User talk:AnonMoos/Archive3

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

---

Edit summaries

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to take your points separately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tip of the day box

Tip of the day... Please summarize your work using the Edit summary box If you make anything other than a minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary. Edit summaries are visible in the page history, watchlists, and on Recent changes, so they help other users keep track of what is happening to a page. If you use section editing, the summary box is filled in with the section heading by default (in gray text), which you can follow with more detail. You also can put links to articles in the edit summary. Just put double brackets around [[the article title]] like you would normally. The summary is limited to 255 characters, so many people use common abbreviations, such as sp for correcting spelling mistakes, rm for remove, ce for copy-edit, etc. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: Edit summary

Trafford09 (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've already been over the deal about edit summaries, so I won't drop the standard template on you. I'll just let you know that (content removal + no edit summary) = speedy revert for me. Have a nice day. Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I now see that you moved content and did not remove any. Sorry and I am reverting myself. Elizium23 (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

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

Developing an article isn't bureaucracy

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

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

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

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

I, P & UN

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

Template:Christianity

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

Talkback

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

• I wondered if you had any response to my response? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

• That's how Twinkle does it. Take it up there. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 16:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament

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

Nomination of Hos-Hostigos for deletion

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

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

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

Floyd

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

Mary

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

Etymology

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

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

Prohibitionists and scorching byclists

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

Copyedit

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

Check out my editing of History!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Yahweh

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

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

Tetragrammaton

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

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

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

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

Greek Merchant Navy flag.svg

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

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

Buellton, California

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

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

Polemical terminology on article Kerli

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

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

Gynocracy DRV

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

Proposed deletion of Lee Hong-koo

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

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

Steve Moraff

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

Flags of Korea

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

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

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

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

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

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

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

Notification of existence of Arbitration remedies on Palestine-Israel articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Richard Falk

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

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

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

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

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

Plato rocks!

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

Triple Goddess

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

/sandbox

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

Just a simple mistake

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

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

Sorry

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

Edit conflict

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

free speech flag

AnonMoos

thanks for writing me.

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

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

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

You can confirm the old commons version by doing this:

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

Dear AnonMoos,

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:SVG Help

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

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

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

INRI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Passive Periphrastic

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

Kathleen Kenyon

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

Erte/Romain de Tirtoff

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

Please stop moving posts.

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

WP:INDENT

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

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

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

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

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

Denial

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

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

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

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

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

LGBTQ symbols

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

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

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

Misunderstanding

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

Best,

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

William Carlos

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

General barnstar

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

Unsigned message

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

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

Copyediting

Hey AnonMoos,

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

Warning you

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

Please request a CheckUser

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN Honor Flag

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

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

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

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

Talk:Abigail and Brittany Hensel

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

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

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

Bikini

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

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

Canadiandy at Trinity

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

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Missing map.png

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Middle East Media Research Institute". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 8, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Middle East Media Research Institute, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit summaries

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

Edit regarding to EOF

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

Apology

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

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

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dimidiation, yes a real howler!

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

re Antisexualism

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

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

Radicalized comedian victim of declining career

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Truffo (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith

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