User talk:Aprock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Aprock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling[edit]

Hi. Re Thomas Mayer. It was a mistake anyone could make, but it does demonstrate that the list of patrolling tasks at WP:NPP is important ;)

You might want to read[edit]

WP:MEAT. Note how meat puppets are defined by policy. Sometimes I think no one ever reads it as I've seen so many people misinterpreting it. Just thought you might be interested. Oh, and the IP at talk:R&I? See User talk:BlackHades. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the above, the IP was blocked as a sock (yet another one involved in R&I) & posts redacted. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

IP range 101.0.71.0/24[edit]

This range, used by the IP hopper active on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel and arguing about meatpuppetry at WP:ANI,[1] was blocked two days ago by Future Perfect at Sunrise for three months.[2] Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

JJ[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a hostile editing environment. The thread is "User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment.". Thank you. --Elvey (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013[edit]

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions[edit]

  • Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
    • Nearest BART: 19th Street
    • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
    • Street parking abounds
EdwardsBot (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're invited...[edit]

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

  • Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
  • Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Race and genetics". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart[edit]

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving comments on WP:DRN[edit]

Hi! Generally, dispute resolution volunteers are given a lot of leeway when it comes to things like moving the current discussion to the bottom, collapsing or even (in severe cases and after several warnings) deleting comments or asking someone to leave if they violate our guidelines. (The usual procedure involves getting at least two other volunteers to agree -- we don't want to give anyone undue power)

On the the hand, we try to discourage participants from doing that, because emotions are often running high and other participants can be quite touchy. There is no rule against it, and nobody will get into trouble over something like this, but things run a lot smoother if you drop me or another volunteer a line on our user page if anyone -- volunteer or participant -- moves something that you think should not be moved.

BTW, I really like the way you are approaching this. Sometimes it is a struggle to get participants to present calm, rational arguments, but everybody involved -- and you in particular -- are making some insightful arguments. Keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to move, delete or collapse any of my comments. When you do make changes to the comments of others, please consider making that he only change made in the edit, and include an appropriate edit summary. On a different note, I also added a template to the talk page of the article. I don't think I got the right one. If you have time, could you check it out to verify that I haven't made a mess of thing? Thank you. aprock (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

List criteria[edit]

Can you clarify what "list criteria" you are talking about in your edit summary? Victor Victoria (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the opening paragraph of the article. aprock (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to the words "scholarly sources"? because that really needs to go, as the vast majority of references are news sources, which are not "scholarly". I think that the words "scholarly sources" can be dropped and not replaced with anything else, since the policies WP:V and WP:NOR apply. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, wikipedia is not a collection if indiscriminate data. Even without the scholarly sources, WP:UNDUE applies. Just because something has -gate in it, that is not enough to justify inclusion. You need a secondary source. The list criteria requires a scholarly source. aprock (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I follow your argument vis a vis secondary sources. Of course you need secondary sources in order to establish notability. The shows that you removed from the list are notable and have their own Wikipedia articles. Therefore, if a notable show uses a "gate" suffix to label a scandal, then it's notable and should be included on the list. I don't think it should be necessary to have a secondary source to mention that they used this "gate" suffix. This additional requirement causes WP:Recentism as it's difficult to find on line references that would talk about shows from 20 to 30 years ago. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I never mentioned notability, I mentioned WP:UNDUE. Without any secondary source mention of their use of a "-gate" scandal, then there is nothing to establish the item as being worthy of inclusion. You don't need to find an online source. aprock (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If notability is not an issue, then you are really losing me, as you know secondary sources (such as TV Guide) would have talked about the show at the time it was broadcast, as it was a notable show. I just can't name the issue of TV Guide that would have discussed it. I also don't see how WP:UNDUE is relevant, since WP:UNDUE is about how much coverage to give to minor thing things. It does not say to completely ignore them. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:UNDUE is exactly about ignoring things that aren't encyclopedic: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. See also WP:TRIVIA. aprock (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the key is appropriate weight, not no weight. Just because we cannot find a review of a show that broadcast more than 20 years ago does not mean that it's not encyclopedic, as you agreed that notability is not an issue. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
In this case no weight is the appropriate weight. Find some secondary source if you think someone besides yourself finds this fact interesting. aprock (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics[edit]

Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What is a government?[edit]

If a government is more of a system then an organization, how can a government default? Only natural and legal persons can do that; “systems” cannot. EIN (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'm fairly certain it belongs on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You'd rather do it there? I wouldn't mind, but it's preferable to have this discussion here if we are to comply to WP:NOTAFORUM.

A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.

A government is an organization exerting centralized control over a community (i.e., over a state).

Article development aside, the former definition is too ambiguous, and it's even cyclic (government→govern). The main merit of the latter definition—well yes, my definition—is that among the many definitions of government it makes the rare accomplishment of identifying the essence of the subject's definition: that the control exerted by the government is, indeed, centralized. Do you agree? EIN (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Find a source. aprock (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC POV tainting[edit]

Please do not try to taint RfC with POV wording. I don't know how you could think writing "clearly agrees with Lewontin" and cherry picking a line could possibly be considered neutral wording. What if I put into the RfC:

Dawkins clearly disagreed with Lewontin.

"In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."--Dawkins

Would you actually consider this neutral wording? Your efforts didn't seem to change anything either as everyone still supported B even after your edit. BlackHades (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackHades (talkcontribs)

From this 3RR complaint it looks like you are trying to repeatedly change the text of the RfC. It is expected that the wording of any RfC will have consensus. In extreme cases there has even been an RfC to agree on how to word the RfC. If you disagree with how the person who opened the RfC chose to word it, you should try to gain consensus on the article talk page to get it changed. There is a risk that an admin will choose to block you for edit warring if you don't respond in the AN3 report and agree to accept consensus. I see you've continued to revert to a wording that only you prefer on 24 June. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Moving my comments from one location not in the RfC, to another location not in the RfC is not a revert. Your comments about consensus are curious since the RfC was unilaterally written by a single editor, and he has made no changes related to the concerns voiced on the talk page. aprock (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Your comment was sitting in the Discussion section as a user comment. Then you moved it up above as though it was a refinement of the RfC question. That doesn't seem proper, unless others agree. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you're splitting hairs here. If moving things around requires others to agree, then there are a lot more edits that you should consider reviewing: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Most of these involve editing other people's comments. aprock (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hi, Aprock. Your name has come up in a discussion with Pluvia on my page, which I hardly suppose you watch. I'm sorry to see you haven't garnered any comments on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard so far; I've pointed Pluvia to it now. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

Notification of arbitration enforcement concerning you. BlackHades (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Race and genetics[edit]

Hi. Just a quick note to let you know that I closed the report on the 3RR noticeboard with no action taken. I did this because the edit warring seems to have stopped and you both seem to have made some effort to discuss. I hope you can reach agreement on consensus. But please don't start edit warring again, as it may result in a block (regardless of how few reverts actually take place). Thanks TigerShark (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Edit war on List of most-listened-to radio programs[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on List of most-listened-to radio programs.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on List of most-listened-to radio programs or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Holdek-5. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at List of most-listened-to radio programs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aprock (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

The blocking admin's reason for blocking is as follows: "continued addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material on List of most-listened-to radio programs". This was never done. The content restored is sourced in the section. The content was restore after bringing the issue to the talk page, where the blocking admin participated. aprock (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It was strongly suggested that you use <ref> tags for your sources; I did not see any here. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I did not use <ref> tags, because they are already in the article. I can't add sources which are already there. aprock (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aprock (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Identical to the previous reason. The content added was already sourced in the article, contrary to the blocking admin. From the comment the reviewing admin, it appears that the section content and the relevant source were not examined. aprock (talk) 2:48 am, Today (UTC+0)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Below, the blocking editor acknowledges that the content is supported by sources in the section. So this amounts to handing out a block because non-controversial content in a table didn't have a <ref> tag attached to it. This problem seems like a fairly trivial issue to resolve on the talk page. I'll note that I opened discussion regarding the content on the talk page, and this issue was never raised. I would be more than happy to work with any concerned editor to resolve this (or any other issue) on the article talk page. aprock (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As far as I can see; you've shown where the material is sourced from, and although it could be better referenced, restoring it in this case is not a blockable offence. Toddst1 should have worked to show you what he might consider better ways of referencing the list (although, to be honest, the current way is just as valid) rather than blocking you. Errant (chat!) 10:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about sourcing content. Just because a source is used to support a fact in one part of an article, doesn't mean it supports other facts in other parts of the article without additional notations. That's why you use <ref name=thisone> and <ref name=thisone/> tags. Additional facts need additional support. Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "other parts of the article" here. The source is in the main sentence of the section. Other supporting sentences are in the second sentence. The ref tags are all there. aprock (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Perhaps, but an admin is still not an authority who must be obeyed, and a reason from the WP:Blocking policy is needed to block anyone, and particularly when blocking a productive editor in good standing. The ANI discussion about the editor who was removing material from List of most-listened-to radio programs resulted in that editor being indeffed. The issue is of minuscule importance and concerns a handful of reverts (example). Aprock restored the removed material a total of three times (on Jan 9, Jan 10, and Feb 1). Toddst1 made a single comment on the article talk page (diff) saying "As the admin who stopped the edit war, I recommend you consider making the the source for the contended material more explicit using <ref> tags. I suspect that's why this whole edit war got started and I'd hate to see anybody get blocked here." It is not acceptable for such a comment to be regarded as "obey or I will block you"—that is not how Wikipedia operates. There is no emergency that requires Aprock to follow an instruction from Toddst1, and it is entirely unclear how the article could reasonably comply with Toddst1's instruction—the article talk page should be used to discuss that point, but a quick look suggests that all the refs are in the paragraph immediately before the table where most of the material was removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

adendum: [7], [8] epliogue: [9], [10]

ANI[edit]

Please see WP:ANI#Review of block and admin authority. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley[edit]

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!
We Can Edit.jpg
The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!

The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library.

You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LordFixit (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux categories[edit]

The subject of the RfC was about the lead, not the categories. Please revert, as even though it was not deemed correct for the lede, it is still a correct to say that his writing, speeches, and show are about philosophy. --Netoholic @ 05:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

An SPI you may be interested in[edit]

I reported DavidJac and our numerous IP friends here. Let us see what comes of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Treats![edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Treats!. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)