot of hard work at the deletion discussions for articles on noteworthy death metal demos, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infernal Death and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infernal Live. I agree with your opinions on how such demos are influential and much discussed, which is obvious to guys like us who have been reading metal mags their whole lives. But I'm afraid you will probably lose the debate for these demos (and probably others) because of the attitudes of the other people in the debate.

You see, there are various types of people volunteering around here, from Inclusionists (like you and me) to Deletionists who have a much different long-term view of Wikipedia. Deletionists by their nature are usually the ones who nominate articles for deletion, and other Deletionists are most likely to participate in each debate with vigor. They tend to be quite inflexible and will insist forever that the evidence you come up with just isn't significant or reliable or verifiable enough to get them out of that pre-ordained mindset. The debaters you've tangled with have proven to be especially inflexible and humorless on these matters. I've seen this from experience.

I fear that your efforts to save these particular articles and others might be wasted. In the case of the Death demo albums I suggest that you add what you find about each demo's influence to the band's article as an item of historical interest. That way your work is more likely to survive on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, and pick the right battles! --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you snip over to:

User talk:Mwgf79#Sterling Price

I am seeking other opinions on this. THNKS. (Don't forget to momentarily hold your breath.) > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a clarification of your thoughts on Mwgf79's talk page. I said that it would be alright if he used his source material and you said "I concur" to my thoughts. Then you reverted his reversion. This is sending a mixed signal. If you disagreed with me you should have said so, that because of CoI he could not add anything. Please be clear. I don't think that he wants to take the time to read CoI, or many of the tutorials on Wikipedia. If he would have used third party sources, we probably wouldn't be here now. You could hold him to the line technically, but my main focus was that he not be self-serving. Anywho, please help clear this up. THNKS. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Mwgf79 left on my talk page:

Let me (mwgf79) ask, then - what's going on here? I did what was asked - I cited primary sources, and added that for a more complete discussion of the banking episode, see my book of XYZ title. Wikipedia has no ban on contributors citing their own work - contributors are advised to use caution, and I did. I noted that readers wishing more information on this subject should refer to my work on the subject. There's a lot more detail to Price, et al.'s involvement with the banks than a couple of newspaper articles. This is not original research - it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Southern History) and by a prestigious university press (Yale). For that matter, my dissertation on this topic won Columbia University's Nevins Prize in North American Economic History. If it's good enough for those folks, I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong re wikipedia. mwgf79

Please drop him a line. THNKS. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert this edit? I think it made sense. Especially since the information you restored is also unsourced. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the broken link at Messianic Judaism. However, you accused me of "agenda-pushing POV" when all I did was take away brackets from aound a non-functioning link. It was a without merit and unnecessary.--DeknMike (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob/James was mine, because that's what's in Stern's CJB; James is not a Jewish name of the time, and scholars think it was changed to honor King James, who commissioned the translation. The other edit was not mine.--DeknMike (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper, you are correct that I had undone the vandalism at Messianic Judaism twice in quick succession, and rather than continue their nonsense I wrote an explanation on the talk page (which they continued to attack). *** When I did peer-reviewed and graded college history papers, I followed references to original sources. I read detractors and proponents to give a reasoned and defensible judgment of truth. I use this training in my Wiki edits. I use history reports preserved by practitioners and trust them more than recent unreferenced editorials (i.e. their 'authoritative sources'). Apparently others on that board haven't had the same training. I suppose this is why Wikipedia may not be used for school research papers. --DeknMike (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC) (ps. thanks for listening)[reply]

I think you deleted another editor's comments with your last edit at Talk:Messianic Judaism. Was that intentional? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith never taught plural marriage to b an indispensable part of the New and Everlasting Covenant. That would necessarily imply that w man cannot be saved in the highest heaven unless he participates in plural marriage. That has never been a belief of the mormon faith. Wikipedia is a place for unbiased facts, not conjectures. You cannot state something as fact that is clearly controversial without at least prefacing it as such.

Why my version is better: there is not one person that could disagree with what I have written, Mormon or not. It is completely factual, and informative. Further, it is the official doctrine of the mormon faith unaltered since the time of Joseph Smith. Please refer to section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants for a clearer understanding what was taught by Joseph Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.2 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is one point I should have made clearer, that is why the statement yo reverted to is untrue. Polygamy was a very controlled practice at that time, the vast majority of the church not practicing it. Was it Smith's teaching that the majority of his following were to be damned? No, that is obviously an extrapolation. The majority of the church membership at that time were still acting to their salvation under the direction of smith being wed in a monogamous relationship under his supposed sealing power.

Lets keep wikipedia great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.2 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

having editing wars over this. any help and insights would be appreciated. things like "he was born and raised jewish but is not religious, so he shouldn't be listed as a jew, or 'jewish' for religion, or under jewish americans, etc." - are there any real rules to follow? Soosim (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GLI LP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 14:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. The editing summary only allowed so many characters. I consciously avoided an accusation of POV-pushing, as I don't want to ascribe motives to actions. I didn't notice how many notes and stuff there were in the chart, and it looked kind of busy.

Like I said, the explanatory texts seemed to be out of place and irrelevant. In addition, the potential that the content serve a POV motive and nothing else was high. Therefore, it was my position that the content be excluded to preserve the quality of the article.

Of course, a chart is used to quickly summarize information for the analytical benefit of the reader, and while it's important that it not over-simplify or mislead, it becomes more useless the more complex it becomes. The article goes into great detail about the J.D. in each of the countries, and the categories and data are clear enough not to be misleading. Therefore it seemed that the extra information was out of place in a chart.

And of course care should be taken against bias when deciding what information is relevant/useful, but basic analytical tools are typically safe means. The category of "education" includes activity that prepares one for an examination, and while taking an exam can be educational, it is a measure or result of the process, and not an element. While it's true that an exam is a requirement for a license in Canada and the U.S., it is separate from the educational one. Therefore the details seemed irrelevant.

Because it seemed that the information was misplaced and irrelevant, I could not understand what purpose the content served. It seemed to me that the content would be most useful to someone trying to persuade that the licensing requirements of Canada and the United States are similar. Therefore, it seemed that the most likely motive for including the strange content was to advocate a POV. And since that motive was likely, I included it as a reason for exclusion of the content.

Perhaps if your intent was to merely add something about the licensing requirements in Canada, that information could be included in the Canada section? Or a link to the Admission_to_practice_law article could be added to this JD article?

Thanks. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for teaching me something about Canadian admissions regs. Interesting. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - I am getting back into activity on WP and thought I would drop a line for old times sake. Hope things are going well! --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cynic this death/progressive metal band http://allmusic.com/artist/cynic-p350721 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.204.9.96 (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I go about making changes to my own (Kam Lee) wiki page... my changes of information was updated but changed back. So how do "I" go about getting the corrections for my page made? Either that or how do I go about having my page deleted from this site? I would rather NOT be represented on here, then to be represented with out dated, and false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 666kam (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheSoundOfPerseverance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting the EJD degree is "not widely accepted" is a naked assertion that lacks any supportive evidence. In other words, a simple personal opinion.

I would like to have a discussion on re-writing the entire section to more accurately reflect the degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasmonkeyfarm (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing what others have feared to do--delete the EJD page! Now if we could just delete all tier III and IV law schools from WP the world would be a better place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasmonkeyfarm (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is kind of a genre feud going on at that page. There is an anonymous person stating that it is a fact that they're progressive metal. While I didn't revert to favor one or the other line-up, unlike before, I placed an invisible message twice in the genre infobox area. Should #134 have his/her edits reverted? I'll give the person a post on his/her talk page concerning this. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 01:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking for an expert opinion on copyright law as it pertains to Wiki policy. Is this something we can address at the Law Portal? For starters, I'd like to clarify a legal question. Would you be interested in offering an opinion please on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Image use policy? Thank you. USchick (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help

• Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK casetemplate based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.

• Complete that template and add it to existing cases.

• Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.

• Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking

• Create new articles for UKSC cases

• Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.

• Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same old issues have flared up again at the Messianic Judaism page, and, frankly, I'm losing my patience. I'd rather not see DeknMike sanctioned, but I see no other alternatives. Could you try to reason with him? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly believe you are right, and that the one offhand comment is authoritative, but I keep finding sources that contradict it. Why can't we work together? --DeknMike (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to decline the proposed deletion of this article on procedural grounds. Given that there's a previous AfD on the article, the correct way to approach asking for this article to be deleted is another AfD. While I'm not familiar with the topic and haven't pursued the sources, your argument sounds at first glance as if it may very well have merit, and I would encourage you to follow through with the AfD. Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marc Garlasco.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Sniper

An issue has arisen on which you have previously commented. If possible, could you give your views here: Talk:Messianic Judaism#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm writing on behalf of a page that I saw in AfC. I'm not the creator of this page but it looks pretty promising, but I wanted to run it by someone far more experienced with legal matters than I am. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smyth v. Pillsbury Co. seems to be pretty well written but there's just something about it that stops me from accepting it into the mainspace and I'm not exactly sure why. It does seem to need a little editing for tone, but everything else seems to be well done. Can you take a look at it and see what needs doing? I'm going to direct the article creator (User:Jamestaylor167) to Wikiproject Law and to your page, but I just wanted to get an experienced set of eyes on this article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Thank you for your comment at Joseph Smith today. You made the statement: "I for one wish this constant tug of war between extreme editors would cease." Your comment made me pause and wonder if I am viewed as being one of those extreme editors. I try very hard to write from a neutral point of view, but I find it difficult to view my own actions from another's point of view. If you see me as being an extreme editor, I hope you would give me suggestions for improvement. I still consider myself a relatively new editor, and I had kind of a rocky start, but I am trying very hard to get better. Thanks, ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind response. I appreciate your viewpoint, and would ask that if you do see me pushing a POV other than that presented in the sources, that you let me know. Thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note. It was I who had cut down the paragraph on Emma's denials. I did it around the time when I wrote the new section on polygamy. I had cut it back because it seemed a little bit overkill (It says four times that she denied it in a single paragraph), and seemed to be citing lots of primary sources. You seem to know a lot about the subject, so would you mind if I asked you to prune it back a little yourself? For instance, I think it's sufficient to say that she frequently denied it, without listing all the specific instances of denial. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you were doing with your recent formatting edits at Joseph Smith, but from the looks of it, you were trying to prevent the picture of Emma from poking into the See also section. On my browser, it ended up creating a bunch of blank space below Emma, so I have effectively undone your edit, and added Template:clear below Emma, which should achieve the same end, but without the risk of having too much blank space. Is that what you were going for? Also, it would be lovely if you could find a way to crop Emma's denials down from 4 to 1 or 2, possibly moving some of them to the footnotes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Sniper,

I just wanted to say thank you for being a voice of reason and neutrality at a page which sorely needed it. I am sure you are familiar with my past involvement at Joseph Smith. I have to say my motivation in getting involved was based on a journalistic sense of fairness at the article. Yes, I am an admirer of Joseph Smith. Yes, I am also LDS. But, my only aim in correcting the article was to bring it into a fair journalistic balance. I expect to see the warts and all of the individual. However, where the article was at, I believe you will agree, was far from center. I am happy to bow out and leave the article to fair minded contributors such as you and Adjwilley. Again, my silence should in no way communicate a retreat from my position as much as it is an acknowledgement of respect that the article is in good hands and so I can step back and let unbiased contributors have at the mess left behind by some overly zealous anti-Mormon polemics.

I still take issue with the prominence afforded Brodie given that her other research work (Nixon, Jefferson) was viewed very negatively by her historian peers. At what point does the research community acknowledge the sacred cow Emperor is immodestly appareled. With the likes of more current researchers such as Shipps and Bushman who are far more balanced (intellectually and emotionally) I do not see why Brodie is still relevant. But then I acknowledge I am not the most studied on the topic of anti-Mormon research and so I will leave this one to you and Adjwilley to consider regarding its neutral and fair research merits.

Best,

--Canadiandy talk 06:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't re-add declined speedy deletion tags, as you did at Exivious. I've removed it once again. Keep in mind that speedy deletion is defined by very strict criteria, and that notability is not one of them. A7 deals with importance, not notability, so a subject can be both important yet not notable. If you still feel that the subject is not notable, you can WP:PROD it or send it to WP:AFD.--Slon02 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have just reverted your wholesale roll-back of my edits on the NGO Monitor page. I am happy to discuss and be persuaded about anything you feel might be contentious but your roll-back removed a number of changes that had been agreed with other editors, the replacement of dead links with live ones, various grammatical corrections, and some solidly sourced additions. If you have problems with particular edits, please bring them up but I am not under the impression that I am not allowed to edit at all unless I first discuss non-contentious issues. The one example you draw particular attention to, my insertion of 'West' before Jerusalem, was an attempt to mediate between two other editors who were disagreeing about whether 'Jerusalem' should be described as in Israel. I simply added a geographic qualifier that is completely correct for the address at issue and removes the need for any political conflict. If describing a location as being in West Jerusalem is considered loaded in some way I'm not aware of, please let me know, but it seems uncontentious in comparison to either describing the whole city as being in Israel, a point that is not at all necessary for the article at hand, or to not mentioning that the NGO is in Israel simply to avoid the possibly contentious formula. I would be happy to hear your view on this though. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since we've reached a standstill on the 'financially independent' sentence I have posted the dispute to the DRN. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "NGO Monitor". Thank you. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there A Sniper,

Just curious as to your read on inviting Tedder to look in on Joseph Smith Jr. I know he is a senior contributor, but from my experience he is not very neutral at all. I found him to be quite intolerant of Mormon opposition to John Foxe, to the point of seeming to take his side.

I'll assume good faith, but after my run in I'll simply suggest there may be better picks.

--Canadiandy talk 05:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Sniper. The last thing I want is a pro-LDS editor involved. All I ever wanted was a tolerant NPOV (based on the fact the page is about a figure of religious significance to an active religious group, the same thing I would expect for any other religious figure). I am even more fearful, however of a senior editor with an anti-Mormon bias. I don't know Tedder hates Mormons so much as he is way too quick to dismisses them as POV (even when they try to argue from a NPOV position) but then coddles John Foxe who is not only biased, but I would argue is manipulating the article. Adjwilley is NPOV. As I have said, I don't agree with half of what he says, but at least I agree with the other half. I fear Tedder is a Foxe fan and may end up undermining everything Adjwilley has done. I have asked Tedder respectfully to step away, but his sarcastic response tells me I am not likely to get my wish. Would that we had 100 Adjwilleys. Sigh. --Canadiandy talk 01:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Sniper,
I read your edit summary at Quiet Riot stating: I need someone else to fill in that 1979-80 gap with the players listed in the first paragraph. You just forgot a " : " in your initial edit, so I filled it in and reverted your removal of Bob Stephan in this edit (why did you do that?). Since you didn't provide a source for Greg Leon, I can't garanty the addition won't be reverted. Take care, — Quibus (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to express my regret that you were inconvenienced by the delivery. You received it because you are a member of a Christianity wikiproject. But not to worry--I'm going to personally unsubscribe you so that this doesn't happen again. Thanks for your understanding. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2012_photo_of_Paul_Masvidal_&_Sean_Reinert_of_CYNIC.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done by the appropriate party. Many thanks. A Sniper (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll remove the tag while we wait for the permissions. Cheers. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2012 photo of Paul Masvidal & Sean Reinert of CYNIC.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eric Greif, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Massacre (band) (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, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.

There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".

Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A Sniper,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has put the Community of Christ infobox up for deletion because he feels that we shouldn't be using an infobox on more then one page, (see here). This template is used the same way that {{Infobox LDS Church}} and his reason for deletion could very easily be applied to that page. I think that perhaps some more editor of Later Day Saint pages need to chime in, of we are going to find that this will happens to a number of LDS Related infobox templates.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Judaism/Information, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Judaism/Information and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Judaism/Information during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- -- -- 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you are active on WikiProject Law and are specifically interested in criminal law. I am hoping you can help with a request I have at the article for Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008. My request asks for two proposed edits that would include a short summary of a similar Marsy's Law in Illinois. I have a financial conflict of interest (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) and know it's best for me not to edit the article. Instead, I posted an edit request on the Talk page. Could you take a look? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've done some work in the article about the band Death (proptopunk band). So, you may be interested in a similar group called the Punks from Detroit--right around the time of Death. I just finished a new article on them. I have a feeling that, like Death, they are about to be discovered by a wider audience. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Offshore book.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marc Garlasco.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you sue Chuck Schuldiner? I love reading old talk pages especially with some drama. I was reading the talk page for him and came across an old discussion you had. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]