- 1 Equality is not impossible, and didn't cause torture
- 2 Why did you revert my last edit
- 3 Why the removal?
- 4 About quick revert
- 5 Note
- 6 Hi
- 7 Greensboro Massacre
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for November 8
- 9 Preston Brooks
- 10 Preston Brooks, again
- 11 James Hanratty
- 12 Watch list
- 13 Saraiki language
- 14 GURPS
- 15 Discussion
- 16 Notability issue
- 17 Turkmen People
- 18 Reverts
- 19 Why do you keep on deleting "elite" and "prestigious" on Phillips Exeter Academy's Wikipedia page Edward321?
- 20 The 33 Strategies of War
- 21 In regards to Checkuser
- 22 Kirk Sommer
- 23 Disambiguation link notification for February 11
- 24 Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
- 25 Someone else nominated this, but didn't alert you.
Equality is not impossible, and didn't cause torture
Improper reversion of my edit to remove the absurd, uncited allegations that the search for equality has led to widespread murder and torture under dictatorships. At least have these cited if they are to remain, otherwise let a more neutral comment take its place. Thanks. VelvetCommuter (talk) VelvetCommuter
Why did you revert my last edit
Why did you revert my last edit, I added a reliable and credible source supporting Arbaeen 2013. I would like an explanation; my addition totally abided by Wikipedia's policies and that articles standards. Please in the future try not to tweak every little thing you can. As they say "If it ain't broken... then don't fix it!" Thanks Hooperag (talk)Hooperag
Why the removal?
You recently removed a change of mine saying it was linkspam... I'm not sure I understand. It was on the Bible consistency and criticism pages and linked to BibViz which is on-topic, relevant, uses multiple sources of data and provides a novel way of exploring consistency and other issues. In my opinion it's just as useful as the infidels.org link, and even uses data from infidels.org. I don't understand why new links are considered linkspam but the infidels.org one is allowed to stay... 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
About quick revert
Hello Edward321, I appreciate your contributions. However, I noticed that you generally quickly revert edits/additions by anonymous users in articles like Aisha, Abu Bakr. Yes, most of such edits are wrong and need to be reverted, but not all, for example, this one. This edit is sourced and valid. It needs to be copy-edited, not reverted. The reverting policy also says this. Hope, you will be more careful. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 15:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Edward321! As you can see, I reverted category spams, overcategorizations etc which Erim Turukku did today. In most cases, he reverted your version of an article and put his instead. I think you should keep an eye on his edits, and if he continue this way consider to report him at ANI. He will be blocked anyway if he continue with edit warring and attempts to push in his versions of articles. Cheers! --Sundostund 20:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- As you can see, Edward, today he continue doing exactly the same things as before - category spams, overcategorizations, Turkic/Turkish POV, edit warring, etc... Do what you think is the most appropriate in this case. As you may assume, I have other things to do here than to constantly follow around a category spammer, Turkic/Turkish POV nationalist or whatever he is and to revert his nonsense edits. --Sundostund 15:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Edward! I'll do that. By the way, according to what Kansas Bear said on Erim Turukku's talk page, it may be possible that Turukku and User:EMr KnG are the same person. If that's the case, would it be a WP:SOCK? As you know, in most cases its illegal to have two accounts on WP. And, edits of both Turukku () and EMr KnG () look really similar... --Sundostund 00:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Edward 321. Sorry to revert your recent edit at the above referenced article, but I believe that it was wrong for two reasons. First, if you review the definition of Commission, you will see that it is a group with some degree of official authority. The Greensboro "commission" was just a private group trying to cloak themselves in this official robe. I left the word "commission" in the section, because that was the name they gave themselves, but did not Capitalize it, as if it was an official authority. The Starbucks reference is not as obvious, and I can see why you would want to trim it. But it goes to heart of the "private group/private protest" nature of the "commission". It demonstrates a pattern of activity on the part of the organizers that is neither local nor spontaneous. Again, I hate to revert a seasoned editor with good intentions, I probably should have left this message first. Hope to cross paths under better circumstances, in the future. Gulbenk (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Preston Brooks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Crittenden (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.
Please stop including BIASED information against Preston Brooks on his wikipedia page. I have included both sides/points of view in the Brooks-Sumner Affair aka The Caning of Sumner.
If you wish to add to that (although I assume you'd be bias there too) edit that page.
I have correctly cited all sources! Preston Brooks never once in congress voted to expand slavery, yet you say he is a huge advocate of slavery. While it is true that he defended states' rights to own slaves he also supported the rights of states to outlaw slavery- this always shined through. Even after some internal struggles, Brooks called for Kansas to be admitted as a free state. One can only assume he would of voted as such if he had not died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CECD:AF90:93:64EC:DB89:6019 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Preston Brooks, again
This is the same person that messaged you before. Now I have a username. I have the same problem with you as before. I am getting frustrated because I am added the information in the 2 books I read that were listed as REFERENCES in the page.
Would a fair compromise between us be me adding an addition Southern Views section? I am a non-confrontational person and I do not wish to get in a silly online battle that would embarrass us both.
Hello. You reversed my recent edit to this article as being unexplained, and I accept that you made a fair point. I have now provided the explanation on the article's Talk page. To expand a little here, I had myself originally drafted the text saying that no other male DNA had been found (aside from Hanratty's), and that this undermined the argument for "contamination". I made the recent changes for two reasons:
(1) On recently reading the decision of the Court of Appeal in full, I found that I had made a factual error in stating that no other male DNA had been found. This was true for the handkerchief but not true for the panties, where one other male source was found (attributed by the Court to Gregsten). I have corrected the factual statement accordingly.
(2) I had recently been challenged to provide a citation for my statement that a second male source would be expected if the contamination argument was to hold up. While this seems fairly obvious to me, I could not find a statement in so many terms in the Court's decision, or other sources immediately available to me. So for the moment I have dropped the inference that I made before. I still think the statement is common sense. If you can find a source making this statment, please re-insert the statement into the article and provide a citation for it.
Please could you add List of casualties in Hussain's army at the Battle of Karbala to your watch list. There is an editor who keeps deleting mention that Hussain ibn Ali's father was 4th Caliph. The editor gives different explanations for the deletion. You may wish to express an opinion on the subject on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It is confirm that Saraiki is a language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. This article is redundant with the Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect, Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Kindly See these External Links
Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989 and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level. Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad, and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five T V channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language.16:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)126.96.36.199 (talk)
Edward 321: I noticed you deleted 3 citations from Cristina Patwa, yet you placed a Notability tag asking for more references. Why is there an issue of notability given all of the citations, particularly the ones from LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-factorymade-20130910,0,1723531,full.story#axzz2n7egzYJa) and Variety (http://variety.com/gallery/showbiz-strategists-variety-dealmakers-impact-report/#!3/executives-john-fogelman-and-cristina-patwa/) and Cable Fax (http://www.cablefax.com/cfp/just_in/A-Whos-Who-Channel-Guide-of-New-Cable-Networks_60858.html). These are now several, independent, reliable sources. Why would you delete sources? And why do you still have issues with notability? Seems personal.
- Edward, your response does not make sense. You simply keep deleting citations that help to establish notability which are precisely about Patwa. Why would you delete those sources when they are secondary sources like the LA Times, Variety and CableFax? And why do those sources not establish credibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk)
i just added the right figure because here https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html it states that turkmens are about 3% of total afghanistan population and total afghanistan population in 2013 was 31,108,077. The calculation works out to be roughly what i added. You can use this reference to modify the article in the best manner. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do you keep on deleting "elite" and "prestigious" on Phillips Exeter Academy's Wikipedia page Edward321?
I understand why you took the words down last time. I didn't have ample sources to reference the words elite and prestigious. But this time, I had plenty of sources. It's as if you sit there and wait to take the words down. Why? I simply don't understand. Please tell me why you took the words down, because I put sources. I don't know if you didn't see them, and just deleted it anyway, thinking I didn't cite my sources. I did cite my sources. Please stop undoing it, or at least tell me why you keep undoing it.
Ok, I see that you think it's the "better version," but why? If Andover can say they're prestigious than Exeter certainly can as well. It's not like we're being arrogant here, it is true! Both schools are incredibly good schools, and other people should be able to know that.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LLotteDaae17 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The 33 Strategies of War
Please note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#The 33 Strategies of War.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
In regards to Checkuser
Hello, I would like to point out to you that I am just as annoyed about the current edit warring and sock-puppetry as you may be. I have been dealing with this annoyance for over 10 years. Please see my history of edits and contributions at your own interest. I would never endorse meaningless sockpuppetry myself as I am highly against this idiotic behavior and I myself have been a target of such caliber of foolishness over the past decade. I believe the person you are dealing with is the very same that has been harassing me within this long period of time. Additionally, the user does have a tendency to attempt to infringe my name and pretend to be me. I assure you, this user has been doing this for a very long time and that is not an exaggeration. He has created over 300 accounts on not only the wikipedia primary but on all the wiki sister projects. Any help would be greatly appreciated on your part on maintaining a constant checkuser of suspicious activity. I myself would greatly prefer to halt the threat at a sooner time. In regards to the recent reverting of the article you mentioned, I did revert twice myself, and I acknowledge that, but that doesn't make me related to anyone else. I still believe that if an article exists without unsourced material, then there shouldn't be an exclusion of additional unsourced material. I even brought that up on the article talk page for discussion. I highly recommend that some names be expelled from the list or the article itself merits no inclusion when it is, suffice to say, a half-truth. You will find that I would like to aid the wiki and its related projects but would not go through the hassle of sourcing every tidbit. Regardless, I find that one checkuser will not be enough as you will need to forward all the most recent harassment activity to my talk page by this same sockpuppet in order to halt future activity from this user. I highly recommend that my talk page be protected from new users as this might help alleviate further vandalism. Thanks in advance. - Zarbon (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Monsters, Inc. characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashleigh Ball (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.
Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)