User talk:FenixFeather: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:49, 20 April 2014

Home Talk Sandbox Userboxes Contributions

Welcome! Click New section and post a message!

Archives (index)

2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

In an effort to avoid fragmentation and talkback templates, I will now use Template:Reply_to when replying to you on this page. Thanks! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs)

My images are deleted

Hi. I just inserted four valuable images about Chinese research forces in MH370 event. Unfortunately, the images are deleted today. I am expecting an explanation for this.

Thank you.

@Maxjiang000: I wasn't the one who deleted the images. You should contact User:WWGB instead. The reason he gave was "what's with the dominance of Chinese ship photos? This was a joint international venture". So maybe it was a little unbalanced to add so many images of the Chinese search technology. But thank you for trying to figure it out on talk pages rather than engaging in edit warring. Also, don't forget to sign your comments! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 15:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsorted

Hi,

I will add the edit summary back.... Because I have a whole shelf of materials to add, so I'm a little bit rushing.

Thanks.

Hi FenixFeather,

I added the summary in the edit summary. I have a question, is this mandatory for all edits that are protected?

Thanks,

Sundios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundios (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mandated, just recommended :) I thought your edit was great! It's just that it helpful so that people can decide more easily whether they need to look at the edit or not! FenixFeather (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"vishnu' edits

thank u my dear friend. i've noted ur point. will do for sure. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtuh (talk • contribs) 06:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edits on Zilla (Rapper)

I wanted to know what wasn't cited with Reliable sources so that I can add it. The page is great, but it's missing alot of information in regard to this particular artist...

Bk (76.30.237.2 (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Armando Muniz

You made a mistake! I was preparing to cite it when you removed it! I was trying to figure out to make the "headline" correct. His name is Armando Muniz not Armando Mu`niz. Can you please return what I have written. I'm the chief lead writer for www.doghouseboxing.com. I will cite my site and my name...Thanks, John J. Raspanti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.66.220.252 (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for stopping by. You can access the last version of the article before the revert here. If you press the edit button, you can also access the source of that version. See the tutorial I linked you previously for more information on how to use tools to help you cite your sources. Thanks! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 09:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MH370

Satellite data analysis was used to confirm that the aircraft crashed at sea. AAIB has confirmed this. - Thecodingproject (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then please cite your source. See WP:REF if you need help doing so. And sign your comments, please. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26716572 or practically any other news website. - Thecodingproject (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article talk page, there was a lot of discussion on this announcement; the consensus was that the summary not be changed merely because of the Prime Minister's announcement. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 02:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was all speculation until now, but with all these sources including the AAIB and Malaysia airlines, all indicating the Inmarsat satellite data analysis it's decisive that is the fate of this flight and is factual as we know. – Thecodingproject (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good now, someone fixed the summary. In my opinion, it's far more concise and less awkward than "Crashed at sea, yet, not found." – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit as it removed a good chunk of information which the majority seems to deem viable, so any further edits from now we both seek consensus.. agreed? I know your doing this in good faith unlike a lot of others. – Thecodingproject (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was never made with consensus in the first place, and I don't see any indication that the majority deemed your information "vital." I know you're really interested in editing this article, but you don't own this article. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 02:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thecodingproject has made a couple more edits to the infobox, but I can live with them, if you can! thanks for your support. Lynbarn (talk)

@Lynbarn: Yeah, those seem relatively okay. As long as they don't bring back the other stuff the editors already decided to change. And thank you! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total siyapaa

I have sited the budget and world wide collection. but budget as per my added 12 sources is 80 Million indian Rupees not 180 Million indian Rupees. Collection world wide is 102 Million indian Rupees not 100 Million indian Rupees.

Few users on that article are pushing POV. They do not have any source to 180 Million Indian Rupees budget claim but they are rating 12 sources provided by me for 80 Million budget as low quality. Even if my 12 sources are low quality still they are better then un sourced and typo error claim of 180 instead of 80 million budget. Please help here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Total_Siyapaa&action=history . 39.32.206.224 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@39.32.206.224: Thank you for dropping by this page! It's better to work this out than engage in an edit war. I will look at it and see if I can get a talk page discussion going. If it really is a problem then external help will be needed. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 14:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what is going on . An user Darkness shine has warned me of edit war blocking as per some 3 revert rule but he himself has reverted me so many times. Please bring third party help. This all is like a game I am feeling threatened my inter net will be blocked. 39.32.206.224 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the issue with Darkness shine. You do need to stop reverting. I will look for a reliable source on the figures and cite it so we can resolve the problem. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many many thanks for your gracious help but I have commented on that talk page this, ( No i do not agree because 99% of references available on inter net say 80 Million Indian Rs (8 Crore) budget. I mean 13 sources added by me + 115 other sources which I never added please see.https://www.google.com.pk/search?q=Total+siyapaa+budget+8+crore&newwindow=1&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:y&sa=X&ei=jTgyU8KLHOWw0AWMroDQBA&ved=0CBoQpwUoBQ&biw=1366&bih=653. Some one also removed completely referenced 10 days box office world wide gross of 102 Million (10.2 Crore). I think no one is ready to listen and want to do what they want. Should i leave to put my effort to find so many references still rejected and bitten like this? ) 39.32.206.224 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@39.32.206.224: I feel like consensus supports the current state of the page. If you feel like the dispute is still not resolved, you can check the steps on WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and maybe ask for wider input from multiple editors (RfC request). I unfortunately cannot help anymore. I have no expertise in this topic area and thus cannot critically evaluate the reliability of one source as compared to another. The current compromise seems reasonable to me. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 02:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I reinstated the other edit

Then he realized I was making a different edit. So he reverted it again thinking it was the other. Then realized.

I'm not engaging in any edit war. – Thecodingproject (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thecodingproject: Okay, apologies if I didn't assume good faith. Just be careful when you edit. Be bold but not careless. Don't change things to something just because you have a personal preference for something, and check the talk page before you make very visible changes, e.g. to the infobox. Very likely the stuff in the infobox was changed for a reason since the last time you saw it. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 22:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:32, Tuesday, June 25, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 12:32, Tuesday, June 25, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Chaley Scott

I was trying to remove this page completely but am not sure how. I then deleted the content and you restored it. How do I delete or can you/someone do it for me? I am Chaley Scott and I want it removed. Thanks Chaley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaleyscott (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaleyscott: Hey Chaley. You should nominate the article for deletion. If there are potentially libelous claims, you can nominate it for speedy deletion. See WP:GD. Hope that helps! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 04:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I want to nominate it for proposed deletion (not speedy). How do I do that? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaleyscott (talk • contribs) 04:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaleyscott: Here are the steps for nomination for deletion:

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

I – Put the deletion tag on the article.

Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor.
If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc.

Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page.
The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.

You can do it manually as well:

Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page.
Insert this text:
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.

Open the articles for deletion log page for editing.
At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}
Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.)
Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page.
Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~
If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~

Hope that helps! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 05:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you believe that posting another song of the same title for "revelation" is inappropriate when there are already a few there? -Matty McCloud

Please comment on Talk:List of common coordinate transformations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of common coordinate transformations. 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, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you just remove the link to youtube that I posted and left the rest? I DID have a link set up to the black veil brides Wikipage in the appropriate section. I apologize for putting an external link, it is my 1st time editing a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.247.79 (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@74.65.247.79: In that case, feel free to add it back :) I must have not noticed the legitimate link! Sorry! If it seems like it's the right thing to do, usually it's okay to be WP:BOLD because someone can always undo it! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 06:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Space warfare And the death of Wikipedia.

To all editors: Let the reader decide, given all the various ways of looking at things, don't try and decide what is true, we are not good at it. Please copy this comment to more general Wikipedia forum, I am not familiar with those aspects of the wiki community, but I believe this needs to be addressed.

Most recent example: editors insists on keeping false data in Space Warfare article solar panels efficiency claims. Space solar panels are 30% efficient, not 5-18%. Spectrolab makes and sells them, that's not a good enough reference? Somehow my doing some simple calculations comparing the needed size to the ISS solar panels is "bad" original work, but the rest of the entire section, which is un referenced, is not?

Wiki worked great when you let the user decide what were "reliable sources" now you have taken that choice away. You have taken the "wiki" out of Wikipedia, it's not the quick collaborative encyclopedia anymore, it some attempt to find the one and only "truth".

What is a "reliable source"? Not the one Wiki claims. Not peer reviewed.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review4.htm not good at finding errors

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/245503-The-Corruption-of-Science-How-Corporations-Like-Monsanto-Have-Hijacked-Higher-Education What's more, a broader look at all corporate agricultural research, $7.4 billion in 2006, dwarfs the mere $5.7 billion in all public funding of agricultural research spent the same year.

Peer reviewed does no mean correct. Most peer reviewed papers eventually turn out to be wrong, that's progress, . Go read a bunch of Nature papers from the 1940's: Mostly wrong ideas, bad methodology, bad conclusions.

Nature does a good job, and they are still wrong, that's science.

The misunderstanding of the significance of peer reviewed

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review4.htm

Unless it's one of a handful of top journals it really means almost nothing, yet it might be the next big thing.

Not that there aren't great papers and report of great experiments, it's just that the mere fact of being peer reviewed has nothing to do with that.

Science is about the experiments and theories and then the testing of the theories by replication by other scientists. The journals were just a way to publish

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review_failure

Now with the internet, it's not really necessary

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0010.107?rgn=main;view=fulltext pro peer review but modified

You should not even allow references to for pay articles, it completely defeats the purpose. If a pay reference is used, it can only duplicate an unpaid ref, how will anyone afford to check all the paid refs? Just say need unpaid reference.

Is Government a "reliable Source"? Nope.

Example: The cost of electricity article you believe the DOE is a "reliable Source" You believe the government agencies repeatedly accused and found to be captive to the fossils and nuclear industry. I ask the editors: what cost of solar panels did the DOE sited numbers use? Search for it, and you will learn that the DOE doesn't take solar seriously, they hired a consulting firm to give them numbers without and backup data. solar panels on the world spot market on are 50-70 cents, but the DOE uses much higher numbers. They also assume a 15 year life for panels that last at least 40 years.

Do you believe the gov on everything else it says? In fact, is there any reason to believe the gov at all?

I know you want some sort of truth, that is believable, but there is no single immutable truth about much of anything.

Stop this editing out of everything that does not come from the gov or a peer reviewed source, that's not truth, it's not science, it is not encyclopedic. There are differences of opinion, and hidden agendas all over the place, you can't tell which ones are correct, you MUST leave it to the readers.

I want every crazy theory referenced in every article. We can put the "most popular" view first, but we need comprehensive articles, no one takes Wikipedia articles or ANY encyclopedia articles as "truth" anyway, they are not primary references. We used to do this. Let's do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.79.104 (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@24.21.79.104: Hey there, thanks for dropping by. I appreciate the effort to communicate. If you want to reach a wider audience for the improvement of Wikipedia, I believe you can do this at Wikipedia:Proposals.

I would agree with you that nobody has a monopoly on truth, but on Wikipedia, because of the large number of readers and editors, there has to be a standard for reliability of sources. While I see the appeal of a place where anything goes, that's not what Wikipedia is set out to be. Elsewhere on the internet, however, you will find that people can write almost anything they want; it's just that when Wikipedia was created, it was decided that it would serve only as a compilation of human knowledge, not as a place where new knowledge and analyses would be created.

I removed your edit because it seemed to contain original research and the refs seemed a bit odd. But this doesn't mean I felt the information you put there was bad. Check out the tutorial for how to cite sources, then add the info back in. Trust me, the tutorial helps! And make sure all the information you put in this encyclopedia is supported by your sources. The other stuff is not cited as well, so I was probably a little hasty in removing your 30% number. In fact, I've taken the liberty of restoring that number (with a proper reference, rather than an external link).

Yes, a lot of the rest of the article seems to contain original research. This means it's even more important to add cited info to the page. Additionally, while your intentions are noble, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a publisher of original thought. You seem to feel strongly about this, though, so I encourage you to look into other mediums for writing about ideas that are not supported by reliable third party sources or ideas not notable enough to be included. But welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 08:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Seahorse

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seahorse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian

Sorry, I had to undo your edit in order to remove some nonsense that had been added earlier. Nothing personal. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roundtheworld: No worries :) Thanks for the notice and for your work on the article! By the way, have you tried out Twinkle yet? It lets you revert multiple edits or restore to a certain version of the article. Saves you the time of undoing each edit! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 08:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding References to Vishnu

Hi I request you to add the following hyperlink{http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Panchayudha_Stotram] as a source of with reference to Pancha Ayudham in the "Vishnu" page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtuh (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirtuh: Thanks for the notice! I will add it. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's done! In the future, you can check out the tutorial for more info on how to make references. Thank you for your contribution! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 15:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen box office

Dear FenixFeather,

WP:MOS/Film states that we should descrivbe how the film performed in a retrospective, not a historical way. Therefore this: "During its nineteenth weekend of release, Frozen surpassed Toy Story 3 in the worldwide box office, becoming the highest-grossing animated film of all time." should simply be stated as "Frozen is the highest-grossing animated film worldwide". Furthermore, it is logical to compare Frozen with other Walt Disney Animation Studios films or other animated films in general, but comparing it to Disney and Pixar films is definitely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:MOS/Film also states that editors should "Avoid indexical terminology such as "domestic" [...] and [...] "international"." Such terminology includes the word "foreign". We should be specific and state "the film's debut outside the US and Canada" or "outside North America".

Concerning the part stating that Frozen is a "Walt Disney Pictures release", just read these three Wikipedia articles: The Walt Disney Studios (division), Walt Disney Animation Studios, Walt Disney Pictures. The first clearly states in the infobox that Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Animation Studios are separate divisions. The division of Disney that releases films is called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.

Furthermore, in my edit I updated the film's ranking in some categories and corrected a grammatical error "(five-day opening of $14.1 million)and Russia and the CIS", where the word "and" was not necessary (not to mention it was stuck onto the brackets). So I would like to ask kindly that the next time you disagree with part of my edit, please only change that specific part instead of the whole thing.

Thank you in advance. Spinc5 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinc5: Thanks for dropping by. Per WP:CIRCULAR, we shouldn't rely on other Wikipedia articles for information. According to this article, which is the first ref appearing in the body of the article, it is a Walt Disney Pictures film release. I would argue that including information about Frozen being the top earner in the box office is relevant information. Maybe the reference to Toy Story 3 could be removed, though. And I apologize for removing the other stuff; I must've missed it while I was looking at the diff. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 16:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FenixFeather:This article, published by Disney itself states: "It is The Walt Disney Studios' seventh release to reach the $1 billion". Walt Disney Studios, not Walt Disney Pictures. Furthermore, this Disney website does not mention Walt Disney Pictures at all. Spinc5 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinc5: Yeah, this and the Wikipedia article on Walt Disney Studios you cited earlier both seem to indicate that Walt Disney Pictures is one of the studios under Walt Disney Studios, but is responsible for the live action films. Walt Disney Animation Studios seems to be the correct studio. That's odd. The article right now says that Animation Studios produced it, but Pictures released it. Maybe bring this issue up on the article talk page so other editors can offer input? It seems like a rather confusing situation. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 19:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FenixFeather: What is even odder is that every animated film from Disney or Pixar that I checked says "Released by Walt Disney Pictures" in the leading section. Look at Up (2009 film), Wreck-It Ralph, Toy Story 3, Tangled, Monsters University, Bolt (2008 film), etc. Is it possible that such a mistake has not been noticed before? In the cases of Wreck-It Ralph and Monsters University, there are references that do not mention "Walt Disney Pictures", although they are supposedly supporting that claim. Spinc5 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinc5: That does seem confusing. I think you should present this issue on the talk page, with all of the evidence you gathered here, and see what the other editors have to say. It seems odd that an error like this would be repeated across multiple pages. It's possible that they were following one another till that error was repeated across multiple pages, or we're just missing something. In any case, I feel like more input is needed on what seems like a potentially widespread problem. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 06:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Okay, even more confusingly, while I know wikis aren't good sources for Wikipedia, the pictures here seem to support Walt Disney Pictures as a separate entity from Walt Disney Motion Pictures. There needs to be some reliable source found on this, because the Walt Disney Pictures article is very lacking on sources too. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 07:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. 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, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he's a neo pagan

We don't know exactly what his motive to drive so far to kill three white/non-jewish people is.

For all we know this could be motivated by his pagansim.

so it gets two words (that very light).

And the source is solid otherwise I wouldn't write this about a living person.

Check it out.

--107.199.68.228 (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@107.199.68.228: Thanks for dropping by. I think the information could be useful, but maybe insert into the body rather than the intro. Also, check out WP:REFB and WP:CITE for how to cite sources properly, rather than inserting external links. Thanks again for your contribution! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the BLP warning was about the other article you edited. I'm aware that you cited a source for the shooting article. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 05:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry getting tied, thought you should know everyone involved in the shootings religion seems to matter so that's what the categories are at the bottom. --107.199.68.228 (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@107.199.68.228: But speculating at this point without a source would be WP:SPECULATION or WP:OR, so just avoid putting the article under "Neo-paganism in the United States" for now. It's not very neutral of Wikipedia at all to categorize the shooting as an act of Neo-paganism. I suggest inserting the information in a relevant place in a neutral way. Thanks! – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 05:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving vishnu to semi-protected article.

Italic text

Hi Fenix these days i am seeing lot of mischevious edits to Vishnu page. I request you to move the article to 'semi-protected'. so that it can be protected from mischevious vandalism.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtuh (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirtuh: Well, I can’t semi-protect articles, only request it. And usually semi-protection requests only work if there is persistent vandalism. See WP:ROUGH for a rough guide to semi-protection. The adding of Buddha into the main list of avatars of Vishnu is not really vandalism, but rather just a good faith mistake; they probably didn’t notice the sentence below that already indicates some people believe Buddha to be the ninth avatar. While I know you feel strongly about whether Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, we have to keep in mind WP:NPOV and maintain a neutral point of view, which means acknowledging that some people do think Buddha to be an avatar. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 14:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure i will take into account what u said.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtuh (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Unified Modeling Language

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Unified Modeling Language. 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, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me!

Hi! You removed one of my links, about Riot. Can i please ask you some more info? I'm a noob in wikipedia, and every modify i make, some guy starting to undo it. and he didnțt let me any message. I have no idea how to get in touch with him. Can tou please help me? Thank you!