User talk:Gaijin42

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as User talk:Gaijin42/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	you are doing awesome work here, it looked easy when I started 4 weeks back, but this is real hard work, I get too involved and take a long time on each article, is this normal, I am beginning to appreciate a lot what the other editors are doing and how this whole site is maintained. great work. keep it up. Nlfestival (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools. 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) 00:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And the like

I'm okay with removing it. The reason I put it in was to replace "similar devices".[1]. I hope that answers your question ("wtf"?).  :-). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Sellers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Sellers. 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) 00:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metal Gear (weapon)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metal Gear (weapon). 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) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Craig Breslow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Craig Breslow. 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) 00:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xbox Fitness, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jillian Michaels and Tony Horton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vaporware

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vaporware. 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, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. 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, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cough medicine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cough medicine. 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, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Edinburgh

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Edinburgh. 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) 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foro de São Paulo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foro de São Paulo. 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, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Shogunate

So, you remove the citations when you pare down the section and then tag it with citation needed/OR? Really? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If the citations are backing the part that remains, the citations should have been in that content, not the part about the general history of guns in japan, but to the degree that the prior citations covered the remaining content, I apologize. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No problems. This page is more than a little difficult. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way the ref (re-added now) is a book you may find interesting. Giving up the Gun, Japan's reversion to the Sword, 1543–1879. by Perrin, Noel Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it does seem somewhat up my alley. I was a Japanese major in school and spent a decent amount of time there, and obviously I have an interest in guns and gun control as well. Crimes in Japan are very interesting. by any measure they have very low crime, but not as low I think as is reported. Many crimes get reclassified as non-crimes in order to keep their impossibly high (98%+?) closure rate. The homogenity of the society, and the social traditions (particularly those that let them construct virtual/mental privacy and ignore any cognitive dissonance) are not things that can easily be replicated in other societiesGaijin42 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right about that. One only needs to look at the UK to see the flip side. An island kingdom with a powerful central state but less cultural homogeneity tries to eliminate firearms and ends up with vastly more firearm violence. Violence that overturns centuries' long trends. Interesting. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

GC

Is it just me or has this editor (goethean) performed at least 3 reverts on Gun control in the last 24 hours? Not to mention the personal attacks he made today at User talk:Justanonymous. ROG5728 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I reported him for DE in general for deleting the content under discussion, but If you feel he is at 3rr as well, you may certainly suggest that in the ANI. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign supporters, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign supporters, 2012. 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, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Gun control as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Given_that_Gaijin42_has_just_accused_a_contributor_of_Holocaust_denial.2C_I_formally_call_for_him_to_be_blocked_indefinitely.. 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.  Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

John First, wow, when did you become a user to be able to get such a simple username like that, grats!. Second - the other block was for reverting vandalism - Praetoreanfury was repeatedly applying the sps tag to a peer reviewed journal article, which has been published in multiple books. However, I should have payed more attention to 3rr in reverting his vandalism. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's plain English that it was NOT saying that somebody was denying the holocost. It was saying that they denied that gun control happened as a part of it: "and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust." Folks need to read what they actually said instead of ginned up mis-characterizaitons of what they said. They should be unblocked immediately and an apology given for the error. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves The topic under discussion on the article is in fact the holocaust, so bringing up the holocaust was not some attempt at godwining the conversation, it was directly on point to the content dispute that is ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So, as I suggested, make a valid, WP:GAB-compliant unblock request that clarifies things. Easy-peasy. ES&L 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gaijin42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• (GAB #1) There appears to be a number of admins and other editors who feel that the block is unjustified, and as the topic at hand is in fact "the holocaust and what did or did not happen during it" bringing up comments directly linked to what editors are saying did or did not happen seems entirely appropriate, which would make this an invalid block. and was not intended as a personal attack. * (GAB #2) However, to the degree that my comment can be misconstrued, and may be interpreted as WP:UNCIVIL I apologize, and will focus on keeping things more civil going forward Gaijin42 (talk) 8:02 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

Lifted by blocking admin; closing request. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Errrr, part 1 is unhelpful - see WP:NOTTHEM. Part 2 has to be more of taking person responsibility for the possible misinterpretations ES&L 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I fail to see how WP:NOTTHEM applies. I am not accusing anyone else of bad behavior to excuse my action - I am just stating that my comment was in fact on point to the content dispute at hand, and therefore should not be considered a personal attack. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In an article about such a clearly and highly inflammatory subject, how or why the term "holocaust" is even used is beyond me. The discussion is about gun control during the Nazi regime of 1930s and 40s Germany, plain and simple. Yes, the holocaust is a horrific and significant part of that era, but its "one part". Everyone involved needs to take a deep breath and stop injecting such vitriol into what should and CAN be a civil discussion. IMO, Gaijin's only transgression was not censoring himself enough so that others could not twist his comments so that this type of action was taken. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused as to your comment about why the holocaust was brought up. Surely Kristallnacht is generally considered part of the holocaust? The most documented/commented on parts of the nazi gun confiscation are directly in the sub-context of kristallnacht. the content dispute in the article is about did the nazi's use gun control against the jews (and to what degree did that contribute to the holocaust). Bringing up the holocaust is entirely appropriate in this context is it not? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a problem: the language of "twist", which supposes that in this case the blocking admin, for instance, deliberately made something mean something it didn't mean. That's assuming bad faith, and in such discussions it's always unhelpful, and can't be proven anyway (same with some comments on ANI about "silencing the opposition"). Really, such comments are personal attacks, and you (Scalthotrod) are not helping Gaijin's cause. Gaijin, Part 1 is indeed somewhat unhelpful, though I have a different read on it then does User:EatsShootsAndLeaves; what I think is problematic is the word "invalid". As difficult as it may be for you to see, since you obviously thought differently over the interpretation of your comment, you simply have to accept that it was interpreted very differently by a number of editors including two administrators. That's unfortunate, perhaps, and possibly erroneous, but given their interpretation ("you accused someone of holocaust denial") their reasons for the block were valid.

  A better request leaves that out and acknowledges that their interpretation was not what you intended, and that you will make damn sure that such misreadings will not occur again. Now, I also saw the older comment, the one you made here, and I find it acceptable that someone looks at the recent comment in that light and finds something of a pattern. It is important that you not continue such a pattern and that you will say so. I'm on your side in the unblock request process, but that doesn't mean I'm going to criticize the ones who block you and who support the block, and I'm not going to demonize anyone on either side--well, not you, or North, and other editors of good faith. Ha, editors who are wrong! but of good faith. Your supporters would do well to also refrain from such counterattacks: there is no conspiracy. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

DrmiesI have tweaked my request to be more clear on that point. interestingly I was composing a note to you which got (edit conflict) with your message above. in the aNi, you discussed 1938 and said that was prior to the holocaust. I do not believe that is the (universally) accepted definition. The holocaust often taken to be more than just the "final solution" our own article on the topic goes significantly into nuremberg laws and other repressions happening in the '33-'35 range. In this sense, I was using Holocaust to mean "the whole of negative actions taken by the nazi's against the jews" and not referring specifically to gassing/cremation/etc. (Would this be helpful to clarify in my unblock?) [2] [3] [4]Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a more narrow definition, I suppose, focusing on the Endlosung and perhaps starting in 1941, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter that much, I suppose. I don't think this needs to be qualified. Now, I don't agree with your statement below, "editors have plainly stated that not only was the gun control unimportant, it was in fact not gun control"--that's precisely what's at stake there, and you're not ascribing this properly, IMO: your opponents, as far as I can see, argue that it was less important than our current article suggests, not that it was unimportant or not gun control. But that's another matter. Good luck, again--you and I have been so active in this discussion that it would be inappropriate for me to unblock you (it might be construed as lending myself moral leverage over you, for instance, and I want to keep the air clear between us), but the next admin might be willing to accept it. Take care, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I understand and agree that it would be inappropriate for you to unban me. Regarding miscontruing my opponents, I believe you are incorrect. You are lucky not to be involved in this clusterfuck as long as I have been, and therefore not aware of the rapidly moving goalposts in the arguments, but I think you will find the first post in this section quite explicit. I can hunt up other similar comments if needed Talk:Gun_control/Archive_3#Definition_of_gun_control_in_lead_paragraph_absurdly_broad or (unable to link to this since its in an archived section, so just quoting) "When people think of gun control, they think of a broad (non-discriminatory) governmental policy of limiting private gun ownership" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Barlow Per my comment just above to DrMies, I was perhaps using a wider definition of Holocaust than others, including the nuremberg laws, and other repressions, and not just the final solution - in particular kristallnacht which I would be very surprised to think was not generally considered an element of the holocaust. . (Our own article as well as many reliable sources do the same). One may certainly debate about how important gun confiscation was from jews, and what counterfactual alternate history would have looked like - but it is an established fact that Nazis did pass laws which confiscated guns from Jews. editors have plainly stated that not only was the gun control unimportant, it was in fact not gun control. Attempts to redefine gun control to not include laws that took guns away from jews is orwellian. While certainly this does not rise to the level of saying something like "6 million jews were not exterminated" it is attempting to ignore the existence of basic facts from history for political or other pov reasons. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

collect in addition the peace/war problem would exclude other elements of the "political" version of things that would be useful. The US jim crow gun control laws (already in the article in the US history section) could also go well into the political section, which would help keep the "history" section a bit more pure and less argumentative. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am encouraged by your comment that you will "focus on keeping things more civil going forward". I would like to hear your explanation of your "if the shoe fits" comment before I unblock you, however. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

gamaliel This discussion is quite heated and stressful, and I sniped. such sniping was inappropriate. However I was not referring to specifico, nor to any recent event. In the prior (months ago) discussion, editors were indeed disputing the basic established facts (rather than disputing their importance, or their implications for modern debate etc). (see the link&quote I mentioned to drmies above) At that time said that some of my opponents "arguments reeked of holocaust denial" (using a wider interpretation of holocaust than it appears others many use). specifico brought up a comment made many months ago, my response was in that same time context. to a degree, this is a guilty plea - the "shoe fits" comment was indeed intended to mean that people were attempting to deny basic facts about history (though not intended to mean they denied the final solution etc) . the comment was inflammatory and inappropriate both then, and my shoe fitting comment as well (but I think to a lesser degree), although I think it is being intentionally exaggerated to mean the more specific "final solution denial" which I certainly did not intend. I am very frustrated by those that I feel are attempting to wikilawyer out of including any information or arguments contrary to their POV - however that is not an excuse, and I must always remain civil and in control of my tongue (fingers I suppose). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe everyone is entitled to lose their temper once in a while. I'm sure you can understand that when you say Holocaust denial, people will assume that you mean exactly what our article says it means, and they will not see this arbitrary distinction you are trying to make between that and "final solution denial". Regardless, the analogy is offensive and there are other, milder ways to say that people are denying what you see as historical fact without resorting to this emotionally and racially charged comparison. If you're willing to refrain from further inappropriate references to holocaust denial, I'm willing to unblock you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel I certainly will not use the term "holocaust denial" again, or say anything that could imply doubting of the final solution. Additionally, I will endevour to be more civil in this and all discussion (I even promise to be more civil off-wiki!) However in the interest of complete honesty and openness, When my opponent's arguments warrant it, I do reserve the right to continue to argue that they are attempting the ignore/minimize/misconstrue the existence of established historical facts regarding the implementation of gun control targeted against jews. I hope this is sufficient, but if you think I am triangulating, I also understand - but I do not wish to mislead you just to be free of a short term block. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. If you think people are ignoring historical facts, you are welcome to say that. The issue to me is not what you are arguing, it's how you conduct yourself during that argument. By the time you read this, you should be unblocked. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		For being set upon for merely working on gun articles. I'm sorry you had to go through this, and hope that you don't let them get to you. GregJackP Boomer! 00:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar seconded. I've read the ANI, and I think your block was totally unjustified. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your tireless contributions in the middle of the storm - as well.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Milton Berle

Thanks for your comments on the Berle talk page and the dispute resolution site. I posted on the DRN because this was one of the options provided by WP guidelines as a means to resolve a controversy between more than two editors. RFC was suggested as another option. I'm not a particularly experienced wikipedian, especially when it comes to disputes. I try to avoid them whenever I can. Why would an RFC be better than DRN? As far as I can tell, based on the comments on the talk page, it seems that there's already a consensus among interested parties that the material in question should remain part of the article. I'm still very much in "learner" mode, so I'd appreciate any advice on how to proceed. Should I rescind the DRN and open an RFC. To be honest, I've never done either one before. Thanks. --Jburlinson (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've edited two of your posts

Greetings and salutations. I wanted to let you know I made this edit to two of your posts(here and here) at Talk:Gun control. Please feel free to revert for any reason you see fit. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Asma al-Assad

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Asma al-Assad. 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) 00:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for your tireless contributions

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless, thoughtful, and level-minded contributions to the Wiki in the face of continuing adversity. Justanonymous (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Monster

Hey Gaijin, you or North may have seen it, but another IP has added an unsourced trademarks lawsuit to the Monster page here (presumably the same person from before). I was hoping you would take a look since it would be inappropriate for me to revert on account of my COI.

BTW - Merry Christmas! Hopefully I am not interrupting x-mas festivities. CorporateM (Talk) 02:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC) (COI with Monster)

Other editors took care of it and eventually blocked the IP for 48 hours or so. It looks like the article is watched well-enough I won't have to worry too much about it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen H. Webb

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephen H. Webb. 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, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Page number

Hi Gaijin42. Regarding the book about Canadian gun control, would you please indicate the page number where it talks about Nazis? That would be more convenient for other editors than merely a link to the front cover. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI on Andy

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. 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) 00:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Gaijin42!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Gaijin42: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 10:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Article Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your work on saving Gun Control in the Third Reich (book) from deletion after a BOLD redirect, I present you with this barnstar! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Seconded, thank you for your very timely heavy lifting today. This little sprout should be fine with some TLC. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I don't think this will get accepted to be honest, but I'd say you almost certainly need to add User:ROG5728 as a party as they have been involved in most of the disputes over the page including the latest trip to WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cottrol

Perhaps this quote might be useful for you:[5]

“ Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000-70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2-3 million armed Cambodians? These questions bear repeating. The answers are by no means clear, but it is unconscionable they are not being asked. ”

---Robert J. Cottrol is professor of law and history and the Harold Paul Green Research Professor at the George Washington University. His most recent book is From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England.

I will be pleasantly surprised if you have not given Arbcom a huge opportunity to misattribute behavioral problems to ("coincidentally") yourself and all people who have supported the content that you support (plus a few other people thrown in to create an image of impartiality). My suggestion would be to withdraw the Arbcom request, but of course it's totally up to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

They really don't provide any help on content issues. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

They don't deal with content issues ostensibly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Note that you and I worded it slightly differently. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Egalitarianism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Egalitarianism. 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, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Egypt

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Egypt. 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, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun laws in Illinois

Greetings, Gaijin42. I have reverted several recent edits to the lead section of the Gun laws in Illinois article, including your substantial shortening of the lead, and started a discussion about this, at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#Lead section. Feel free to comment there. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Many many thanks

Your quick action helped to shut down the unconscionable edits that were coming from the IP that located to Oregon. There are not enough words to praise your vigilance. Many thanks for this and all your good work here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

deeply involved in another topic that will likely have DS applied shortly by arbcom

Might I ask which one? I have not been notified of any arbcom case? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines I am involved in another case, not you (AFAIK). I was asking for clarification for my own purposes, not regarding you. AH! I just figured out the confusion. The "DS" I said was not "Darkness Shines" but "Discretionary Sanctions" Gaijin42 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Had I known of discretionary sanctions when I registered, perhaps I would have been bright enough to choose a different username. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Poet categories.

Hi. I added the category because Category:American women poets is not a sub-category of Category: American poets, it's a distinguished category. That means the articles that are in the smaller category are supposed to also be represented in the broader category, so they're not ghettoized. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27. 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, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. 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, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014. 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) 00:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. 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, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

curses, foiled again!

You beat me to Burrows Cave. As I have a lot of sources and am getting more, I'll be expanding the article over the next few weeks. Thanks for starting it but now I've lost all the glory! Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sccy CPX-1

Hey Gaijin, I just defluffed and de- --what is the opposite of fluff? this article (see the history). I'm doubting whether this gun is notable or not, and your opinion is appreciated. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies Its marginal to not. Certainly not a big name. I did manage to find a few minor sources for it. Because it is the company's "flagship" product, and that company does not have an article, I could see justifying it as there is no where to merge to and it has some minimal level of coverage (mostly routine reviews from sites that review every gun), but if you think it doesn't pass GNG or PRODUCT I wont disagree.

• http://books.google.com/books?id=OoBq0qlNwcwC&pg=PA279&dq=Sccy+CPX-1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f_beUo7oDYiO2gWUloDgCg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sccy%20CPX-1&f=false
• http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/06/foghorn/gun-review-sccy-cpx-2/

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, I just deleted a company article as spam... I'll have a look. Thanks Gaijin, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Help, please

Could you review your 18 NOV 2013 comment on the 3D printed firearms talk page and see if I've left it in the right place. There appears to have been two separate discussions, and I'm trying to sort them out. If I screwed up, you have my permission to move my edits and comments. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather I have done so (prior to this notice! ;) ) However, I would like to thank you for reaching out to ask form help and double check your actions. I apologize if my comment on the article talk comes across overly harsh. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If you look at this version, you can easily see where the confusion came in. Lightbreather (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hrm, Im actually not confused by that? There is an unsectioned orphan discussion, and then a merge section I created, with a !vote from andy in it. I don't see how you thought those were related to the orphan discussion. But in any case, its handled.

Well, you have been a WP editor longer than I, and you've edited on that particular page longer than I. Would you mind striking some of the testier parts of your comments on the talk page re: this? Just so no-one comes along and gets the wrong impression? Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pistol

Hello,

I have reverted your revert on the Gun politics in the European Union. You are right that the etymology in general is not important, however when a single member state has a pistol as most common firearm (while others have rifles), the fact that the member state's language gave origin to the very word pistol surely plays role.

Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. 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) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for fostering neutrality on articles related to gun control. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Doctree submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Gaijin42 as Editor of the Week for fostering neutrality in articles where most editors' points of view are widely separated. Gaijin often contributes to articles on gun control and related topics. He somehow manages to skillfully draft text acceptable to both pro-gun and anti-gun POVs. Through many contentious discussions on article and user talk pages, he remained neutral and civil, working to keep the focus of discussions on encyclopedic content. He is steward of many articles. Gaijin contributes to articles over a wide range of other topics. He created over 30 articles; his total edits top 10k.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Flag of Greece

Gaijin42

Editor of the Week for the week beginning January 26, 2014

Fosters neutrality. Skillfully drafts text acceptable to both sides of contentious issues. Remains neutral and civil, working to keep the focus of discussions on encyclopedic content. A steward of many articles, has created over 30 articles.

Recognized for

Civility

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 13:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your example of what a Wikipedia editor should be. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Duck Dynasty

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Duck Dynasty. 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, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Buster7 Go Phightins Doctree The ANI above is taking aim at you, so you probably should have been notified. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already notified Buster7 and Doctree. If Go Phightins! is involved too, I'll notify him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The award has never been anything more than what it is...ie...the result of ONE editors nomination and some minimal vetting by a second, about 6 weeks in the Q, and finally distribution. No politics, no drama. Calling the Eddy useless and unworthy is counter-acted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient response. I'm glad I collected them. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Just to let you know you have been mentioned at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Editor_of_the_Week_award. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hint

This might not be the best time to be doing you-know-what at you-know-where.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	However the ArbCom case may turn out, and however wrong you are (ha!), I appreciate your dedication to the project and your friendliness. Various members of Congress could learn a thing or two from you. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That makes 2 Doctors in your corner. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing socialism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Right-wing socialism. 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) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A request, please

Would you please remove your remark from the 3O request I posted? The pending ArbCom is about behavioral disputes on another page, but this is a content dispute. I made a specific, good faith request to him to remove the material until the related ArbCom is resolved. He declined. I made a very time-consuming, bold edit to remove most of the material but leave the most to-the-point, avcessible Nazi gun law argument, plus two sources that respond to that argument. I hoped he would find that an acceptable compromise. He reverted that. These edits and the related discussion were between Anything and me.

Will you please remove your comment? Lightbreather (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Other people have commented. Yo umay not just declare that the only interested people are you and anything. 3O is the wrong venue. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ayaka komatsu at busan

hello gaijin - I noticed you replied to stefan4 about the photo of ayaka komatsu at busan festival that is to be removed from the Ayaka Komatsu article - I think the page is better with an image and wish Stefan , since he understands what is needed for an image to survive, would do something about sorting out permission. I honestly don't understand what i need to do , if it could be explained without all that - 'it is released under CC-44-GYp or whatever and that allows it on Asian wiki, bit not on this page', - why doesn't he try and do something positive and pursue the matter - he knows the laws, but doesn't try and set the image straight within the law it seems to me. do you get what I am saying? in my mind the user Ramen Lover was at the event and took the photo and wants it to be used across Wikipedia - is that almost certainly wrong ? you wrote something that implied that was a possible scenario. anyway, sorry to bother you, but it has been bothering me - Stefan tags the image, and then goes silent as he watches it deleted without actually doing anything to try and get the accreditation , that he understands, - it annoys me Sayerslle (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 15:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Added to ArbCom case

As you may know, I got added to the ArbCom case today. I'm not sure how they expect me to participate given that the evidence phase is closed, and they showed no interest in adding Lightbreather. It's pretty much inevitable that I will be topic-banned from politics articles at the very least, given that ArbCom indirectly controls Wikipedia content and does not particularly like the content that I have added. It's grossly unfortunate that the project is structured this way, but that's the way it is, apparently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I regard the adding of parties who are not afforded the common decency of being allowed to then furnish evidence to be improper on the part of any committee in any society in the entire world. Clearly ArbCom does not fall into that category. Collect (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if they did allow evidence, I have no idea whether I should defend my actions at the article I stopped editing last year (gun control), or instead the U.S. article that I've edited this year, or both. The request was made to add me because of the U.S. article, and I would prefer to focus any evidence I am allowed to provide on that U.S. article, but maybe they would just then ban me for activities last year at gun control. Who knows?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to follow up here, they gave me an opportunity to provide some evidence as an "Involved Party" which I will do within twelve hours.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm STATicVapor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from George Zimmerman without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! STATic message me! 03:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WADR

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WADR. 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) 00:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you from Armbrust

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar for closing discussions listed on the Requests for closures subpage of the Administrators' noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I endorse Armbrust's barnstar. Thank you for your prolific, careful work at WP:ANRFC! I was impressed by your careful close at Template talk:Main#Multiple articles and one main article (permanent link) where you noted that "this should not be considered a 'hard' precedent" because "this RFC did not have wide participation".

  You wrote on Armbrust's talk page here (my bolding):

  Would you mind taking a quick review of the closes I did yesterday to see if I am closing them appropriately? May of them could can/(arguably should be) "no consensus" as the !votes are very close, but I felt like that does the participants a disservice to leave the conflict unresolved, so I tried to see which arguments were more founded in policy. I want to make sure im not going down a path that is going to cause trouble for the board, and also not cause too much trouble for myself :)

  Basing your close primarily on policy and on arguments is precisely what closers should be doing. I reviewed several of your closes, and found them to be well-thought out. But if the numbers and policy arguments are well-balanced, "no consensus" is the appropriate close. Here is experienced closer I JethroBT (talk · contribs)'s perspective on "no consensus" closes and resolving disputes at User talk:I JethroBT/Archive 9#Roundup closure (my highlighting):

  I actually take out a pen and paper and write down notes and do at least two reads of an RfC (unless it's a case of WP:SNOW). On the first pass, I write out summaries of people's arguments, and the second pass, I check them in relation to other arguments and also note policies that are relevant or have been explicitly discussed. I actually find the whole process kind of fun, in part because I like the challenge of having to help resolve legitimate, good-faith conflicts where matters might seem unresolvable. To be fair, sometimes situations cannot be resolved (which is why I'm sure glad no consensus is a valid close). But it does require a bit of time for reading, writing, and thinking. Some have said that closing RfCs is a thankless task, but I actually get thanked much more often than I expected for making closes, even the easy ones. But I get it with the "issues I care about are hard to summarize" in a balanced way. I tend to know when that's the case for me and I either avoid or participate in those discussions instead. Anyway, thanks for dropping a note my way, I really appreciate it.

  I think you handled the contesting of your closes at #Closure of RFC section of Firewall page of Talk:Firewall (physics)#RfC: What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper? (permanent link) and here of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles. (permanent link) very well. You did not take the disagreement personally. You patiently and politely explained why you closed as you did. After reviewing the discussions, I fully endorse both of those closes as accurately representing the consensus.

  You said on Armbrust's talk page that you didn't want to cause too much trouble for the board or yourself. I think you are doing excellent work, but if an editor ever fiercely disagrees with one of your closes and wants to cause trouble for you (such as repeatedly undoing your close), I recommend that you initiate a closure review at WP:AN yourself. This will bring more eyes on the situation so that uninvolved editors can endorse or disagree with your close. Thank you again for your hard work at WP:ANRFC! Best, Cunard (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Closure of RFC section of Firewall page

I don't mean to sound argumentative but your definition for what constitutes a primary vs secondary source is not consistent with Wikipedia policy since WP:SECONDARY clearly states it depends on context. The case we were arguing about is clearly spelled out in WP:ALLPRIMARY

A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material).

If Wikipedia policy has changed in this regard the documents should reflect this so there is not confusion in the future, but I think the rest of the world takes the position I do - that if a researcher is discussing their own ideas it is primary but when they discuss others in an introduction it changes context and is secondary. Since I myself write journal articles all the time I am very familiar with this concept - some others not involved in research may not be. With regard to your comments about "priority", that just means of the articles listed in that paper his was chronologically first. That's what priority means and nothing more should be inferred from that. It's also not original research since this is something that comes from that paper's reference list. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Not an issue to come to me. When I was saying primary, I was referring to the overall source. In terms of AllPrimary, I think this is a grey area - they were not merely describing prior work, they were comparing their work to the prior work, and that comparison is novel. Beyond that I think WP:WEIGHT is the stronger issue. If the paper spent a page, or even a paragraph talking about the guy and prior work, then there would be a stronger argument for inclusion. a footnote, as one of 6, is not enough imo. However, if you want to contest my closure, you may do so following the below instructions.

[..] request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't work that way. Any discussion of another persons work is secondary material and Wikipedia clearly states this. Relating it to their own is simply analysis and that is also allowed in secondary material according to WP:SECONDARY. If you don't believe me read the documents. Weight comes from the fact it is a high quality source (peer reviewed journal). QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There were several peer reviewed journals, and several purely secondary sources. The only mention of the guy is the footnote.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"

"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. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic"

In any case, my personal opinion is irrelevant. I was not making a supervote, I was analyzing the consensus of the discussion. Your arguments do not change that consensus, even if you are right as to the underlying argument. If you disagree with my closure, I have given you the proper venue for a second opinion,. Be aware that if you go to that additional venue your argument will need to be that my analysis of the consensus is wrong, or that arguments must be discounted for violating policy, not that your argument in the dispute is correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing at stake here and do not plan to pursue it further. With regard to the above paragraph, my contribution was intended to be a compromise between various extremes in view. I felt some allowances should be made on a topic that was only 1 year old. You are not going to find a lot of high quality sources so the one we have is significant. It has taken a lot more of my time than I intended and I would rather spend my time pursuing my own research. I could have defended at least 5-10 papers in real journals with all the effort spent here and it is just not worth my time. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States. 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) 00:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julia Lipnitskaia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Julia Lipnitskaia. 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) 00:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "3D Printing 2". 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 21 February 2014.

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. 16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cārvāka

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cārvāka. 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) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning 3D Printing 2, 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, User:Sunray (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Philosophy of education

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Philosophy of education. 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) 00:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I have closed your deletion proposal, because the proper method is a full AFD. I have created an AFD for the page that you may comment on here. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_M._Phillips Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for doing so. I am not familiar enough with the whole process of initiating a deletion. So, I was just going by what I had read on that Talk Page. Thanks for starting this the correct way. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Holy anointing oil

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Holy anointing oil. 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) 00:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Debora LMP296

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Debora LMP296. 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) 00:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Unreliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Unreliable 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) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Oscar bait (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lincoln (film), Boys Don't Cry, Chicago (film), Crash (film), The Pianist, Amistad, Nine (film), Precious, Coming Home, Les Miserables (film), Nell, Frost/Nixon, The Wolf of Wall Street and Captain Phillips

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Latin Europe

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Latin Europe. 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. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)