User talk:BlueMoonlet/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi BlueMoonlet, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 03:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Giants-Dodgers Rivalry

That's what the rivalry should say, not "S.F. Giants vs. L.A. Dodgers". It should follow the informal "standard" used with these: Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry and White Sox-Cubs rivalry. I think some anon set it up that way. I will probably move it sometime in the next few days, if no one else does. d:) Wahkeenah 17:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Any objections to renaming the article? Wahkeenah 13:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Great work on the Dodgers article. Keep it up! --Dysepsion 07:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find the wording confusing. Moses' plan was not "realized" until 1964, when Shea Stadium was opened. And the Mets themselves were not Moses' plan as such, just the ballpark... in conjunction with the 1964-65 World's Fair, whose plan was also Moses', as I recall, and of which Shea Stadium was a part, albeit on the other side of the tracks from it. Wahkeenah 18:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good now. :) Wahkeenah 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Vin Scully

I didn't write that part. I saw it, and wondered what the point was. Scully's not an independent commentator. He's paid by the ball club. They hand him a script that talks about upcoming games, he's expected to read it. End of story. Anyone who didn't know about the impending strike was an "ignoranimous". And right up to the last day, people were at least hopeful it could be averted. So I think whoever wrote that either has something against Vin Scully or more likely wasn't around at the time and doesn't know that the strike was not necessarily a foregone conclusion. Wahkeenah 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, but I meant to address the second part of that message to the user who had added that paragraph. I agree with your assessment, and would not mind if you wanted to remove it. --BlueMoonlet 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I realized that later. It was late after a long working weekend. :) Regarding the Scully comments you beat me to it, and that's fine. And you improved the stuff I added about the ballparks and the nicknames. Good work.

Ithaca, NY. Don't they have a waterfall there, possibly right on campus? Wahkeenah 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Playoff Appearances

One down and twenty-nine to go. That user "FPAtl" took it upon himself to do that redundant entry on every one of the major league baseball sites. Wahkeenah 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK controversy

Hi. I've never really been involved in any decency/censorship debate before; I just got drawn into this one accidentally because I have Talk:Main page on my watchlist and I pretty regularly check the main page for poorly-worded entries. I don't actually care that much about the issue, I just get annoyed by smug self-righteousness (which where decency/censorship is concerned can be found on both sides of the debate). If you want to start a policy discussion on Talk:Main page you can try; but I doubt you'll get anywhere. Cheers. Doops | talk 19:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheese edit

"...although an alternate source for "cheesy" may be the practice of "saying 'cheese'" (see below) while smiling for a photograph — an essentially phony act."

That sounds good and I like it; do you have a source? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. In fact, it was an original thought of my own, occurring to me as I contemplated my son's "cheesy" smile in pictures. I've seen a website or two in which the smelly cheese theory is proposed, but it seems to me that they're guessing as much as I am. --BlueMoonlet 01:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
That's too bad. I took it out, per Wikipedia:No original research. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Conceded that my theory is only common-sense speculation, with no scholarly backing, but is the smelly theory any different? The answer may be yes, but I'm interested in it. All I find on Google is some guy who may or may not know what he's talking about, and admits that the answer is uncertain. If I wrote a non-Wikipedia page of my own with my theory, would it no longer be unpublished research? I won't try to revert, but I'm curious. --BlueMoonlet 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I came across the smelly theory here [1], in the linguistic page cited at the end of the paragraph. The answers to your questions, I think, are subtle arguments involving good-faith attempts to really not do original research. It's true that I can't claim the page I'm pointing to has solid scholarly backing or proof (hence the waffle-word "might" in the Cheese article). But I didn't have any theory in mind regarding the origin of cheesy when I came across that page; I wasn't fishing to justify a personally-held theory. (I was actually researching "Big Cheese" at the time) and so I felt that it was reasonable to include that information in the article; the source certainly seemed to be more of an expert on slang than myself.
Putting your own page out there and then citing it would, intuitively, be a bad-faith act unless if you did some heavy research and cited some primary sources in that page, or if that page were (somehow) to go through scholarly or scientific peer-review (something unlikely to happen for this topic, I admit.) Then you also get into the topic of what kind of things are "valid" sources - a quagmire in shades of gray that tries to judge the authority of a particular site, magazine, or book.
Even when you are writing something perfectly obvious to yourself in wikipedia, it's always better to find (and cite) a source. One reason is to impress everyone else around here :-) Another reason is to fact-check. And a third reason, my favorite, is that you can learn a lot doing the research.
Sort of an aside, but it occurred to me that it should be researchable at least whether the slang "cheesy" was in use before or after "say cheese." If before, it immediately discredits the say cheese theory as the primary etymology. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. --BlueMoonlet 00:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

LugerDoesntKnow (et al) report on WP:RFI

Think I've now blocked all the accounts involved (including, but not limited to, the ones you reported). Please do report any others you come across. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Petros471 10:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if just one or two articles are being hit you can request page protection, but other than that I think we generally block accounts as they appear. That sort of report is fine for RFI, though now an established trend has been shown you might want to try WP:AIV, with a note explaining many previous socks have been blocked for same edits (to stop the report being removed because of lack of warnings or similar reason). You can also message me if you see I'm online, as again I know the pattern now so will block on sight. Btw, all those accounts have already been blocked by others. Cheers, Petros471 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually on second thoughts it might be possible to request a checkuser (another shortcut: WP:RFCU) and if an underlying IP is being used by all accounts have it blocked. However, that won't work if the user is using a dynamic IP ISP. Petros471 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Starting a line with an asterisk

Try doing an edit here and look at the following:

*This line starts with an asterisk...

Enjoy!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --BlueMoonlet 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Caltech Hovses

Hi, BlueMoonlet!

I'm a Lloydie, and I've taken an interest in the article about the student hovses. I notice that you did the lion's share of the work when the present article was created by merging seven separate articles into one. So I have a few questions for you.

  • In recent discussions, there is some support for moving the general information (about rotation, and the evolution of the current house system) from the end of the article nearer the beginning (so the sections about the individual houses would come last). Do you have an opinion one way or the other on that?
  • Do you want to be involved in any significant restructuring of the article? Or are you more interested in other things now?
  • Lately the images of Hovse crests have been disappearing (and sometimes reappearing) at an alarming rate. The image-bots keep complaining that copyright information is incomplete, or wrong, and the images get wiped out, but then they often get uploaded again in just a few days, sometimes by anonymous users with Caltech IP addresses. Was that happening when you were working on this article?

Please write back, either here or on my talk page. Thanks for your time, and have a great day! DavidCBryant 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. I do appreciate hearing from you. I really didn't introduce much content to the Hovses page; I learned that they were threatened with being deleted altogether, and took steps to move the debate in what I thought was the right direction. So I don't have much to add at this point, though I don't mind giving advice.  :) As someone who finds interest in the organization of Wikipedia pages, it seems to me that the Hovses page is good in its current configuration. Background and evolution of the current system are already at the beginning (perhaps they could be in a "Background" subsection), and more esoteric details like Rotation and memberships is towards the end. So I'd vote for the status quo on that point. --BlueMoonlet 01:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism

The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

John Calvin - Young.jpg

--Flex (talk|contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Yarkovsky.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yarkovsky.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your moves and mergers of territories

Thanks! I've been itching to do that for a while, but I've been a little hyperfocused on getting United States to FA. Again, thanks. Here's the notes I was keeping about the merge:

  1. United States territory - unsourced, malformatted, largely redundant
  2. United States territories - malformatted & incomplete dab page
  3. Incorporated territory - largely redundant, half of article's a list
  4. Organized incorporated territories of the United States - Largely redundant, esp with the below
  5. Organized territory - Largely redundant, esp with the above
  6. Unorganized territory - Only partially merge - Census section should be left as is, new page should be pointed to with template:for

There's still probably some good work to be done. Let me know if you need a hand. MrZaiustalk 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I'm about done for now. Perhaps what I've done will make the tasks you outline more tractable for you. More work can also be done to consolidate the text now thrown together in territories of the United States. My one comment on your list is organized incorporated territories of the United States. I created that page, and I think its list both is useful to have and belongs on its own page. I also just now created Unincorporated territories of the United States, which contains a timeline that was formerly on the main territories page. Another article you should be aware of is insular area. I have avoided this article because I don't understand the meaning of the term, though I think it may be synonymous with unincorporated territory and thus should also be folded into the main article. --BlueMoonlet 15:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've done a bit more and found some more to do. Here is my set of points:
  1. I think United States territory is interesting if it remains narrowly focused on the topic of what parts of the world are and are not under U.S. jurisdiction. But I don't mind being overruled by a more motivated person.
  2. As I said, I think organized incorporated territories of the United States should remain, with its comprehensive list of such territories, their dates, and some more information that pertains specifically to them.
  3. Here is yet another article: Commonwealth (United States insular area). This, along with insular area, should be incorporated into territories of the United States and/or unincorporated territories of the United States (if indeed the latter article with its timeline should remain separate).
  4. I just found territorial acquisitions of the United States, which it seems should be merged with territorial evolution of the United States.
  5. I also just found overseas expansion of the United States. This perhaps should remain, with unincorporated territories of the United States being merged into it.
  6. Just to note, the other pages you mention are now redirects to territories of the United States.
  7. Concerning unorganized territory, I don't think it should be a separate page from its plural. Better would be to create a page called Unorganized territory (U.S. Census) for the Census meaning, redirect unorganized territory into territories of the United States, and put a seealso there.
--BlueMoonlet 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Brandenburg Navy

Thanks for pointing that out BlueMoonlet, you must have looked very carefully at the article to spot that. The source for that particular piece of text is translated and then reworded from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia; while other wikipedias are not allowed to be sourced, the note at the bottom allows people to know that some, techically unsourced information exists in the article. The corresponding German article was atypically verbose, and that part was something I found rather difficult to understand. Therefore, that particular piece of text which you see is my very best interpretation of the translation. However, since you dispute it, you should take a look at the German Wikipedia article about the subject. The link for the article can be found near the bottom, under the References section. I hope that you can perhaps understand it better than me, and maybe you will even be able to "translate" more of the article (parts I could not actually put into coherent English) to add to the en.Wikipedia. Thanks, and I hope I have adequately cleared the matter up. Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits to House of Windsor

In 1960, an Order-in-Council of Queen Elizabeth II provided that her descendants will continue to be members of the House of Windsor. This branch of the House is not derived from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but from Prince Philip's House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a branch of the House of Oldenburg.

mmmmm. I think Paliament doesn't look very favorably at such "holding court". HMQ can call herself by any name she wants providing she gets approval from Parliament. HMQ certainly doesn't get that approval by "holding court". The whole paragraph is a nonsense. In 1917 George V, changed his name and that of all his decendants to Windsor by Act of Parliament. No need for "holding court" - the law says that all decendants of George V are Windsor. The only way of changing that is through repeal and a new act. Please consider edits to Wikipedia pages very seriously. I know that this particular paragraph has been copied from wikipedia several times and is just plain bullshit. Mike33 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon further research, I may have been mistaken about the Order-in-Council (I can't confirm it, other than from elsewhere in Wikipedia). However, the rest of the paragraph is certainly not nonsense. George V changed the name of his male descendants to Windsor.[2] The fact that, under the usual rules, the house's name should change but will not is worth noting. --BlueMoonlet 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want an edit war (i have sought clarification on the matter from buck ho. awaiting reply). I'm not a lawyer but male includes Charles (prince of wales) who was born before the queen ascended the throne. It is just mad to suggest that a decree overides parliament. Please dont repost the paragraph. Mike33 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I should have said George V changed the name of his descendants in the male line. Under the usual rules, Charles should have his father's surname, but he doesn't. That's my point. I see you haven't reverted my revised edit, and I hope you will not. --BlueMoonlet 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now you have. Your claim that there was an act of Parliament in 1917 is unsourced, and the source I cited[3] implies it is not true. You also need to support your argument that the change applied to all reigning monarchs and their descendants, rather than all agnatic (male-line) descendants of Queen Victoria, as my source states. I will give you some time to clarify the issue before I edit again. --BlueMoonlet 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
USUAL RULES? what usual rules? parliament decides what a king or queen can do. there are no usual rules. Mike33 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, the rule that a son takes his father's surname and is considered a member of his father's house. My questions to you still stand. --BlueMoonlet 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
A proclamation on the Royal Family name by the reigning monarch is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after.

Did you forget to add that part? Mike33 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That simply says that Elizabeth II's decision on this matter is not binding upon her successors. The same is true, as far as I can tell, of George V's decision in 1917. You still have not demonstrated that there was ever an act of Parliament, nor that the 1917 decree had anything to say about non-agnatic descendants (like Charles). --BlueMoonlet 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This About The House of Windsor

Geneologically yes such concerns stand but the house of windsor is simply a an instrument of parliament. It is not a royal house. it is an instrument of parliament which gives the children of George V the right to title themselves. dont get silly. they all have titles above and beyond house of windsor. but this is not the article to state honorifics Mike33 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AS PER PARLIAMENT are u joking? 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory, but you need to back it up. When did Parliament ever pass any legislation defining the House of Windsor, or in fact saying anything about its composition or name? It may be true, I may be ignorant on this issue, but I would like to be convinced. You might also try adopting a more civil tone. --BlueMoonlet 21:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa Belief overides knowledge. I must apologise ten times. You are quite right that there wasn't a parliamentary act. Although the "decree" and further "decrees" have no legal basis, they should be included. Forgive my use of bullshit and my insistance on parliament. Mike33 02:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Nicknames

Forgive me. It's been a rough week or so, and your comments on my discussion page have slipped my mind. As you've mentioned I would, I greatly disagree with you. The "official nicknames" as you call them, are known as that harkening back to the time when the teams were officially known as Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Chicago AL and names like Orioles, Reds, and Cubs were "nicknames" used by fans and the media. Nowadays, these aren't nicknames, they're just the names of the teams. The nicknames are names which are used by the fans, the media, and, in most cases, the team and it's broadcasters. You've already noted the circulation of "Bronx Bombers". "A's" is more frequently used than Athletics. "Blue Crew" is what the dodgers are referred to in the name of the team's organization-owned fan club. "Cubbies" is used not only by fans, but by the organization during the singing of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game".

These nicknames are information about the team, and should not be excluded. First of all, they are other names for the subject, and those go in the lead, more often than not in bold like the subject's standard or full name. The nicknames usually take up a small block of text in the lead, and are sometimes taken care of in one sentence or in a few words in a set of parenthesis. I think that, when you say "They are also known as" or something to that effect before mentioning the names, they're in enough context for people to figure out what they mean. The article isn't telling people to use them, but it does explain that they are other names for the team, and in many instances explains the meaning behind them. As for the infobox, that is one nickname, the most widely used one, that we put there. The only instances where the most widely used one is not the one displayed is when it comes to the Red Sox and the White Sox, where they share the nickname "The Sox". I have not added all the nicknames for these teams, and, in fact, I've been joined by other wikipedians who want these names to stay on their pages. The White Sox and Cubs pages have repeatedly tried to add more nicknames to the infobox, but more than one makes it too crowded. The Mets page's people have already reverted your changes, with no prompting by me. I've not added all the nicknames, and didn't even know of most of them until the good people of each page's own little community revealed them. In fact, I didn't even add them all to the infoboxes.

The nicknames have never been fought against (the only exception being the Braves), and have, in fact, been added to. The people have embraced them, changing them, if need be. They are not unsourced and unencyclopedic. No name has been added by me unless I had firsthand knowledge, or have researched the name and seen that it is used by the media or the fans. Most, if not all, are used by the organization at the stadium, on merchandize, by broadcasters, or in websites. I believe that's enough to be considered "official". These things are information about the team, and as such, should be included. --Silent Wind of Doom 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Would you like to help me create a WikiProject for the Dodgers? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainly concentrating on the Dodgers. Since there's WikiProjects for some baseball teams. The reason I'm asking, is because I've seen your recent edits and they seem to highly concentrate on some Dodger details!!! But, if you don't have the time, then I'll see if I could get some help!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You got it!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball in the Bible

You might have heard this one: "In the Big Inning, God created the heaven and the earth..." Baseball Bugs 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Dodgers

In all technicality, I can challenge everything on the page since no specific source is provided for any of the information. If you want examples, please see Wikipedia:Good articles. Almost every page there provides a source after every fact. A good article doesn't wait until a fact is challenged to be cited; it provides the the citations before it even be challenged. Let's take a look at a few examples. Under Early Brooklyn baseball, it states "Eight of 16 participants in the first convention were from Brooklyn, including the Atlantic, Eckford and Excelsior clubs that combined to dominate play for most of the 1860s." If a curious reader decides to look up where that information is coming from, it can't be done. There are no references provided for that specific statement. The entire history section runs along the same line; no specific source is provided for any of the information. The article is not properly cited until specific references are attributed to each statement.

PS I choose to remain anonymous. That's the beauty of Wikipedia; anyone, and not just registered users, is allowed to make edits. I have a talk page should you choose to use it. 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they is. This article National Association of Base Ball Players#Champions shows which teams were the obvious powers of that era. Baseball Bugs 00:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that thorough referencing is a good goal to strive for, but it is not always attainable. Personally, I have no time for such work, as I have a job and a family. No one has nominated the Dodgers page for Good Article status (only 0.1% of articles on Wikipedia have such status, according to WP:GA), so those criteria do not apply. If the lack of referencing disturbs you, then do something constructive and do the research yourself. I would argue that the unreferenced tag should only be used for articles whose content is truly questionable, otherwise it should belong on all 1,885,176 of the 1,887,768 Wikipedia articles that are currently not "good". The stuff on the Dodgers page is good stuff; it may not be research quality, but it should be available to people.
PS, you have anonymity even if you have an account. What you don't have is a paper trail. I'd wager that you've been around quite a bit longer than this month, which is all I can see on your contributions. How long will that talk page be yours? Are you in fact the same as, who first added the unreferenced tag to the Dodgers page on 14 January? How can I talk to you and take you seriously if I don't know what kind of editor you are? --BlueMoonlet 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying what's on the Dodger page isn't good. It just needs to be properly cited to ensure that the information stays good. Should a rogue editor decide to tinker with the page, it would be difficult to catch the error without knowing where the information originally came from. It's impossible for me to do what you suggest -- to do the research myself. Unfortunately, because the page isn't cited, I don't know where to begin in attributing sources to each statement. This whole problem could have been avoided had the original writer provided the sources to begin with. An unreferenced tag rectifies this situation by encouraging future editors to properly cite their sources when adding new information. If a tag is not present, it'll only add to the increasing amount of unsourced information.
There is no reason to take me less seriously just because I'm an anonymous editor. My past edits has absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here. As it stands, I see no good reason to leave the tag off. 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wrote a lot of that material. I know that everything I wrote came from a reliable source, but I couldn't tell you exactly which fact came from which reference. Scrupulously documenting in that way, though it clearly would be good given unlimited time and resources, would have taken so much time that the total amount written would have been much less, and I chose not to go that route. I've had a lot of that material in my head for many years, and the same is true of a number of other people who watch that page and are ready to weed out questionable statements, so I don't think your "rogue editor" is a compelling concern.
As an experiment, I just clicked "Random article" 20 times and came up with the following results: 4 articles had a reference specifically cited for a specific fact (though, actually, each of these had only one ref apiece); 6 articles had one or more sources at the end, but no specific citations for specific facts (the Dodgers article would be in this category); and 10 articles had no references whatsoever. Not one article in my random sample had an unref tag, and to be honest, none were nearly as well-referenced as the lengthy list of recommended reading on the Dodgers page. I think this demonstrates that the high bar you're advocating is not Wikipedia's standard.
I don't want to be bitey, but the only reason I can think of to not have an account is that you think some of your edits would not be considered respectable. I encourage you to read here and here on the subject of entering Wikipedia through the front door, and perhaps also here (particularly here) if the idea of multiple accounts for different kinds of edits appeals to you. Many people (including myself) will be much more receptive to what you have to say if you do not appear to be hiding something. --BlueMoonlet 01:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As you can see here, you are not the first to comment on my anonymity, and I doubt you will be the last. However, let's not forget that Los Angeles Dodgers is the issue at hand here, not my decision to whether or not to make an account. I would like to point out that your suspicion of my past edits is not too different than my concerns for references. You are skeptical of my past edits. Similarly, I cannot just assume that you are knowledgeable as you claim you are without the proper references. While I do believe you are trying the make the page better, I simply cannot assume that everything you've added without a source is correct, and that you will be around to correct every mistake in the future. I am not pushing you to update every information with a source immediately; however, a tag would notify readers that a verifiability check may be in order. What harm is there to adding such a tag?
As it stands, the gold standard for any Wikipedia page are the featured articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress; just because a random search shows improperly cited pages doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, and it definitely doesn't make it a standard. If you see an article that needs updating, then be bold about it and make the changes to make it better! 03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your anonymity, my last sentence above remains my opinion on the subject.
Yes, "good" and "featured" articles are the standard to aspire to, but that doesn't mean articles not meeting that standard should be marked as deficient. As I demonstrated above, that is not the general practice at Wikipedia. The tag is an eyesore, and should only be used for articles whose content is truly questionable.
As a final note, just today an enterprising user started a real references section on the Dodgers page. That is the "be bold" solution; doing something constructive rather than standing to one side and criticizing. --BlueMoonlet 00:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism AFD

How do I withdraw the AFD? --RucasHost 09:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. But if you post your own wish to withdraw the nomination on the AfD page, I'm pretty sure the admins will take care of it. --BlueMoonlet 09:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fever tree

High, Blue Moonlet You seem to be the only wikipedist interested in fever trees. Do you have an idea why instead of saying, as you do, that Acacia xanthophloea grows near swamps, several webpages (Worldweb,;, and others) say that it "marks healthful regions"? That does not make much sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredr (talkcontribs) 06:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alfredr. The two sources currently cited in the Acacia xanthophloea article relate the story of settlers associating malaria with fever trees because the trees tended to grow in swampy areas. If you have sources giving another story, feel free to add something to the effect of "However, other sources say..." --BlueMoonlet 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RHEMA Bible Training Center

Hi, if you get a moment or two, could you look over the page I created at RHEMA Bible Training Center? Any input would be valuable and appreciated. Thanks! --profg 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for your keen eye for wording

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your excellent wording improvements suggested at WP:ERRORS. — TKD::Talk 02:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's never happened to me before. Thank you so much. --BlueMoonlet 02:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for Dominionism

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your bang-up job of researching, improving, and continuing to improve Dominionism with those who differ.

--Flex (talk/contribs) 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, I decided to give you this before I saw the barnstar you won above. See, everyone (well, almost) thinks you're doing good work!

Thanks. I really appreciate it. --BlueMoonlet 02:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Since you've taken it upon yourself to undo this chronically disruptive supposed "editor" 's community ban, myself and the others he wikistalked and harassed intend to hold you responsible for ensuring that he lives up to the specific terms of his parole: 1) 1RR, 2) zero tolerance for wikistalking, harassment and incivility. IOW, if he starts up with this nonsense again, you are expected to restore the block. He's your and User:B's responsibility now, accept it. Odd nature 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All I did was give my view of the situation, and I stand by it. Nearly everything Profg was accused of was either not very convincing or prior to his last intervention, and the rush to judgment was disturbing to me. I will keep an eye on him, and would be glad to mediate any future dispute if necessary. --BlueMoonlet 06:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and request

Thank you for your support in the unblock. If it's not too much trouble, I would like to ask you to monitor all of my activities and interactions with others, especially with those who brought and fought for the charges resulting in the indef block, with the purpose of giving me warning, instruction, and (in general) mentoring me along the way here at Wikipedia. I admire your fairness in contributing to the WP project, and would appreciate your assistance here. --profg Talk 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Your slur against ON on AN is totally out of line. Guettarda 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for that to be critical, much less an attack. I only meant to say that he often finds himself in the middle of conflicts. But even that is not really relevant to the rest of what I was saying, and I agree that it was a poor choice of words, so I have stricken it. --BlueMoonlet 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Reswobslc. I sympathize with your most recent comment on the DRV. "Anti-X" implies prejudice or persecution based on a person's beliefs (or other fundamental characteristics), and certainly there is plenty of real anti-Mormonism to be found in this world. But a reasoned critique of a belief system should not be included under that heading. "Protesting" in this context is anti-Mormon because it is speaking without listening; "proselytism" (at least at its best) is not. Thus I would not submit the people in the image as examples of how "anti-Mormonism" isn't always so bad; rather, they should not be in the article because they fundamentally were not engaging in anti-Mormon activity.

Anyway, I am not presently inclined to jump into this topic with both feet, but if an issue ever arises on which you would think it helpful for me to comment, please let me know. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took a 2-hour drive and had plenty of time to think of this. The conclusion I came to is that I think it's reasonable to heed anyone's request to not have their face associated with a term of disparagement, or a controversial topic, unless there are strong sources supporting the association. I thought of an analogy: What if someone took a free image of Michael Jordan and put it in the Nigger article, captioning it: "A member of the Black race, for which nigger is a derogatory term.". The mere appearance of his face in the article would be offensive and inappropriate simply for the improper association, even if his skin is "in fact" black and even if nigger "in fact" refers to a black person. Anti-Mormon is widely considered a term of disparagement as well. The answer in this case, I believe, is to remove images of living people from controversial or disparaging articles absent strong sources independently associating them - and not to delete freely licensed images from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. In the case of Manti-1999.jpg, the uploader didn't really want his image deleted, he just didn't want to be forced into an association with so-called "Anti-Mormonism" and demanded deletion since his initial request got nowhere. I realize that one of my own comments to that guy was to "suck it up" and I admit I was wrong. But I don't think outright deletion is the answer. Your thoughts? Reswobslc 05:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point. I'm not quite ready to change my !vote in the DRV; there are conflicting principles here, and FCYTravis made a tough but defensible call. But I am continuing to ponder the issue. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I just got confirmation from the subject of the photograph that, at this point, he would rather not have his face involved in this battle. As he is a private person, I see no reason to force that upon him. I will stand by my endorsement of FCYTravis' reasoning. However, if that should not carry the day, I will work with you according to your plan. Thanks, Reswobslc. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that deleting the image outright was a civil thing to do. This arguably unnecessary reaction by a single individual came at the expense of the community at large. Suppose someone robs you and steals $1000. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the police could simply print you $1000 of replacement money, then everybody is happy? After all, it's just paper, right. Or, how about they just take $1000 of somebody else's money, or taxes. But they don't do that, not even once, because to do so would be at the expense of the community, which would ultimately destroy the value of all money for everybody else.
Same thing here. A couple of principles have been violated - namely that the administrator unilaterally deleted a resource that belongs to the community against clear consensus to do so. That goes against the very principles of what Wikipedia is based on. Wikipedia works fundamentally by building consensus with very few exceptions, and this is not one of them. GFDL is not just a bunch of boring legal mumbo jumbo, it is the rulebook that allows Wikipedia to exist in the first place. It must be respected. Wikipedia itself is based on open-source software licensed under the GFDL, and couldn't exist if people could just "revoke" their contributions at will. What will Wikipedia benefit from more? A simple amendment that extends WP:BLP to cover inappropriate usages of images of living people in articles, or the destruction of every image that somebody somewhere uses the way the subject didn't intend? Whether this single image itself stands or stays is of little importance to the big picture, but how we handle this issue is, whether the person appearing in the image likes it or not. Reswobslc 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I also think it unfortunate that process was not followed more closely in this case. The admin made some good arguments, I think, but they were also novel to that discussion and the community had not had a chance to comment on them. It basically took the form of a speedy delete. On the other hand, I don't think I buy the slippery slope argument, because few GFDL images feature the face of a living private person. It's a difficult case, with reasonable arguments on both sides, but I'm going to stick with what I've written. If you want to post this further analysis to the DRV, or even just link to this thread, I encourage you to do so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I really do appreciate someone else caring about reliable sources. Turtlescrubber 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Got your email

I got your email. Not all was as it seems there based on other emails I've received. I don't think I need more input for accurately describing that situation, but thanks for offering. GRBerry 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dominionism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I'm not choosing to get into a fight with you about this, but you are at 3RR, and I know you know better. I don't traditionally slap a warning on experienced editors, but again, you should know better. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Patronizing and threatening are not very becoming, OM. Furthermore, your charge is laughable as you are ahead of me in the 3RR race and I have no intention of continuing. My first edit in this exchange was to (in my opinion) improve rather than revert, which is what you're supposed to do. You then started the war with a revert, in violation of WP:Revert#Do not. Perhaps unwisely, I briefly played along, with you as my partner (umm...), committing a total of two re-reverts. Then a friend of yours happened along and did your dirty work with a third revert. I now have no choice but to "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." Sorry to make you resort to talk instead of action, but those are your words. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
More, cross-posted from OM's talk page: --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this and this, I ask you to clarify your accusation of a personal attack. "Civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This qualifies as a personal attack: Then a friend of yours happened along and did your dirty work with a third revert. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is bad, and deserves to be labeled as such. However, as you object to the phrase, I will strike it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


At User talk:Jeepday#Muscovite99 you requested my input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muscovite99 which appears to have been resolved or settled since your request. I believe my participation is no longer required on the issue if there is something else please let me know. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhea's rings

Hey Blue,

Thanks for the suggestion. I nominated Rings of Rhea at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 7, in case you want to chime in. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reworded ITN per your suggestion, thanks for the heads up. --Stephen 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam edit summaries

Yes, those can be deleted, but it's kind of a pain -- it requires temporarily deleting each vandalized page and then restoring it without the vandal edits. We usually only do that if there's really nasty stuff in the edit summary. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:User:Loiterton and User:DaAlmighty1

Thanks for the notice! Malinaccier (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schaeffer

My original post on User talk:Akda18: Hi Akda18. I appreciate your thinking twice about reverting that edit a second time, and I also appreciate the good faith you showed by trying to improve the edit instead. However, it is not acceptable content to simply give your opinion on why Os Guinness may have ulterior motives. We need the opinion of a reliable source. I am happy to talk about this further with you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I should have just deleted the Os Guinness quote. Opinions really don't have a place on wikipedia. Os is clearly biased and wasn't there, so he doesn't know. On the other hand Mikey AND his sisters have confirmed both the abusiveness of Francis Schaeffer and the narcissism of Edith. Os' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. Frank's a witness. By the way, have you read Frank's book, "Crazy for God" or are you just familiar with what Os Guinness has said about it (he probably hasn't read it either)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akda18 (talkcontribs) 22:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Akda. I don't think Os is any more "clearly biased" than Frank is. Remember that it is not generally WP's job to decide who is telling the truth. Rather, our job is to present readers with the notable views and let them judge whom they believe. Os was a close friend of the family, and I think many people find him credible. If there are published statements by siblings of Frank that support his account, then that would certainly be an appropriate source to cite. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'd read the book you would have seen letters from Frank's sisters which he included in the book with their permission (he had requested that they write something he could include in the book). Os' bias is obvious; like anyone else he seeks to defend his friends' integrity (who wouldn't?). Frank position is that he's just finally trying to come clean and make peace with his past. But you are right in that this isn't an appropriate argument for wikipedia...and I've left your last edit intact. On the other hand I believe it's appropriate to edit clear bias wherever it's found on wikipedia. As a religious person I am all too aware that individuals of faith have a tendency to express bias and shout down evidence to the contrary in an attempt to justify their faith to themselves. In truth, we are all human, and all humans have shortcomings. It seems to me to be either ignorance or cult-like denial to either ignore or deny the shortcomings of our leaders when faced with evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akda18 (talkcontribs) 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV inputs at 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation requested

NPOV inputs to the articles 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation would be greatly appreciated. The 1831 polygamy revelation article in particular is receiving a lot of attention since its appearance on the DYK section of the main page, and many recent editors appear to be fixated on endowing it with a particular POV and deleting relevant cited information from reliable sources. If you are knowledgeable about this subject, please feel free to edit these articles yourself, or invite other editors to do so. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see this section for an illustration of the problem. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Try not to take sides - it is divisive

I saw your comments on the discussion at 1831 polygamy revelation and just thought you might consider not taking sides so blatantly. In the spirit of corroboration, lets try to avoid saying "he is right, and you are wrong" - speak to the issues and give your opinion on the content, not the editors. The topic is controversial enough, and already has escalated to nearly an edit war, and your comments I fear may escalate it further rather than diffuse the situation. Thanks for your consideration. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Aimee Teegarden

Thank you for helping on Aimee's page, I got my edits reverted two times on that page. Zolo6 —Preceding comment was added at 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Aimee really wants me to edit her page since I'm in Demolay.Zolo6- July 11 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I get you don't worry and I read all the rules, it took me 20 minutes in total, but I know all the rules and editing rules too. --Zolo6 (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Methodist Episcopal Church (disambiguation)

Crossposted to both user talkpages.

Y'all don't edit war now, ya hear? Talk this one over. GRBerry 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of reverting again. Zero intention. If Clariosophic is so unconvinced as to revert again, I would take it to talk. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

moons of Jupiter

My original post on User talk:Nergaal: Hi Nergaal. Would you please explain your reversion of my edits? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

simiple: they did not make sense, and if they did, they were poorly written; and furthermore, they did not summarize the article well. Also, you should notice that the article is undergoing a wp:FAC right now so please be aware of it before making substantial changes. Suggestions are welcome, but again, they layout you proposed did not make sense for a FA. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please give an example of something that you thought "did not make sense" or was "poorly written". As for summarizing the article, my purpose was to add to the Introduction some important concepts that should be brought out more prominently, not to remove anything from it. Please name an important point in the Introduction that is missing from my version. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Given your lack of response to the above (and I know you've seen it, since you've edited), I have gone ahead and restored my edits. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the wording a bit, and added a [transition] comment where it's more disjointed than I cared to fix. kwami (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kwami. I was going to ask for your input, but you beat me to it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but I did not have time to give a detailed feedback to your edit. I sincerely hate doing this, since instead of actually contributing I ahve to explain my actions and make other users understand.
  1. this is a wp:FLC and in a week nobody of being listed there, nobody has raised any questions. In my opinion this should mean that the work is pretty much close to being featured, i.e. "about teh best that wikipedia has to offer"
    please read wp:INTRO
    please don't bother creating one sentence paragraphs or intros with one short sentence paragraphs
    check kwami's edits; he tried to fix your version, and it STILL needs work
    please read wp:flc

Peace, Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being more constructive, Nergaal. I didn't mean to make trouble during an FLC. I know that such panels can be unpredictable and even irrational, and if you and Kwami really think that this instability is endangering the FA, I wouldn't mind going back to the old version and revisiting my additions in a week or two. Do that yourself if you think it necessary, as I am going to bed after I write this. I have tried to fix the problems you enumerated. The first paragraph is still a single sentence, but it is a bit beefier than it was. I actually thought my original opening sentence/paragraph was punchy and to the point, but I'm sure FAC has its own conventions that you can't buck if you want to get anywhere (though I'm not finding specific coverage of the issue in WP:LEAD or WP:FA?). If you're going to keep my version, then the "regular sats" and "irregular sats" paragraphs need to each be self-contained for purposes of parallelism. I tried to fix the transition to the last two paragraphs, which basically remain as I found them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
All right, here's a reference on the no-single-sentences rule. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with mediation

I think your input is exactly what I am looking for. "Impartial" is difficult to pin down sometimes. Perhaps better than impartial, you can see the subject from more than one side and offer suggestions. Once a day is more than sufficient. Once a week would be plenty. My own objective is to move the editing process of the article forward so that it is eventually not divided between promotional and critical but integrates information in a realistic manner. Admittedly, I've chosen touchy subjects, but I think they are historically significant. Certainly, there is no lack of published material to warrant inclusion. Also, as this material is worked through, I hope this will tip the editing process in a more fruitful direction. Don Van Duyse (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel article and mediation

Thanks for the offer, BlueMoonlet, but it has become obvious to me that, when it comes to religion (especially Christianity), the rules suddenly become skewed. Someone who is employed by a university, for example, may be considered an "expert" on the subject, while someone who attends a church that is part of a larger fellowship has their neutrality questioned? Nonetheless, the issue I had with all the 9/11 blather is that it was all about Chuck Smith, not Calvary Chapel. Smith doesn't speak for every church that is part of the fellowship (technically it's not a denomination, as it does lack some of the support system a typical denomination has). His beliefs on a particular item don't seem to be a reliable part of the article, any more than Lee Iacocca's opinion of a hospital would be worth placing into an article about the hospital or Chrysler.

Still, with the neutrality question thrown up, the credibility of anything related to Christianity on Wikipedia has plummeted farther and faster than any stock has done lately. Meanwhile, I've got better things to do than to check Wikipedia every hour for a comment on something; if a 24-hour period is too long for a "consensus," then I'll never be part of the consensus. Why bother? --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

CC & Bob Coy

Saw your note on the edits. Agree that it would be nice if he had a page. I believe he used to have one but it was very poorly written, or maybe that was part of the church link all along. Some reasons I believe he deserves listing as a prominent pastor of CC.

- senior pastor of the largest church (not just largest Calvary) in Florida - CC Ft. L has its own wiki page - consistent speaker at yearly Southeast Calvary Chapel pastor's conferences (and possibly others) - guest teacher at Billy Graham's "The Cove" training center. Next event here: - launched Christian radio station ReachFM (currently with repeaters throughout Florida), also with its own Wiki page

Thoughts? (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So his church is notable (and has a page) and owns a radio station (who doesn't?) and he speaks at conferences (who doesn't?). Does he (not his church or radio station) receive significant coverage from reliable sources? My standards may be higher than most people's, but at least I don't see a reason to link to him if he doesn't have a page. My argument is that a list like that could get unmanageably long if we don't have a clear place to draw the line. But this is all my opinion, not WP policy.
The page history at Bob Coy shows the page was created as a redirect on 12 April 2007 and has not been edited since. It may be that a former page dedicated to Coy was deleted before April 2007. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Can you please cite a reference for your addition? Amandajm (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I got the info from Giotto mission. Looking at the ELs on that page, here is a ref from ESA's website. Note that my wording says that Giotto "is thought to have been inspired" by Halley's comet (ESA clearly thought so), without judging whether in fact he was. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1994 CC's moonlets

Hello, BlueMoonlet. I am just curious why you didn't like the use of word "moonlet" throughout the 1994 CC article (esp. given it is a part of your nick, j/k ;)) ? Is it due to seemingly unofficial status of the word moonlet or since it's an asteroid moon (which you wikified, but the display word could still remain a moonlet since it's used quite frequently as a term for small moons, and no doubt will be adopted officially eventually)? It kind of makes sense to describe these two as moonlets as they are squite small compared to the main asteroid's size. I also saw a common use of the word to describe small Saturnian moons embedded in its rings and perturbing the material in them as references on the Moonlet's wiki article and the externally referenced Google books search for the word. Why does it have to come from a professional astronomer to call a small moon a moonlet? I don't think the "professional astronomer" status or lack thereof makes one more or less qualified to call small moons moonlets. Just like it's not required to have a status of a professional programmer/developer/software engineer to call small scripts as scriptlets, small server components servlets, small applications as applets, etc. Granted, I am a far cry from a pro astronomer, but that should not disqualify me before you using this simple word in my edits. I do my reading, too. --Mokhov (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mokhov. As the article states, "moonlet" is an informal term, and as such I would discourage its use. Generally, people call something a "moonlet" because they see it as small and cute, but in that case why not use the more precise term "moon"?
Precision in language is important, especially in an encyclopedia. You may have heard that there has been controversy regarding the definition of "planet". Well, if the word "moonlet" becomes more widely used, eventually there may have to be some wrangling over the difference between a "moon" and a "moonlet". Whatever the conclusion of such a discussion would be (I have my opinions, but won't discuss them here), it certainly will not be that we should call something a "moonlet" simply because it is small and cute.
Regarding your last question, I am sure that you are very well-read in astronomy, but Wikipedia relies on not the opinions of editors like you or me but on reliable sources. As I've said, I would discourage the use of the word "moonlet" in many cases, at least those for which "moon" would do just as well. But when a reliable source uses the word, then it is appropriate for WP to make note of the fact. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Surely reliable sources are of great importance and that's what I used. Of course if NASA, JPL and their other units' scientists and the like are not reliable sources, then I recant. Otherwise, it's used all over their articles and publications. Is it not a reliable source to you? Of course, the particular NASA report on 1994 CC did not use the word moonlet per se, it's still quite a common place in their other articles, so it is natural to use it. The meaning of moonlet as I read and see it, is just a "small moon", no "cute" part in there. Using your precision argument, "moonlet" is a lot more readable and precise than "moon" when one needs to qualify a small family of moons than their larger or much larger counter parts. It immediately gives the reader a cue that it is a rather small object relative to the parent's body as opposed to a medium-to-large one. --Mokhov (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
For a technical topic such as this, it is the scholars and scientists who are the reliable sources. NASA press releases and the like are useful for many things, but you do have to understand that they are written not by scientists but by the media relations office and are intended for the media. For a potentially controversial topic such as this, I would prefer to stick with the scholarship.
According to the article, the moons of 1994 CC are no less than 1/20 the size of the parent body (in terms of diameter). The non-Galilean satellites of Jupiter are all less than 1/300 the size of their parent body, and no one calls them "moonlets". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I guess I will leave it at that for now, until the term becomes more prominent --Mokhov (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
...otherwise we have a discussion on the topic that is longer than the two articles on 1994 CC and Moonlet combined... --Mokhov (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


I shall get in touch again with Dr. T. and explain somethings about Wikipedia about Wikipedia. It will be better if I deal with this. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

I responded to your response on Calvary Chapel's government. I know it's a little late. I forgot about it until I was browsing through the talk page and saw your response! Ltwin (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kahoolawe

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, BlueMoonlet. You have new messages at Talk:Kahoolawe.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viriditas (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Barnstar-atom3.png The E=mc² Barnstar
I see your work on my watchlists all the time. Thank you for your dedication to improving scientific topics on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That's very kind, Firsfron. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hillman College

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hillman College. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillman College. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cy Young Award

My concern is thatif all you are doing is comparing the two lists, then you have used Wikipedia as a source, and it is not conisdered reliable. All information that is likely to be challenged must be cited, and since this is featured content, and soon to be part of a featured topic which the baseball project has worked long and hard on, there can't be any question as to whether the information is verified, or how. It needs to have a source to be included. Additionally, overlinking was a concern, and I would have simply de-linked if that was the only issue that I saw. If you do plan to re-insert the information, please be sure and check to see that you haven't duplicated any links from earlier in the lead or other prose. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! KV5 (TalkPhils) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A comparison of lists would certainly be fine, as it does verify the information. A specific cite would be best for Valenzuela. KV5 (TalkPhils) 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Kepner quote

Hi. This discussion is worthwhile, but it belongs on the article's Talk page, not in a personal back-and-forth. if you'd like to launch a thread there, I'll be happy to respond. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • "Egregious" does indeed suggest that the call was obviously wrong. That is representative of the previaling view of authoritative sources. I don't believe the distinction between "at the time" and "later" is particularly raised by the word, not particularly relevant in this instance. I am certain that the word doesn't suggest anything about what is or is not "forgivable".
  • But that is not even the primary meaning of the word in this context. I read it as primarily characterizing not the nature of the call, but its historic effect—the denial of what would have been only the 21st perfect game in history. That is very clear from reading Kepner's entire article. There have surely been other calls botched as badly as Joyce's in the last quarter-century, but none of those have had nearly the impact on baseball history. I think that is indeed the sense that the article currently conveys.
  • I disagree with your statement "However, it is not at all clear that another umpire in Joyce's position could not have easily done the same thing". ESPN, for instance, states as a matter of fact, "First baseman Miguel Cabrera cleanly fielded Jason Donald's grounder to his right and made an accurate throw to Galarraga covering the bag. The ball was there in time" ([4]). From that article, the ones already cited, the new ones linked on the Talk page, and the commentary I've heard on television, the consensus is clear that this was not an exceptionally close play and that any major-league umpire, including the well-respected Joyce, would have gotten the call right the vast majority of the time.
  • I don't believe your statement that "no one who has actually been an umpire is saying things of this sort makes me doubt the quote's pertinence" is relevant. It's extremely rare for umpires to criticize each other. I also don't believe your statement is entirely accurate. Don Denkinger, for instance, said of Joyce's reaction to the play, "obviously he didn't see it properly" ([5]).
  • I agree with your statement that "the general sense of the quotes I'm reading from baseball folks of all kinds, including present members of the Tigers, is more that Joyce is a good umpire who did his best job given his limitations", but I don't see its pertinence. We can all agree that Joyce is a very good umpire who, as he himself said, happened to "kick the shit" out of this call.
  • I disagree with your statement that "this quote is the somewhat inflammatory opinion of a single (quote-hungry?) pundit". Kepner is not a columnist—the sort of job naturally aligned with aspirations to punditry—but a baseball beat reporter. I don't see the quote as inflammatory at all, but rather an attempt to put this event that has attracted so much attention into a historical context—both for its effect on the record books and for the way it has attracted scrutiny. I think it's quite useful in that regard.—DCGeist (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Improper venues

Given the amount of time you've spent on Wikipedia, you have no excuse for not knowing better than to make the edit you did to perfect game under the rationale you offered. You're unhappiness with my "tone" is de minimis in comparison. No more personal communications about this, please. Let's keep it on the article Talk pages where it belongs.—DCGeist (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Rollback.svg

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

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. —DoRD (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Greene

Hey Blue. I prefer the old wording in the Alvin Greene article. Would you consider reverting? Identifying that an election outcome would be historic doesn't violate any policy. So no reqording was necessary. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording is preferable. Tarc has a point in that WP:CRYSTAL says "expected future events should only be included if the event is... almost certain to take place," and Greene's election to the Senate is clearly no such thing. Thus, to be encyclopedic, the text should focus on the present and not the future. But I certainly don't expect my effort to be the last word, and I'm happy to continue the discussion, though it would be preferable to do so on the article talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no speculation involved. They are campaigning for the position and a win would establish the historic mark. It is appropriate to note it just as any attempt to set a new mark can be noted if it is significant and reported in reliable independent sources. The encyclopedia is full of articles on attempts and trials some of which succeed and some that don't. It's like saying we couldn't report on someone trying to be the first person on Mars because it hasn't happened yet. Or we can't say Kobe is trying to win another championship because we don't know if he will win. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what you say here. It seems to me that it is a better argument for my revised text than for the original. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As long as you agree with me, that's the important thing. ;) Thanks for your consideration. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Good catch on the fact that Greene would be the first black Senator from SC, period. Thanks for correcting the record. JTRH (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted your removal of the CN tag on the statement that Greene is the first black major-party nominee in SC ever. The source cited by the existing footnote (Washington Post) incorrectly says "first since Reconstruction." I'm looking for a source that accurately says "ever," and the CN tag is only there until I find one, but as yet it's an uncited statement. Thanks for your understanding. JTRH (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I just responded on the article's talk page to your comments re the issue above. And again, good catch on the fact that SC had no black Senators even during Reconstruction. That's actually what motivated me to make the change. JTRH (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
My source got back to me. Parties did nominate candidates prior to the popular election of Senators, so "since Reconstruction" is accurate. "Ever" probably can't be documented from the available information. Sorry again if I seemed to be provoking an edit war. JTRH (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


To the left of the search bar? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Better to start over. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. They made it an icon, so that a text search can't find it anymore. Progress. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident lead work thanks

Hi, thank you for looking over our intro to the article. I am one of the primary editors on the article and after letting it set for a couple weeks due to real life commitments I noticed multiple minor copy edit issues that I (we) had become immune to after working on it so hard. I've been purposely staying away from it as much as possible, other then monitoring it for damage, so I can tackle some of the issues I think it still has with a fresh set of eyes. I welcome any other fresh eyes who would like to help touch it up. Thanks again for your contribution. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the good word. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Martyn Minns

Hi BlueMoonlet. As the creator of the redirect at Martyn Minns, you may have an interest in, or a contribution to make at, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bolman Deal/Martyn Minns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe. I appreciate that very much. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:British royal titles

Hello. In your last edit to this template, you said "This template is not for links to individuals, but links to titles." The problem is, that's impossible to do consistently for the female titles. Only Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of York, and Duchess of Rothesay meet your standard. Duchess of Cambridge and Countess of Wessex are both redirects to articles about the current holders of those titles. Duchess of Gloucester is a redirect to an article about the ducal title. And Duchess of Kent is a disambiguation page, which is not supposed to be the target of incoming links. (Perhaps the problem is not so much the link being in the template, as the fact that having a disambiguation page at this title is not a very good idea.) Any thoughts? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Russ. This is a navbox. Its purpose is not to be exhaustive, but to help people navigate easily to pages they might want to see. If there is no substantial page for those titles, then they just shouldn't be listed. I'll do that and you can see how it looks to you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks good now, and agree with your rationale. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit: Christian Science

Good clarification. Many thanks. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

From looking at the talk page archive, I see you you were a voice of moderation at Calvary Chapel some time ago. Care to weigh in there again? Mojoworker (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to register my appreciation for once again being a voice of moderation on the most recent dispute. --Esquire880 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Go pound sand

Oh wait, you already are. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed reversal on CC page

Would you be open to reverting your recent change on the CC page? I agree with your point in the edit summary; however, I thought leaving it would help smooth things over and it was also going to be a reminder to me research and provide references when I have some time. (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. I was taking action against seeing tags as a permanent solution, but I'm happy to leave it there if you are actually going to take action on it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That is my plan. Now I just need to stick to it.  :) Thanks for the help, not only with this minor item but also the other unpleasantness. (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Done, and cleaned/added others, too. (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tausch, A. (2011).

Please read Tausch, A. (2011) before blindly reverting prose. I correctly represented the source's actual research, which wasn't a quality ranking at all. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to get upset about it. You reverted my edit while giving your counter-argument. That's the way it's supposed to work. If the consensus ends up going your way, then fine. If not, I hope you'll say the same. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The gang, those Little Rascals.

(response to your query) -- Yes, BlueMoonlet, gang mentality.

Here is another example of a zealous follower's comments. I have not looked into the news reports at all, I just googled "Calvary Chapel gang mentality" and clicked on one of the many links. From what the Calvary Follower posted, it looks like a fellow Calvary Chapelite was charged with some kind of sexual misconduct. The follower's response starts with a childish rhetoric, and is truly difficult to accept -- "winning" a sex abuse case? Really? Does anyone "win" a lawsuit? His quote,

"Alex is cruisin’ 4 a bruisin’... Let me just say Bob Coy didn’t dodge a bullet, he won the sex abuse suit and it really doesn’t matter how because when CCFTL is at war, all is fair in love and war, anything goes, nothing is out of bounds and he has boat loads of resources and influence..." [6]

You should do some more research. But I will say, you bring up a good thought. I'll have to research the psychology of gangs and how they come about, who follows them, and such. Thanks again for your post and query. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not find the quote you give here at the URL you supplied. Perhaps you would like to be more specific about your source. [ ce: Actually, I just found it fairly easily here. If you look at the comments following the one you quote, you'll see that the other commenters, led by the website owner, generally interpreted it as over-the-top satire. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC) ]
Secondly, if your point is that there are CC-affiliated people who are badly behaved on the Internet, that is neither news nor necessarily any reflection on CC. There is a reason why we insist on reliable sources around here, because you can find yahoos saying just about anything, if you look hard enough.
Thirdly, what you said was not simply that some CC folks act like a gang, but was a clear reference (as it seems to me) to the editors of the Calvary Chapel article. We can discuss that further if you claim you were somehow talking about interaction with real-life CC people and not about WP. But unless I am mistaken, that is a personal attack and is inappropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call

This. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you found it helpful. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


Try this - However, I am planning to scrap this whole section, in order to replace it with "the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom of France", essentially an English translation of a section of this French Wikipedia article "Querelles dynastiques françaises." Emerson 07 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

Thanks for your message. I see that you also left a message for Ed. As he is an administrator and has access to tools I don;'t have, I'll leave the checking to him, if that's ok with you. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume that I also received the same message. I am concerned with the editing of that article, but I haven't followed it closely enough to form a definitive opinion. As for the possibility of sock puppetry, there are various ways of establishing it. Behavioral evidence is the best, and if there is sufficient evidence it may justify a technical "checkuser" investigation. Suitable behavioral evidence includes things like maknig the same edits or arguments, using similar language, similarities in the time of editing, etc. See WP:SOCK, WP:SIGNS, and WP:SPI for more information. If you see any edit warring please report that immediately.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Leigh Steinberg

Made the changes I talked about. Thanks for dropping a line & making suggestion. Tapered (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crisis pregnancy center. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Note that Crisis pregnancy center falls under the 1RR situation of all abortion topics. The talk page declares the 1RR condition. Only one revert is allowed per person per day. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't believe this is appropriate. I have made only one revert on this page ever. I made an edit yesterday evening, User:Roscelese reverted it with some reasoning in the edit summary. I then redid my edits, with some modification and with reasoning in return in my edit summary.
I am proud of my long and clean record as a Wikipedian, and I hope you will either clarify or remove this notice. Thank you, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Notices such as the one I submitted above are a warning to prevent you from being blocked, to give you pause before making another revert. They can also be posted so that you have a chance to self-revert and avoid problems. Finally, they are a necessary step before your behavior is discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
I saw that you shifted the focus away from abortion only, you were reverted, then you again shifted the focus away from abortion only. You also changed "many" to "some", you were reverted, then you again changed "many" to "some". This is clearly the kind of behavior that is called edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate your concern, the first was unnecessary, as I was aware of the policy and have followed it. The second is also unnecessary, as I have caused no problems and have no need to self-revert. As for the third, checking off a box so that you can shuffle me off to AN does not exactly seem like a good-faith attempt to keep peace and harmony, and in fact it would seem intimidating if I were more inexperienced, though of course I'll assume you meant it in the best possible way.
In both of the cases you cite, I altered my edit to accommodate the objections of the person who had reverted me, and attempted to clear up any misunderstandings with my edit summaries. Surely you wouldn't suggest that some people are entitled to a revert while others are not? As for the substance of the debate, I'll post on the article talk shortly. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

What part of "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" did you fail to comprehend? Nowhere does WP:V states or imply that you "you must at least suspect untruth before deleting".

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I am the one who fails to comprehend something? I would suggest more humility than that.
I invite you to contemplate that WP:V does state that "in practice you do not need to attribute everything" and that citations are required for "quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged" (emphasis in original). These quotes seem clearly to me to say that you cannot remove information solely because it is unsourced. What does it mean for a statement to be "challenged"? Again, it seems clear to me that there must be at least a suspicion that it is untrue or unfair or otherwise inappropriate for WP. If you indeed think that about the statements in question, then by all means let's discuss it. But simply removing information that is likely factually true, for no reason other than that it is unsourced, is destructive. Please help me to improve, rather than just remove, such text. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
And if I may add my two cents here: asking someone 'what did you fail to comprehend' is aggressive, arrogant, and not likely to score any cordiality points from your fellow editors. (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

John C. Whitcomb

Could you please cease and desist inserting claims that are not WP:Verifiable to their cited source -- this is particularly problematical as your claims about the CRS & ICR being formed in response to the book are patently false -- the former was in the process of being formed well before publication (see chapter in The Creationists), the latter was founded by its co-author.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the beginning of chapter 11 of The Creationists indicates that, while Lammerts was indeed working to gather people together on the topic in the 1950s, he did not gain significant traction until sometime in 1961 and it was another "year and a half" before the CRS was founded. This is consistent with CRS' own website, which states that it was founded in 1963.
But really, those details are beside the point. This is another example of your tendency to remove rather than improve, not to mention your aggressive and hostile demeanor in doing so. My purpose in adding the language you have twice reverted was obviously to give more attention to how TGF revitalized the young-Earth creationist movement (and that is a cited statement). Why not help the text make that point more appropriately, rather than just removing text right and left? Please help me to actually improve articles, rather than wiki-lawyering. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sara Diamond reviews

Among others, [7], [8], [9]Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat relatedly, I enjoyed editing with you on the CPC article - let me know if there are any projects you want help with. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You know what, I had just been contemplating sending a similarly nice message to you. We may have some very different perspectives on issues, but it's a joy to find someone who is willing to work through the issues with rational discussion. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
:) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to work on the CPC article some more, there are a bunch of proposals in the talk page and its archives made by myself and others for improving the article. One thing you might be interested in, that has been suggested, is including demographics of CPC clients (how many there are, age, income, etc. etc.) If you'd happen to know any sources that could be used, that would be super - we have this, but we should probably rely on multiple sources (and non-agenda ones if possible, but I'm not sure how possible that would be). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I may very well come back to that page sometime. But given that I don't actually have a lot of time for editing, my editing tends to be reactive (while reading, I see something that needs work and work on it) rather than pre-planned. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


Edmund Burke2 c.jpg Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism.
Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


I wanted to thank you for finishing updating the finacial info on the Chipotle Mexican Grill article. I started it, but didn't have time to finish. Thanks again! Angryapathy (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi Blue, I apologize if my edit summary seemed accusatory. To answer the rest of your questions, the plot summary (any movie plot summary) needs to be short (within WikiProject Film guidelines) and to the point, and it's been a constant struggle to keep it within those bounds. Also, the Plot summary is not a place for emphasizing or interpreting details, or reading the filmmakers minds or pointing out one's own reactions. For instance, your mentioning to me that "My thought was that the first part of the passage (about the 'nations') is highly relevant to the sacrifice Liddell is making at that moment, and that the juxtaposition of what Abrahams and Montague are doing while Liddell is in church reading this passage is important to the effect of this scene, which is arguably the climax of the movie (I certainly wouldn't suggest every scene in the movie be described in this amount of detail)" -- all of that is your personal reaction to and interpretation of the film. These sorts of cherry-picking of details and deciding what the point or climax or meaning of the film is, is not what the Plot summary is for. I hope that makes sense. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

All right. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted reorg on abortion title RFC

I would obviously prefer not to, but if you need me to I'll go point by point on why I reverted this edit of yours. Let me know. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I just thought I was being helpful, as it sure seemed to me that a lot of those arguments were not about the word "movement" but about the larger issue. Are you saying that every one of those arguments is actually about the word "movement"? Or are you saying that arguments in those spaces should not be confined to the word "movement"? No need for gory detail, I should think. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that each of those arguments is specific to the section it's under, for one reason or another. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, more detail than that, please. The overall section is about whether pro-choice/pro-life is a good idea, and the two sub-sections are about whether the word "movement" should be added to the end of each title. Do you agree? So the place where I was putting things is the proper place for arguments about whether pro-choice/pro-life is a good idea, and the place from which I was taking things is the proper place for arguments about the word "movement". Do you agree? So either you think the arguments in those spaces are about the word "movement", or you disagree with something in the previous several sentences. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
That isn't how I look at it. It isn't "about pro-choice/pro-life", then "about the word movement". It's one section for arguments that are about each final title set. That is, the arguments under pro-choice/pro-life are arguments for or against using those titles, full stop, and the arguments under pro-choice movement/pro-life movement are for or against using those titles, considered as final entities. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
So, for example, the argument that's about how pro-choice movement/pro-life movement set a coherent scope for the articles doesn't generalize, because the main problem with pro-choice/pro-life is that it doesn't set that coherent scope. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Why then does the first section have the heading "Arguments and policies common to all variations" while the later sections have the heading "Additional arguments and policies regarding <variation>" (emphasis mine)? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Those are arguments that do apply equally well to each variation. They aren't about the specific titles pro-choice/pro-life, they're about all the options under the overarching section. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
But the overarching section is "Arguments and policies regarding titles including 'Pro-choice' and 'Pro-life,'" is it not? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, yeah. I'm not clear on why that is (or was, I suppose) problematic. "Titles including pro-choice and pro-life" encompasses both sub-options. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, you have convinced me that the word "movement" is needed, so I would support (as the person who added it in the first place) removing the option that lacks the word "movement", for the purposes of presenting clear and streamlined choices to the full RFC. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be great. I would only suggest that the arguments under pro-choice/pro-life be preserved on the talk page so people can easily refer to the reasons why the option was discarded. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. Why don't you do it yourself, and save us both the trouble of you fixing my imperfect way of doing it?  ;) -- BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Ouch. :) I'll bandage my injured OCD and do so. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no offense intended. I'm actually glad you're doing the job you've been doing. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't offensive, it just made me a little self-conscious. :) Thanks for the kind words. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: CPCs

I rearranged it because, since the article is about centers that counsel women not to have abortions (rather than non-directive counseling like the government centers), it was potentially confusing to describe the government centers first and give the impression that they were the same sort of center as the American, Canadian, etc. ones that we discuss for most of the article. What do you think? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There may be a definition problem here. If the article defines CPCs only as centers that counsel people exclusively against abortion, then it is implicitly saying that CPCs are not fully what they say they are (centers to help people in crisis pregnancies). The Irish government centers actually use "crisis pregnancy" in their names, so it seems perverse not to prominently discuss them, though I agree that we could more prominently mention the difference in their focus from stateside CPCs. Also, it seems that first discussing the government centers is necessary to provide the context within which the "rogue centers" can be understood. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. good edit. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article defines CPCs as anti-abortion counseling centers because that's the definition in neutral, reliable sources. I don't think the name is an issue - CPC people do think they're helping people with crisis pregnancies by trying to persuade them not to have abortions, because they believe abortion is morally wrong and may even believe the medical misinformation they pass on. We have a separate article on the sort of thing the Irish government does, the non-directive stuff - pregnancy options counseling. I see your point about context, but I'm not sure how to give information on legit centers first without effectively saying to the reader "in Ireland, centers that counsel people against having abortions are government-run." –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I see the point. The text should make the distinction more strongly than it currently does, and it may even be right to lead with the anti-abortion centers. On the other hand, leading with the "rogue centers" sentence was jarring and struck me as unencyclopedic name-calling.
The situation might be helped if we knew more about the "rogue centers". The PACT source seems interested only in denouncing them, and the Times source is behind a paywall, so I know very little. Who supports and runs these centers? What is their own stated purpose? What evidence is there for any misconduct? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It might be harder to find information that comes from the centers themselves (since they seem to be more stigmatized than in the USA, Canada, etc. they might be less willing to disclose that their counseling is directive) but I can try to rustle up some more newspaper and government sources. That might be the best we can do. Your point about rearranging so as not to lead with "rogue agencies" is fine. (I also thought about adding a "definitions" section near the beginning, but I'm not sure how helpful it'd be since CPC/PCC seems to be used to refer to the anti-abortion agencies everywhere but in Ireland - we might make it seem as though the term is more ambiguous than in fact it is.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I remembered that we have two more news sources on Ireland in the medical misinformation section! I'll use those to expand the Ireland section. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I expanded the section with the other Ireland-related sources I remembered and/or found. However, the need to explain the whole situation about real agencies and rogue agencies means that we give a lot more detail than would otherwise be warranted in a "government funding" section, and that detail is either redundant to (the medical misinformation) or should be redundant to (the advertising-as-related-to-British-clinics should really be in "advertising") other sections of the article. How do you suggest we deal with that? Is there another place we could merge all of the funding stuff to? "Legal and legislative action" looks like a possible target - maybe "funding," not split by country, could be a subhead of that. Do you think that would work? It would also provide a more comfortable home for the facts about the DoH's non-regulation of rogue agencies, etc. (Would you reconsider avoiding the term "rogue agencies"? It's the term used by the CPP (government counseling agency) as well as the news media. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a big improvement. The extra context makes it acceptable to use the "rogue agencies" wording. I think the Irish situation is unique enough that having the information there is helpful because it's relevant to the story. But maybe you want to put details somewhere else. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you're definitely right that the context is important. I think I'll retitle the legal/legislative section "legal status" so that we can include the information on Ireland in it (might not do as a full subsection - maybe just in the head of the section) and merge the rest of the funding section in. I'd remove the redundant stuff on medical misinformation (we should be able to make it clear that the "rogue agencies" are like American etc. CPCs in the ways described elsewhere) and put the advertising-as-related-to-British-clinics under advertising. That way, there will be context where it is needed, but no redundancy or information that doesn't really belong in a section. (Well, there's still the information about how many Irish women encounter the rogue agencies, but the right section for that - on statistics of people who visit CPCs - still hasn't been written.) Do you think that's a good idea? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lord of The Dance


Making an excellent, epic and very popular song into a debate about anti-semitism because of some obscure Quaker publication is completely "non-encyclopedic." Please refrain from simply cancelling out my edits from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you know nothing about a subject and don't care enough to properly investigate it, you really shouldn't be screwing with other people's edits, which you seem to not have even bothered to read or appreciate the value of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Blanking an entire section, without leaving any notes as to your reasons for doing so, is a good way to get mistaken for a vandal. Please use edit summaries to let other editors know what you are doing and why, especially if you are removing large blocks of text.
  • The song's qualities as "excellent, epic and very popular" are irrelevant. If there is a legitimate controversy that is attested by reliable sources, then we must discuss it. On the other hand, you make a reasonable point about the encyclopedicity of the cited sources. I am willing let it go for now and see if anyone else objects.
  • I object to your accusation that I "know nothing about [the] subject and don't care enough to properly investigate it." I have been editing this page, and many others, for quite some time. I did what I did because your edits bore the marks of someone who was not a serious editor. I am glad now to learn otherwise, but in turn I would ask you to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. You can use this markup to withdraw comments you have made on a talk page.
Shall we start fresh and be friends? Unless you have philosophical objections to doing so (I've known a few who do), I encourage you to create an account. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, I confess my statements were a bit harsh, but I feel strongly that you failed to give adequate consideration to what you were doing: First, the argument you are levying against my original edits commits two logical fallacies: the first is a red herring "appeal to motive," and the second is a form of "damning the source," a form of ad hominem. Second, I deleted nothing in my original set of edits-- I added. And you deleted all of my work, without comment.

I reserve the right to not bother with edit summaries. I do not necessarily have time for that. Edit summaries are not a requirement for Wikipedia editing (in case you have not noticed), nor should they be. In most cases, good edits should speak for themselves.

The problem with your statement "If there is a legitimate controversy that is attested by reliable sources, then we must discuss it" lies in the definition of "legitimate controversy." Relevancy is a clear prerequisite to legitimacy. I cannot respond directly to your statement 'The song's qualities as "excellent, epic and very popular" are irrelevant,' because I do not know what you are talking about. If, however, you are saying that those qualities are, as a blanket statement, or as relates to their presence on Wikipedia, irrelevant, then I completely disagree with you: those qualities are exactly why the song has its own Wikipedia page, and also exactly why it should continue to do so, and, as necessarily follows, why said page should be concise, well written, and relevant to the actual subject. If, on the other hand, you are saying that qualities of excellence, etc., do not make something immune to controversy or the legitimate dissemination of knowledge thereof, then I completely agree-- the truth should speak for itself. Yet, in the writing of an article, one must take into account the reader of the article, and the holistic intellectual impression the reader will get from the entire article. And this is not only the impression of the single article, but of Wikipedia's ability to provide information on such things, and Wikipedia as a whole. If Wikipedia becomes filled with completely meaningless crap, and despite countless edits, no one makes any effort to deal with that, then it is not a very good reference source, and the critics are indeed right.

In response to your objection to my "accusation," I withdraw my statement that you "know nothing about the subject." I withdraw it based solely on the fact that I have insufficient information to make the claim. I'm afraid I can't withdraw the statement that you didn't care enough to adequately investigate. It was not a personal attack, but a legitimate statement of well-reasoned perspective. As I have implied above, the claim of my not being "a serious editor" is actually adequately true, but does not excuse discounting my edits-- that's not how philosophical debate or democracy works. All humans are subject to the adrenaline rush to be gained from "helping" or "contributing," or "acting as an authority," and I'm well aware that Wikipedia feeds on that to a great degree. Objectively speaking, however, it is generally the number of edits that provides an adrenaline rush, but the quality of edits that provides light and truth to the world; unfortunately, quality and quantity of edit(s), if possessing any relation at all, are inverse variables.

As for the assumption of good faith you speak of, I find it utterly insane, and cannot grant your request.

Yes, probably, I should have my own Wikipedia profile. I believe I do have one, but I do not edit Wikipedia frequently enough that I remember what it is, or bother with it. I briefly edit about three Wikipedia pages a year.

Cheers, Tran — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not usually sufficient for edits to "speak for themselves". You must effectively communicate with your fellow editors to enable cooperation. Yes, it is possible for you to make edits without using edit summaries, but if you do so then you should be prepared for other editors to misunderstand you (see WP:ES), as happened in our case.
My point about the phrase "excellent, epic and very popular" is that those adjectives are subjective and unverifiable. The standard for whether a subject is worth having an article is whether the subject is WP:Notable.
Yes, it is true that you did not delete anything in your first set of edits. However, what you did do is add text that was scatological as well as nonsensical and also add the song's lyrics, which is a WP:Copyright violation. To me, this did not pass the smell test, so I reverted. The section blanking came next. All of these are mentioned in WP:Vandalism. I agree that this text could eventually be a useful addition to the article, if you can find appropriate WP:References.
I'm glad that you find it gratifying to contribute to Wikipedia, but real gratification should come from contribuing well, and to do that you need to conform your contribution to the established process of how Wikipedia works. I hope what I have written here will help you to do that. Finally, Assuming Good Faith is an indispensible part of how Wikipedia works, and you won't get very far if you can't find it in your heart. I might point out that I wouldn't have spent as much time as I have writing to you if I were not acting in good faith. What assurance do I have that you are doing the same? Given the anonymity of the Internet, not much (no offense, but I hope you can see it from my point of view), but I proceed anyway. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

>>>Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not usually sufficient for edits to "speak for themselves". You must effectively communicate with your fellow editors to enable cooperation. Yes, it is possible >for you to make edits without using edit summaries, but if you do so then you should be prepared for other editors to misunderstand you (see WP:ES), as happened in our case.

Oh, I was. This is not to the credit of the average Wikipedia editor, or to yourself, I'm afraid.

>>>My point about the phrase "excellent, epic and very popular" is that those adjectives are subjective and unverifiable.

Bullshit. I mean, yes, that may have been your point, but if so you are wrong, because that point is bullshit.

>>>The standard for whether a subject is worth having an article is whether the subject is WP:Notable.

Egotistical, elitist bullshit. That is not a standard, it is a code name; code names, basically, are for "in crowds", and your "in crowd" is not one I have a wish to be part of. More importantly, your wholly non-universal "standard" is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand-- you are arguing semantics, and I am not.

>>>Yes, it is true that you did not delete anything in your first set of edits. However, what you did do is add text that was scatological as well as nonsensical.

False. And there was a reference, although somehow it did not make it onto the version you point to. Quite possibly my error. There is a Society of the Moo (I know, because, I started it), and they have exactly the views I ascribed to them, and those views are *exactly* as relevant as those views published in the Quaker article.

>>>and also add the song's lyrics, which is a WP:Copyright violation.

Yes. I did do that. And in a highly questionable way, re: copyright protections, which do have some degree of importance. And I was not mindful of fairly just rules in this case. I am afraid you have me on this point. A well meaning error, however, and from an impartial perspective I would say it was fairly excusable given the context.

>>>To me, this did not pass the smell test, so I reverted. The section blanking came next. All of these are mentioned in WP:Vandalism.

Black text on a white background has no smell, insofar as I am aware. Excuse me, but are you a robot that checks things against keywords in the Wikipedia guidelines? Sorry, but that is not a very efficient way to write *good* Wikipedia articles, though I suppose it works well for avoiding the writing of really realllllly bad ones. Besides, the original set of edits-- not the blanking-- was "vandalism." Direct, pointed vandalism aimed at the pursuit, establishment, and dissemination of the truth, which it has effectively accomplished, for no other reason but that the truth always wins in the end. All of Wikipedia is vandalism, scandal, and graffiti. So is all human knowledge.

>>>I agree that this text could eventually be a useful addition to the article, if you can find appropriate WP:References.

WP:References says... "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source" ... which I did, or intended to do, though I cannot find a record of this.

>>>I'm glad that you find it gratifying to contribute to Wikipedia, but real gratification should come from contribuing well,

The pot backhandedly calleth the kettle black, me thinks.

>>>and to do that you need to conform your contribution to the established process of how Wikipedia works.

I most certainly do not need to do any such thing! And I will not. I will conform my contribution to my own common sense, and you and the thought police can go lock someone else up, because I will not be bound.

>>>I hope what I have written here will help you to do that.

Yeah, not really. Thanks, but no thanks.

>>>Finally, Assuming Good Faith is an indispensible part of how Wikipedia works, and you won't get very far if you can't find it in your heart.

As I already pointed out, I have plenty of faith in my heart in the "good faith" of human beings with their minds unfettered, and no faith at all in individual people who choose to abuse the power they have.

>>>I might point out that I wouldn't have spent as much time as I have writing to you if I were not acting in good faith.

Unless... unless you write out of some sadistic, condescending wish to prove that though you did something clearly wrong, you are in fact still right, and it is I that is in the wrong, and hence that needs to change. That's called blaming the victim, and a LOT of people really seem to enjoy it. I'm glad to hear it makes you feel good, but it's not quite the same thing as acting in good faith.

>>>What assurance do I have that you are doing the same?

None. But I don't actually care.

>>>Given the anonymity of the Internet, not much (no offense, but I hope you can see it from my point of view), but I proceed anyway. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, you're clearly trying very hard to be polite, I'll give you that. And I am definitely being a jackass. But that isn't really the point, is it? The point is the authorship and dissemination of the unbiased truth, and that is better facilitated by sarcasm, direct words, devil's advocacy and rule breaking than it is by robot thinking and courteous conformity, and you only emphasize that further every time you point at your guidebook. Anyway, I get that you're well-intended (most people are); you just happen to be wrong, and advocating for questionable ideals. That said, I have no wish to hurt your feelings further, so let us close this discussion. I won't say that I'll agree to simply disagree, but I'll agree to shut up for the moment on this particular subject if you will. Thank you for your contributions (the good ones, not the shit ones), and for your time; I have at least somewhat enjoyed this discussion. I am sure that the successful operation of Wikipedia hinges considerably more on people like you than it does on people like me.

Cheers, Tran — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to removal of "evangelical" from PCA wiki.

Hi Rcbrown. I would like to discuss your recent removal of the word "evangelical" (at least when referring to the article subject) from the Presbyterian Church in America article. While there are certainly elements in the evangelical community that many in the PCA would criticize, it seems to me that they are still part of that community, and that the word should be restored to the article. I'd be interested in your views on the subject, and particularly in your reasons for removing the word. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is reposted from User talk:Rcbrown1990.

Dear BlueMoonlet,
Thanks for the message! I'm a member of a PCA church in Baltimore, Maryland.
I definitely agree with you that the PCA does have evangelical elements in it. At many member churches (my church being one), the worship services are very similar to what you would find in Baptist churches. On the flip side of the coin, there are also many member churches that are very liturgical, almost Anglican in their worship services. The reason I removed the word (capital E) Evangelical was not because the PCA is not (small e) evangelical; we follow the Great Commission and proclaim the good news to awaken God's elect. I removed it because it is a buzz word with a lot of baggage attached to it. When most people hear Evangelical, they think Southern Baptist Convention or Bible Belt. The reason I felt it was a buzz word when I removed it is because there were many buzz words hiding throughout the article. For example, under History, it originally stated that the PCA seperated from the PCUS due to "conservative politics." A friend and I combed through the wiki to find words and sentences with unnecessary baggage attached, and removed/corrected them. I hope I'm making sense. Perhaps I went a bit too far in my efforts to "purge baggage," as the PCA IS a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.
God bless.
Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcbrown1990 (talkcontribs) 14:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Richard. I appreciate your reply. I think most of your edits are fine for now, but I think I will replace the word "evangelical" given (among other things) the NAE membership you noted. My sense of the term is much broader than Southern Baptists or the Bible Belt. Even liturgical Anglicans have an "evangelical" wing.
Please do be sure that you have read Wikipedia's core policies, especially those on verifiability and reliable sources. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

An Invitation

Edmund Burke2 c.jpg Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism.
Simply click here to accept! – User: John D. Rockerduck (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We certainly can use a editor of your caliber John D. Rockerduck (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On disabilities and differing abilities!

Hi BlueMoonlet (I love your user name :o) )

I just thought I'd pop over and say Hi on a friendly level, as I think you may possibly be viewing me / my views as confrontational and / or aggressive, and that's really not who I am!

I do think it's desperately important for non-Autism-spectrum people to internalise the idea that Autism-spectrum disorders which don't affect basic intelligence (or the appearance of it) doesn't mean being "disabled" in any way. Neurotypical and Autistic processing are just differences. (I've been a professional teacher, in my own sphere, for decades, and have taught a huge range of people with differing processing styles and abilities, so I'm really not talking off the top of my head here.)

Compared to neurotypicals, high-functioning autistics and Aspergers people have a "disability" only in terms of the kinds of intuitive interactions with others, and with language, that neurotypicals have. On the other side of the coin, and just as valid, is that neurotypicals have a "disability", compared to A-spectrummers, in data handling. Data storage, data processing, indexing, and rapid access. Each type has an area of dysfunctionality compared to the other type.

In the same way that A-spectrum editors can appear (to neurotypicals) to have seriously sub-standard levels of language and interaction processes, the neurotypicals appear (to high-functioning Aspie/auties, and to A-spectrum savants), to have almost-moronic levels of data processing. This is why we lose patience with each other so readily; it's virtually impossible for each type to be able to believe that the other type isn't being disruptive, or disingenuous, or dishonest (or "disabled"). I've found (for decades!) that one of the best parallels is to think of the two types as two different types of computers. One computer-type has a wonderfully intuitive user-interface, but comparatively lousy data-handling power. The other type has vast data-storage and data-processing powers, but a f*cking lousy (comparatively speaking) user interface. It's a simple case of each computer type coming pre-loaded with different software; not different power. I've found that there's a huge mythconception (I do love that neologism!) amongst neurotypicals about what autism-spectrum really is. That mythconception causes so many problems for all of us, and enlightened education is the only answer to it. So, in short, please don't equate autism with disability or intellectual incompetence! Neither HFA's nor neurotypicals are "thick" compared to the others. We're just different in where our processors direct the power. Pesky (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pesky. Thank you very much for your perspective. Though both of us are aware of it now, for future reference I will note that this is regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. I assume you are particularly referring to my comment on view 12.
Though I do appreciate and value your experience and perspective, I don't see my RfC comments as relying on any particular conception of autism-spectrum people. If a piece of writing is unclear, then it should be fixed because it is unclear, not particularly because A-spectrum people might misunderstand it. Conversely, if certain A-spectrum people are misunderstanding something even though it is clearly written, then (though, as you say, they may have all kinds of competences in other areas) that person probably should not be doing the kind of Wikipedia work that requires them to understand such things (which is not to say that they cannot contribute to Wikipedia at all).
To say again, my point is that it is clarity that is the operative issue; disability is not really relevant. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I just cross-posted much of my above reply to the discussion of view 12. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It was prompted by the discussion, but applicable to all sorts of areas! Yes, I totally agree with you that everything we have in our policies and guidelines should be clear! If we could only get the writing on our policy pages up to the standard required of articles at FA, we'd have solved the challenge. It kinda frustrates me that some of our most excellent writers just don't touch policy pages, where their skills are so badly needed. If something is really clearly written, then everyone should be able to understand it. Part of the trouble is that the English language, in particular, makes such use of idiom and alternative use of words that it can be very hard; people who aren't native speakers of English go to a translation dictionary and what we've said just doesn't translate properly. Simple things, like one from this short cartoon, where the sign says "Please take a seat," and Max takes one of the seats. Absolutely, literally, following the order. "Please sit down" is the better way of wording that one! I have professionally taught people of all kinds, for decades, and I've had to learn effective ways of instruction, for all types (including non-native English speakers). It does help! The biggest challenge we face in here is that what is "clear" for the writer isn't necessarily clear for the reader; but it's the way the writer was brought up with and processes language, and it's so natural for them that it's really virtually impossible for them to see how something could be misinterpreted. What we should really be aiming for is to word our policies in such a way that each phrase or instruction cannot have any other meaning than the one which was intended. An awful lot of people view autism-spectrum disorders as disabilities, but there are actually very few things which it really adversely affects (unless someone's right in the non-verbal area). Literalism is a big part of it. A-spectrum people work from literal precision, whereas neurotypicals predominantly use the human equivalent of fuzzy logic.

Mind you, the literalism thing does have its advantages; there's so much unintentional humour lurking in the world which can have A-spectrum people in fits of giggles. Like those notices which say "Part-time people wanted." That one will generally raise snickers from autie-types, just pondering what those individuals might be the rest of the time. Werewolves, perhaps? Pesky (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A same debate now at Edit request on 25 July 2012

There has been an edit request so the Chick-Fil-A debate you where a party is now in a differant section so your prevoius opinions might not be factored into the editors request for dispute resolution debate. thought you should know and check it out at Algonquin7 (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Like I said definate "improvement" good compromising skills keep it up and keep me grounded or who knows what I'll do Algonquin7 (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the sentiment very much, though I'd like to see the compromise actually take hold before receiving too many back-pats. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Well trying to compromise in such a contentious debate is still praiseworthy Algonquin7 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence, for your efforts above and beyond the call of duty in bringing forward valuable new sources at Talk:Chick-fil-A! Belchfire (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lord of the Dance hymn entry

Hi BlueMoonlet, this is Tran-- we quibbled over whether my un-noted blanking out of the "controversy" section of the Lord of the Dance hymn was legitimate or not a couple of months ago.

I am completely fucking amazed by people's continued desire to trash a perfectly good song and scribble over the Wikipedia article thereof in attempts to show that a song which is clearly not racist/prejudiced in intent or in fact has some aura of a plausible claim of being so. The reason why no organization notable enough to fit into a Wikipedia article has come out to criticize the song as anti-Semitic is that notable organizations tend to be notable for a reason and often do not like to throw away positive aspects of their notability by making claims that are clearly false to anyone who is noting what they are saying-- in other words, no one of interest has come out and made the claim because the claim is complete horse crap.

I do not understand the justification for this. I can see that your newest version is an attempt to stave-off less informed/articulate criticism, and I appreciate that.

I still think the "controversy" section is unwarranted. The first stanza of "Deutschlandlied" can be said to be controversial due to historical content. The second stanza of the same song is simply not. "Lord of the Dance" is not anti-semitic, it is not controversial, it is, for lack of a better description, a fucking narrative. If it is a narrative with a moral, the moral is most certainly not "the Jews are bad because it was Jews who killed christ," and in fact is ironically far closer in form to "people who cry 'racism' at every turn of the road are not just crying wolf, they are the wolves." Whether the story itself actually happened, or how it happened, I am inclined leave to the religious scholars, because the historians will never really know. But I will say that I think it is almost certainly clear that if Christ existed, he was a Jew. And that is not really controversial, either. A story that relates one Jew (set of Jews) having problems with another set of Jews cannot be said to be anti-Semitic unless it somehow says something bad about everyone involved... similarly the song in question cannot be said to be discriminatory except towards a real or hypothetical group of people that would rough someone up / kill them for healing the sick on the wrong day of the week. I am leaving the page basically alone for now, but will be periodically checking back and will probably be blanking the section again if it is "adjusted" such that it more obviously conflicts with the relevant facts.

Hi Tran. Although I might not express it in quite those terms, I generally agree with your perspective. We need to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:RS. The sourcing for the "Controversy" section is dubious enough that I have tagged it with [better source needed]. To go all the way and get rid of it, though, I think it would be helpful to have one or two other established editors take a look and offer their opinions. If they agree, then we're good. If not, then the section will probably have to stay. Shall I post a request for comment?
Finally, regarding your stated intention to blank the section periodically, please read WP:EW. It is important to reach a consensus and then (whatever it turns out to be) to abide by it. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Boston Globe articles on the ICOC

Hello there. You mentioned that you would e-mail electronic copies of Boston Globe articles concerning the ICOC to interested parties; well, I'm an interested party. Feel free to send them to me at Thanks, -Nietzsche123 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

World Baseball Classic

Hi BlueMoonlet,

I was wondering why you deleted my addition of the "Criticism" section to the World Baseball Classic article. I read through the Wikipedia guidelines and didn't feel that it was in violation of any of them. I've seen many articles with similar "Controversies" or "Criticism" sections. Perhaps I missed something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basically33 (talkcontribs) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Basically33. The words "per Talk" in my edit summary were meant to direct you to the article's talk page, where I explained my reasoning. If you want to discuss it further, you should do it on the article's talk page, not here, so that other interested editors can also take part. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nova Publishers

Dear BlueMoonlet,

I was wondering how I could gain access to the Nova Publishers page so that I can edit its contents. I work for Nova Publishers and would like to add some content regarding Book Reviews to our Wikipedia page. I am new to Wikipedia so I am really not familiar with how it works. It appears the page is semi-protected and that I need to contact the admin for this page. I would like to be able to make edits myself, if at all possible, since edits may be frequently. If so, please let me know what you may need from me.

Thank you! Pub Market (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pub Market. There is already some discussion of this on the thread you started at Talk:Nova Publishers. You really need to read WP:COI to understand your position at Wikipedia as an editor who is employed by the entity about which you wish to write. In general, Wikipedia policy as it applies to you is that you should not substantially edit the page directly. Rather, you should detail on the talk page the edits you would like to make and your reasons for them, which we other editors will evaluate and (if they are appropriate) implement. Please trust the process; we are reasonable people. If, on the other hand, you edit the page contrary to policy, most likely your work will simply be undone.
As for being able to edit semi-protected pages, according to WP:SEMI this requires your account to be at least four days old. You'll pass this milestone in about half an hour. But it also requires you to have made at least ten edits, and you have made only four. So I encourage you to find a topic completely separate from your employer (this would also help you avoid the label of WP:SPA) and start improving Wikipedia's coverage of that topic. There is a list of WikiProjects that might help you find something to do.
Best wishes as you work towards becoming a productive member of the Wikipedia community. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving Winter Storm Athena

While I was 100% on board with the move, it probably would've been best to wait a bit longer to fully establish consensus on the talk page before making a controversial move. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate your concern. The problem is that now is the time that people are reading the news, asking themselves (as I did this morning) "What the heck is Winter Storm Athena?" and checking Wikipedia. The longer we delay, the longer we are giving free legitimacy to TWC's scheme.
It's BRD. I don't have time to follow up, so I hope you and other sensible folks will. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm moving the page back. There's a current AfC open on this issue on one of the two involved talkpages. We need to wait for the RfC to be over with before moving or otherwise changing these pages. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
As you're heavily involved in the debate and currently in the extreme minority opinion on the subject, it was probably just as inappropriate, if not more, for you to move the page back. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, he is really in no position to be moving something to the name that he wants when he is the only one fighting for it. United States Man (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the last two comments. If an RfC is clearly moving in a certain direction, then the page should reflect the provisional consensus, even if the RfC is not completed (which typically takes a month). Refer back to my first reply to Inks.LWC; every hour of delay is time that we are contributing to the normalization of TWC's scheme. Now is when the news cycle is hot.
That said, I'm done taking action for now. May sensible minds prevail. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


Liberty Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Liberty
As one of the core contributors to WP:RFC/AAMC, I hereby award you this barnstar. Through continued effort, policy-grounded thinking and consensus-building, we succeeded where measures as extreme as an outright ArbCom mandate to come up with an answer failed. Thanks for your dedicated work! —chaos5023 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but the congratulations are mainly due to you, chaos. The project is a better place because of your leadership on this issue. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
*blush* Thanks. :) I sure hope so. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Winter Storm Brutus

I noticed that you were a part of the Winter Storm Athena/2012-13 U.S. winter storm season fiasco. So, I thought you would like to stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus and offer your input. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kennedy Center Honors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page That's the way it is (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) 09:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I appreciate your interest in ResearchGate but don't agree that the source you've cited for the spam criticism is a legitimate source by Wikipedia standards. Because there has been some back and forth on this issue over several months, I felt it best to bring the spam criticism issue up with Wikipedia's dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. JNorman704 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of image

The image was deleted as a copy of it was available on commons per Wikipedia:CSD#F8. Thus discussion would now need to occur on commons not Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained why I disagree. The question is not moot, because inclusion of the image in an article is still subject to English Wikipedia norms. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes so to get it removed from that article on Wikipedia one would typically start a WP:RfC on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited His Honour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hizzoner (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) 10:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case the link was intended. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited So Taguchi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (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) 12:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar International Airport - Sikorski

Can't believe I hadn't thought of including Sikorski's accident in the airport article... Thank you for your contribution! --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you liked it. I actually arrived at the airport article because I had been reading the article about the accident, so the idea naturally occurred to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way if you have a wider interest in all things Gibraltar, we have a to do list! :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 23:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act 1722

Hi! I am sorry I had to mention your name here and drag you into all of that. It is entirely okay if you do not wish to take part in the discussion. I just thought it would be fair to notify you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

Was there a section we were going to write in this article? I vaguely recall we were going to collaborate on something, but I don't remember what. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese. We discussed it here and later had a productive exchange here. I have a lingering overall concern about the tone of the article, but I need to learn more before I would have any actual suggestions. If you have anything you'd like to discuss, I'd be more than happy. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh right, we never did merge funding into legal status. I'll have to see about doing that - and also poke around to see if I ever bookmarked any sources on "customer" demographics. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I've done some of the merges we've talked about. Would be very happy if you'd check out the article, especially since you do have concerns about the tone! Also maybe let me know what you think of the worklist I made on the talk page; feel free to add tasks that you think could improve the article. I had the thought today of adding a section on CPCs' role in the anti-abortion movement; a number of our sources talk about it but it always sort of slipped under the radar for me, maybe as "something obvious," but now I realize it could belong. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Red Sox and White Sox Droughts

Red Sox: [10], [11], [12], [13]

White Sox: [14], [15], [16], [17]

Those are only a handful of the sources I found after a minute-long Google search. Your contentions to the contrary that this is not how it should be are unfortunately irrelevant. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, the vast majority of which say the Red Sox had an 86-year drought and the White Sox had an 88-year drought. TempDog123 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't change just those two entries. If this change is going to be made, then it needs to be made for every single entry in the article. Furthermore, you clearly have not read the article's talk page, on which this issue has been debated in the past. Please do so, and please take this discussion to the article talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I checked the talk page and don't see that this issue was discussed at any length, nor does there appear to be an archive for such a discussion. Let me know where it is an I'll gladly take a look. If it results in an inconsistency then other editors can fix that if they see fit. There is no Wikipedia rule that I know of that says an editor cannot edit one part of a page that is incorrect unless the editor makes similar corrections to the rest of the page. The thing I recognize is that 85 years and 87 years for the Red Sox and White Sox droughts, respectively, flies in the face of multiple secondary sources. I tell you what I'll do - I will add those sources that I cited for you above into the article in the appropriate places while simultaneously explaining why on the talk page. If you can think of a valid reason for violating one of Wikipedia's primary policies - reliable secondary sources - and revert me again, then perhaps the onus can shift to you to explain why and premised upon what policies. TempDog123 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This conversation belongs on the article talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


Can you help with making the Cincinnati Christian University and related articles better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatsONS (talkcontribs) 18:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just looked over the article, and it doesn't seem too bad to me. Certainly there could be more history, including what the school was called before its apparently recent name change. Also, the language in a couple of the sections seem too close to what the school would say about itself, rather than WP:NPOV. What do you see as problems with the article? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thats mostly it. Can you help with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatsONS (talkcontribs) 23:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominion Theology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Christianity (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) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nova Publishers


I am reviewing information you post and delete on Nova site. And its quite confusing to me, especially when facts are deleted. I would like to know your reasoning behind it.

Thank you. Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaCRittenberg (talkcontribs) 19:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. The text that got reverted is not encyclopedic in the opinion of several editors, not just myself. Please attend to the more urgent notices on your own page about conflict of interest and edit warring against consensus. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a discussion at Talk:List of United States congressional districts related to style of new district-level maps for the post-2013 United States congressional districts. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. --7partparadigm talk 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Article the First

In your zeal to improve the article Article the First you removed the defaultsort and category from the article with this edit. Take care. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The final section of the paper consisted entirely of unencyclopedic material, so I cleared the section. It may be considered a bit of a bug in our software that tags of that kind (which are invisible when you read the page, but not when you dig into the wiki) are considered part of the final section. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angevins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page House of Anjou (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) 08:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The link was intended as written. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your latest removal will be reverted on a daily basis (>24 hrs) until you have suggested a compromise or reworded my contribution. If you are interested we can also try a conflict dispute.


You are correct that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "collection of indiscriminate facts". Neither is it supposed to be filled with opinionated quotes from personal blogs/websites, especially if the original statement is not entirely true. Beatrice Lugger's complaint was exaggerated and RG members are very unlikely to obtain higher scores unless having an extensive publication record. Her statement should not have been quoted in the first place.

  • Importantly, her RG score of 10 is based 70% on her 4 publications (one of them has an impact factor > 30 and as a researcher you know this is very high). This makes her statement in the blog misleading and it should not be quoted on Wikipedia without supporting information. We are not in the business of spreading misinformation and Wikipedia has to be objective. We have to scrutinize information from personal blogs/websites, right?

The facts that I now have given can be obtained through the original reference, but I will also add a link to her RG profile. The section is now professionally written and does not single her out. Your removal will be reverted on a daily basis until you have suggested a compromise or engaged in a more meaningful discussion. Why do you remove without attempting to modify/check facts in the first place? As a researcher, you are certainly aware of the open peer-review process. No offense taken.

Regards, Sjuttiosjuochfjorton

Hi. You must be new here. I'll respond about the content on the article talk page, and I'll respond about how to seek consensus on Wikipedia on your talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "ResearchGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I invited you to a conflict dispute although you are doing a decent job moderating (we are getting nowhere with Chire)

I invited you to a conflict dispute although you are doing a decent job moderating (I am getting nowhere with Chire and it is clear that he has an agenda). I have asked for 3 more editors that will make an effort and do some serious background search. Also, editors should of course have RG accounts or have knowledge about the siteSjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi BlueMoonlet, I need help finishing updating several pages related to the US congress and ensuring that Wikipedia has current district maps represented. There is not too much left to do, but I could use a hand doing it. Details are here. Thank you --7partparadigm talk 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on royal double titles

Hi again. Please come along and contribute at Talk:Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom#Dukes of Here and There. Thanks! DBD 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Opinion Barnstar.png Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For having an opinion about the involved imagery and its place on both Commons and here on Wikipedia for the article on anencephaly, which shall always be a tricky and emotional subject, but at least let it be one presented with properly licensed imagery. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 12:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, what a victory. This is one of the most significant things I have ever done on Wikipedia. I first became interested in this issue when an acquaintance of mine had an anencephalic baby, and it seemed a matter of basic decency. But it would have never happened without you also, KDS4444. A reciprocal barnstar will be forthcoming. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

creation–evolution controversy

An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Duke of Albany

Hello User:BlueMoonlet I disagree with your edits on articles about the Dukes of Albany. The legislation is very clear. People who needed permission for their marriages under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and not obtain them have conducted marriages that can have no consequences under British Law. This has recently been discussed again on this talk page. I'm going to revert your edits for now, awaiting a secondary source that indeed explicitly puts the question in doubt. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The matter was furthermore clearly demonstrated when the 2nd Duke of Cambridge conducted a legal marriage in contravention of the Royal Marriages act 1772. His sons were not only excluded from the succession to the throne but were also not eligible to inherit his peerages. In other places on wikipedia this is mentioned here and here.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Conversation continues here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)