- 1 List of cults
- 2 Reply
- 3 AfD nomination of Victoria Sinclair
- 4 Template:WAS
- 5 Copy & paste moves
- 6 DTR
- 7 2013 Rose Bowl
- 8 Nomination of Hermesmann v. Seyer for deletion
- 9 License tagging for File:CFK & Stephen Harper2.jpg
- 10 Ways to improve Linda McGill
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for January 13
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for June 29
- 13 let's solve the BLP thing...
- 14 Disambiguation link notification for October 25
- 15 You have received a reply
- 16 Berbick
- 17 Disambiguation link notification for September 14
- 18 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 19 Your edit to the Rape article
- 20 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
List of cults
In List of groups referred to as cults, one of the restrictions excludes, "fancult of popular culture". "Rae Chorze-Fwaz/Rama" appears to be such a fancult, and so I have removed it. If you'd like to make a case that it isn't then we'd all listen. talk:List of groups referred to as cults. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- On furhter reflection, it doesn't quite seem like a fancult. I've re-instated the entry. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad you have added it back in. Although Rama wrote a couple of books, and certainly his students might be described as fans of his books, the primary contact between Rama and his students was through his (sometimes controversial) spiritual teachings--not his books or other materials. A fan of JK Rowling, for example, might create a fancult around Rowling--but Rowling is primarily an author who might occasionally give a talk about her books. Rama, by contrast, was primarily a spiritual teacher (albeit controversial at times) who from time to time wrote books and composed music to support his spiritual teaching. The relationship between Rama and his students was similar to that between, say, Sai Baba and his students--and not at all like the relationship that might exist between a JK Rowling or a Stephen King and their fans. --Dash77 09:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
My edit must have been hit with a bug, since I did click rollback and the template was posted. I did remove the template. I apologize for any inconvienence that was caused. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Victoria Sinclair
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Victoria Sinclair. 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 "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/Victoria Sinclair. 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) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I had to restore the old date as I don't have the current WAS. We get the CFS updates but not the WAS. So all/most of the water aerodromes in Canada are based on the older version. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Copy & paste moves
- Fair enough, although out of respect for the fact that you are a regular here, I didn't just post the template and leave it at that, but provided some additional text explaining my position.Dash77 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
While it's highly likely that Wisconsin and Stanford will play in the game, please do not add them to the article until the BCS selections are made tomorrow. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 05:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Hermesmann v. Seyer for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermesmann v. Seyer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countered (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
License tagging for File:CFK & Stephen Harper2.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ways to improve Linda McGill
Hi, I'm Nechlison. Dash77, thanks for creating Linda McGill!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I have tagged your article  try to improve it and set more external links and this article needs even more content.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Nechlison (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linda McGill, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Topless and Swimming (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of pornographic sub-genres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topless (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.
let's solve the BLP thing...
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melvin Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American. 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.
You have received a reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H-1B_visa&diff=666170512&oldid=666169249 10 years late, to be sure. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, as you've noted, my edits to H-1B visa and my concerns about its neutrality are from nearly 10 years ago. I believe my concerns were fairly narrow in scope and regarded certain specifics of immigration conditions from 10 years ago that may or may not still be relevant 10 years later. I noticed that you've made a fair number of recent edits to the H-1B visa page and its talk page--the scope of those comments seems considerably wider than my neutrality dispute was intended to address. Dash77 (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that I shouldn't have reverted your edits and listed him as a Canadian under "Nationality". As a Canadian, I personally consider anyone who is a permanent resident (or landed immigrant) and has lived in Canada for a large portion of their life, a Canadian. Obviously, I didn't take citizenship into consideration, but I should have. I will revert the edit now. Blackjays1 (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Your edit to the Rape article
Your source was terrible. I am admitting my total lack of neutrality on this topic, but using a popular science article that was taken from another publication, dependent on blog posts, and referencing dead links does not make even a bad reference. I am a nice person and I am not leaving a message here on your talk page to beat you up, you look like a great editor who adds good content. You have to realize what a contentious article you edited-it has hundreds of page watchers, who obviously were all sleeping when you made your contribution. So keep up the good work, but use better referencing. Best Regards,
- Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- As you yourself note, I think it is important to approach this from a neutral point of view, as difficult as that may be when the article is about a controversial subject. I noticed that you described the content as "nauseating" in the main edit (revert) that you made to the page itself. The fact that the content is disturbing to you, however, isn't a reason to revert the edit if the content is properly referenced. I will admit that the Popular Science article was not a good reference, because it did indeed depend on blog posts and dead links. However, the Popular Science article does include some references to much more scholarly articles with very similar content. The links may be dead, but it won't take much effort for me to find active links to the scholarly articles with this content. I plan to give this a day or so to give you a chance to respond, and then to restore this content (or very similar content) with better references. I recognize that the content is disturbing and controversial but that is not a reason to avoid it if it can be properly referenced. Moreover, if we are going to remove this content purely because we find the content disturbing, then the previous sentence (which I note you left in) regarding similar physical responses by male survivors should also be deleted for the sake of neutrality. I would question the reference on that one, actually, because a journal on obstetrics and gynecology seems a questionable source for information about male survivors. It is a disturbing subject, but if we are going to discuss it for male survivors, we need to do so for female survivors as well. So in sum--yes, my reference was questionable but there are good references out there for this subject, so it won't be possible to dismiss this purely on the grounds of it being disturbing content.Dash77 (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)