User talk:Bdb484

Hi there. If I left a message on your talk page, keep the thread intact by responding there. Unless the conversation has gone stale for a few months, I'm probably still keeping an eye on it, so there's no need to notify me over here. For old threads, see the archives for 2007 and 2009. Thanks.

Aerotropolis

Hello, just wondering why you deleted the entirety of the external links section for the article rather than removing the links you found to be egregious. Many of the links were to examples of Aerotropoli governing bodies. One link was to the website Aerotropolis.com, which contains a large amount of information on the subject and is maintained by a known expert on the topic. Similarly, you deleted the List of Aerotropoli section noting that it was not well-cited enough though the list is maintained by two academics who are attested experts in the field. Not an attempt at attacking you, just hoping to get some of the pertinent information back up in a format that is agreeable to all. Thanks! Publiusjee (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Evan Arant‎

Just wondering why you started an AfD for Evan Arant‎? The article was already tagged for speedy deletion under A7... Singularity42 (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It looks like you tagged it between the time I opened it and started the AfD. I had opened the page in a separate tab and didn't come to it for quite a while. I was going to tag it A7 myself, given the creator's user name and the fact that it's apparently a vanity page, but it includes an assertion of notability, so it's probably going to have to go through AfD anyway. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BTW, although there is an assertion of notability, it can still be speedy deleted under A7 if it is not a credible assertion. In these cases, I question the credibility that a musician with no Google hits is "...widely considered one of the greatest rappers..." or "...has recieved a great deal of critical acclaim and success." :) Singularity42 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I saw some hits for him as a track "star," but obviously nothing about rap. I'm sure he'll get there one day. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bdb484 is a big loser out for Vanity Fair fame, he cares not about Wikipedia quality standards.

Deleted page

Here you go: User:Bdb484/Akroness. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. That's going to require a lot of work. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steelers

I reverted your delete with the extended citation. Just was in a hurry and forgot it, common mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony1103 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately, the reference that you seem to be using is a dead link. Even if you're able to find a functioning version, it appears that it will still not meet WP:RS criteria. I'd recommend taking another look around the Web for a source that we can use. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sheppard

Yes, I thought about that. But the article itself doesn't make much of an assertion of notability. Deb (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Her weekly column is considered 'a must-read for tax practitioners.'" I think that is a pretty clear assertion. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that statement is unsupported, as far as I can see. In fact, it's hardly NPOV. Deb (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a direct quote from the Times article. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. Deb (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether that's supposed to mean "True, that's an NPOV fact as presented by the Times," or "True, but that doesn't matter." If it's the first one, taking down the tag would probably be appropriate. If it's the second, I suppose we could start an AfD and see what the community thinks. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% happy (mainly because it's such a short article), but you don't need my permission to take the tag off; I won't object. I would just suggest adding something on the talk page or maybe plumping out the article a bit. Deb (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this isn't coming out right. What I mean is that I tagged the article, rather than deleted it, because I thought she might be notable, but it was really a recommendation to you to forestall possible objections rather than an attempt to throw my weight around. You've answered my objection, but that doesn't mean someone else might not find her notability questionable. I hope this makes sense. Deb (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Antony1103

I've blocked that account directly. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Analysts‎

Great job on the tax analyst article! Morphh ^(talk) 2:12, 05 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One of these days, I'm going to earn myself one of those fancy tax-deductible barnstars I saw you rocking on your user page. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani ANI

Would you agree to 1RR as well when editing with Badagnani?

Also, do you recall interacting with him prior to the editing at Oud? That was the article under discussion the first time you commented on his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A message

I have left a message for you at the ANI.[1] Thanks.--Caspian blue 16:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already replied. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself would allow a reasonable amount of time for Badagnani to decide if he will join the discussion at ANI. His last comment that said anything about the behavior issue is here, and was made at 03:26 on 8 January. If this is the last comment he is going to make, maybe we should go ahead with sanctions or other action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been four days since he acknowledged the thread, and more than a week since he got a talk page notification that the ANI thread was active. If you're talking about a reasonable amount of time before going to ArbCom, I feel like we've waited a more than reasonable amount of time. How much time are you thinking? — Bdb484 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that the best long-term solution is probably a 1RR. But the thread can't make up its mind on a 1RR, so they are hoping that Badagnani would participate, and agree to a voluntary 1RR, in which some other people might be included. But the catch is that Badagnani won't appear, so no voluntary 1RR can be worked out. This leads people to think that Arbcom is necessary. I myself think his non-participation can be addressed by a block, that would be lifted if he will begin serious discussion. But no admins have added their voices to support my proposal, so I'm reluctant to act on my own. If you could persuade everyone to vote a second time, we might get a more definite result, but people may be getting tired of the thread. I think that an involuntary 1RR, if people could agree on it, would be justified, and would avoid the use of Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm getting sick of the thread. If you want to go ahead and block him, it definitely doesn't sound like there's anyone objecting, and there are plenty of people who have said they would support a block. Even the people who were previously coming to his defense seem to have had their patience exhausted. If you want to step up, go ahead. If not, I'm happy to escalate. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Badagnani that someone in the ANI thread has proposed that he be blocked. Conceivably he may reply. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I'm done twiddling my thumbs. No one at ANI wants to take care of business, and that's fine. I'm proceeding to ArbCom. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious as to why you're so determined to file to ArbCom against Badagnani because you appear to have interacted with Badagnani for about on and off two months in "few occasions" while the others have been disputing with him for over 9 months over "multiple cases" in dealing with Badagnani's much worse manners (as compared to his manners in dealing with you). It is true that some part of the community's patience is exhausted, but pending for his answer with more time is not unreasonable as EdJohnston points out. I would be not be surprised that if the ArbCom case is also pending for Badagnani's response per User:Aitias and User:Ottava Rima's case. --Caspian blue 03:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really considered the differing levels of conflict because this isn't a personal dispute, to me at least. Badagnani's editing patterns are an obstacle to constructive editing, and I'd like to see that stop. I can handle him just fine on my own, but less-experienced editors are likely to be discouraged by their interactions with him. That cannot be permitted to continue.

To that end, I solicited the community for other editors interested in handling the case. None responded. The admins all told each other that someone should block Badagnani. None responded. Maybe my patience was just exhausted more quickly. If ArbCom wants to boot it back to ANI and wait for a response that is not forthcoming, I'll be back at ANI waiting with everyone else. In the meantime, it's worth it to me to see if anyone wants to take some action beyond indefinite dithering. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone very, very tired of seeing Badagnani's behavior brought up at ANI, followed by loads of people saying something should be done, and then the report getting archived without anyone actually doing anything, I want to express my massive thanks for taking the initiative to move on to another venue where hopefully we'll get an actual binding result. So thank you. Propaniac (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad to see some action has been taken, but I still wish he would have had the sense to show up and figure out a way to work things out. He really could be a great editor if he'd behave like an adult. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cowboys fans

I know, man! That's like me not doing any work between 4:30pm and 5pm each day :-D – Pee Jay 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oud

Just wondering why you undid my edit and link of last night? Much of the construction needs a complete edit. The reason for the ‘ud having the bent back pegbox are complex and lost in time. But the reason given in the current article is rubbish. The angle is structurally strong the tension of the strings puts little stress on the joint between the pegbox and the neck. It It also makes the instrument easier to hold. Some western lutes have extended necks to carry extra strings and this joint becomes problematic and the instrument can become pegbox heavy. The round back of the ‘ud is in terms of weight to strength better than the guitar allowing for a more responsive albeit more intimate sound. Think of the strength of an egg shell. The article I linked to does not advertise in any way. I have been a maker for many years and have made ‘ud for both Munir Bashir and Salman Shukur, amongst others. all the best Joseph Hiblacom (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiblacom (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I undid your revisions because they added information that was not supported by reliable sources, and because the way the link was added, it screwed up the formatting of the page and it was unclear what the link was supposed to add to the article. In the future, further familiarizing yourself with how the pages are formatted and what the various pieces of code mean will serve you will in making constructive edits to the project.

Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps with your expertise you would like to make the corrections. As a respected maker in both the Arab world and the west (if you had followed the link you would have perhaps realized this) the correction I made to the reason for the neck pegbox angle was correct. i.e. I am a reliable source. It is sad that the article remains incorrect in this respect. I have every intention of fully rewriting. This was my first step into the water. I did not expect to have my feet eaten by a crab.

The link I provided also gave a direct method of contacting me. I preferred that the person who had made the erroneous statement was the person to do so. I did not remove what had been said but added to it! Hiblacom (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my methods seemed harsh, but the oud page has been subject to a lot of shenanigans lately. Although I don't doubt your expertise, Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources (you may read them here), do not permit you to add material and simply vouch for its authenticity. Otherwise, we would have a lot of people claiming to know a lot of things that they do not, and it would not be possible to sort it all out.

Instead, we need references to trustworthy secondary sources that verify the material that is being inserted. If you see material that is inaccurate, you should feel free to go ahead and remove it, provided that it has not been supported with a reference. Just be sure to explain what you're doing in the edit summary, which will help the community to recognize that you aren't simply trying to vandalize the page. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning on User talk:24.252.157.102

Hi there! If you're wondering why I've removed your first and final warning on User talk:24.252.157.102, I just thought I would let you know. This user has not made any distruptive edits since my last warning, so a fourth level warning was not needed. Also, you may want to consider useing the {{uw-vandalism4}} warning rather than the first and final warning when there have already been three warnings. That way a user doesn't get three warnings, and then another telling them that this will be their only one. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I must have messed up on the timeline there. Keep an eye on that clown. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm refreshing the contribs page every minute or so. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin–La Crosse#Notable alumni

If you have concerns about a list of alumni being unsourced, please consider adding Template:Refimprovesect next time rather than removing the entire section, as you did at University of Wisconsin–La Crosse#Notable alumni. Cheers, --Baron Larf 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do that, but I found it pretty ineffective. Thanks for putting in the work on it; it looks like it's in much better shape now. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WEWS

I have adjusted the other Cleveland stations to match up with WEWS.

Only thing I changed on WEWS is including the meterologists' seals of approval on the roster page.

Just wanted to have all the Cleveland stations match up, that's all.

Vjmlhds 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. Looks good. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happywelcome

Hi. I received apparent spam by Happywelcome, which you deleted (thank you). Do you know what his or her motives or intentions were?--达伟 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume that he's somehow affiliated with the site he was linking to and was trying to drive traffic there, but I don't really know. It just seemed fishy to me. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I edit a lot of pages dealing w/ China and Asia, and that was clearly a website about China. I agree whatever he/she did was really weird.--达伟 (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Mail-order bride. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you call that just kidding, you need to re-read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars which you added to mail order bride. Thanks for being WP:UNCIVIL. --Morenooso (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace draft

Hi, I came across User:Bdb484/Melt Bar and Grilled and wondered what you had planned for it. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, so if you don't plan on working it up to mainspace standards i'll delete it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I still plan on putting it back together. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

		The Press Barnstar
		Your contribution to the article Justin Bieber was mentioned by Vanity Fair magazine http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/04/whats-the-point-of-having-a-source-if-youre-just-going-to-pretend-it-says-something-else-wikipedia-editors-and-justin-bieber-fans-battle-for-control-of-justin-bieber-wikipedia-page.html Huey45 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great edit summary

[2]

Yes. Sketchy, lol. Mythic Dawn Agent (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are officially invited to join...The all new editor group WikiProject Cleveland. We won't be having any cool t-shirts to commemorate our start-up, but adding your name to the members list will certainly carry some Wiki-cred as being an inaugural member... It's a completely from-the-ground-up project, so we can use all the help available. After you join (assuming you would be interested in joining this humble venture) , please slap this template: {{Template:ClevelandWikiProject}} on the talk pages of every Cleveland-centric article you edit. Thanks, and may the forxe be with you (and by that I mean the Jedi force of course... not the defunct Cleveland MISL franchise).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Malice aforethoughtI could write a well-cited book on this topic. I removed your prod. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]I hope you'll write it on Wikipedia. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oooh...... Looks much better already! Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Vandal user warning levelsHi, Considering User talk:94.168.255.91, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Help:Introduction for anon IPs, warnings need to assume that the contributing editor may be changing and the same IP address might be coincidental. The convention is anything over a 7 day gap in contributions is grounds for a reset in user warning level. An exception would be a blatantly obvious pattern (such as the same IP being used to single-purposely disrupt the same article). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Fair point. Given that edits from the IP address have been limited to unconstructive disruptions, I was comfortable escalating the warning level. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]UVa AlumniCan you please post on the article's discussion page why you object to listing some of the more prominent alumni in the UVa article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Agree. I'd like to hear your rationale, as there is a lot of relevant material here that was deleted with a cursory explanation. I'm inclined to re-add the material if no further explanation is forthcoming. -Tjarrett (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure what else you want me to say. I assume you're both already familiar with the rules for reliably sourcing material, and none of that material had any sourcing whatsoever. Seems pretty clear-cut. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Tunings for OudI went to the Oud page to look for common tunings, including major variations across countries. Common tunings are easy to find in wikipedia articles for other instruments like violin and guitar, and it helps to understand an instrument to know how it is tuned. But you deleted the Oud tuning information (04:32 18 July 2010), saying it was uncited and wikipedia isn't a how-to. The former comment is surreal, because *you* deleted the citation info earlier (02:19, 30 November 2009). Granted it wasn't in wikipedia standard format, but info in the wrong format should be reformatted, not deleted. As for how-to, of course you are correct that wikipedia is not a how-to, but tuning info is not a how-to either -- at least in the case of the most standard tunings, it verges on being part of the definition of the instrument. In my case, I am studying guitar, and wanted to compare Ouds to guitars, and I specifically don't want to leave wikipedia and go googling the web universe for Oud HOW-TO's (99% of which are probably in Arabic anyway, which I can't read). I could see moving the tuning info to a separate wikipedia page, conceivably, but I don't see a link to it being moved, only your note about deleting it. Clearly the tuning information should be put back, along with the deleted citation info, ideally in the standard format, but formatting can be fixed after information restoral. Thanks, Dougmerritt (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]Hi, Doug. I'm not sure I agree that the tuning information is encyclopedic, but it sounds like you have some arguments I'd be open to hearing more of. The citations, though, were pulled out not because they were improperly formatted, but because they were not reliable sources, if I'm recalling correctly. It was over a year ago, so it's not especially fresh in my memory. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]Stick It (album)You could have just redirected this without taking it to AFD. I've done so. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]John Henry (folklore)Hi, -- Please discuss on the talk page to that article. Please note: the actual "history" of John Henry is utterly unimportant -- the current section on "history" consists entirely of vague ramblings and poorly supported musings, and could be entirely deleted without any loss or damage. Yet, if we deleted that from your version of the article, there would be nothing left! The point is that "John Henry" is folklore and not the biography of an actual person! Don't confuse the two! To have an article about folklore without actually discussing the folklore is .. screwy. So I suggest: cut the section on history, entirely. Maybe trim down the section on movies and tv shows and popular culture, I dunno. But expand the section on the actual mythology! References should not be hard to find: this is a standard topic in children's education; I must have gotten it in 3rd or 4th grade, and I presume most Americans have. It comes up again in high-school American History. I suppose that there are academic articles that explain why its a myth, and how it relates to the others (Paul Bunyan, etc) in journals of sociology and folklore; a trained folklorist should be able to find them. linas (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Regretfully, I am not a trained folklorist, but rather a Wikipedia editor whose primary focus is ensuring that material presented on the project has been verified. If you believe additional material needs to be included, I obviously won't object, if you reinsert it with an inline citation to a reliable source. I'm happy to discuss on the talk page, but I'm not sure what there is to say beyond the obvious restatement of the verifiability policy. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bdb484. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Germán Trejo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbus (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) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Counter-vandalism unitJust a heads-up—the counter-vandalism unit is pretty much a defunct project, and has been for some years now. It is unlikely that a request on the project's talk page will result in any useful or timely response. For ongoing problems related to a biography of a living person (a BLP, in Wikipedia-speak), you're likely to have better luck raising the issue at the BLP noticeboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]That is useful information. I'll head over to BLPN now. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]Oswego LakeYou've made some great edits to this article. That Willamette Week piece is very significant, especially with the comment from the sheriff's department. The part that I think needs a little more context is that I don't think the "public" status of the lake is quite as settled as your edits indicate; the Lake Corp argues that the lake is essentially an artificial power reservoir and therefore the state ownership doctrine doesn't apply. They have some legal firepower behind that case. In any case, they have de facto controlled it for 70 years--with the cooperation of the city and general assent of the populace. The WW reporter's ability to go on a 400-acre lake and not get caught didn't really prove anything--even if the sheriff won't arrest him, the city has indicated it could do so for violation of city park rules. Anyway, I'm going to add some more info that I think will clarify a bit, but if you want to discuss further, let's do so on the article talk page. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]The Corp.'s arguments seem a bit specious to me, given the fact that no one in authority to uphold them has any inclination to do so, but you're probably right that they should be given some more prominence, given the weird perception that they've cultivated surrounding their authority. I'll try to punch something in to make that more clear. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Very cool. I have a couple other interesting citations that I'll add to flesh this out a bit more. I also don't find the arguments particularly compelling, but it's also not settled law yet. --Esprqii (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Looks good to me. Thanks for the help and feedback. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]Smile!A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.2.110 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]RAND Corporationnotable participants removed and no reason given for edit. Please explain. p.s. I'm a novice here. User:Dianne93101 —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]Hi, Dianne. I took out that list because it was not cited. The rules for citing information are listed here. If you pull up the edit history, you should be able to see a notation next to the edit indicating that this was why the information was pulled. If you're able to hunt down some reliable sources for those names, I'd encourage you to put them back up with citations. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]Location in lead of the Zoroaster's articleHey. This version of the article says ...was born in the eastern part of ancient Greater Iran. Idk why was this removed without explanation; I restored it in the lead. 182.181.247.195 (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]