| Revision as of 18:45, 29 September 2008 editMddietz (talk | contribs)811 edits Religion and religious superstition← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:30, 15 October 2008 edit undoHordaland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,186 edits →Misunderstood deletions of tags: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 433: | Line 433: | ||
| == Religious Superstition == | == Religious Superstition == | ||
| Thank you for your editing of the Matthew Arnold page. Would you join me on the discussion page of that article to confer on this a little further? Regards, Mark Dietz ] (]) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | Thank you for your editing of the Matthew Arnold page. Would you join me on the discussion page of that article to confer on this a little further? Regards, Mark Dietz ] (]) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Misunderstood deletions of tags == | |||
| Your recent edits removing tags from ] have been reverted. The section involved is: | |||
| :'''Property damage''' | |||
| :*On 4 February 2006, the buildings containing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze, although no one was hurt. | |||
| :*On 12 February - 15 February 2006, during three days of riots in the city of Peshawar, Pakistan people demonstrated against symbols of Western culture. Fast food restaurants, banks and two offices of Telenor (a Norwegian telecom company) were vandalized. | |||
| :*On 18 February 2006, eleven Christian churches were torched in riots in the state of Borno, Nigeria. A number of hotels, stores and vehicles were torched in Maiduguri, the state capital, after the local police force used tear gas to disperse rioters. | |||
| You removed: | |||
| *"although no one was hurt." | |||
| :and | |||
| *"after the local police force used tear gas to disperse rioters." | |||
| These edits were silly. The tags no doubt were asking for a source for each whole statement (dates and all). You've removed a few non-essential words from the statements and left the rest unsourced and untagged. | |||
| These edits ''could'' have been done in haste or misunderstood somehow. However, after reading parts of your Talk page, I'm inclined to believe that they are intentional vandalism. I'm sure that sources for these statements can be found, probably without a great deal of effort. (Maybe I'll go look for some.) Meanwhile the unsourced statements must '''not''' remain untagged. | |||
| Please refrain from making destructive edits in future. Thank you, --] (]) 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:30, 15 October 2008
Greetings
Greetings, Andycjp! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already done so, please carefully read the following pages:
- Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers
- Misplaced Pages:How to edit a page
- Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style
- Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions
You can sign your name with ~~~~ (or just ~~~ to leave out the date stamp). If you have questions or doubts of any sort first see the help pages, then do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump and somebody will respond ASAP. Have fun! --Jiang 08:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I moved your comment here down to a more appropriate place Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Re Swedish emigration to the United States
Hi there - I notice that you have put a "citation needed" tag in the lede of the above article. This featured article is written in one of the approved formats, with no citations in the lede but all facts stated in the lede discussed and referenced in the article proper. In this case, the reference to religious prosecution is referenced in the "Mid-19th century" section (4th paragraph). If you have no objection, I will remove the {{fact}} tag as the information is sourced, just further down in the article. (I'm just watching over this article on behalf of a user who is away from the wiki, but will try to answer any questions you have.) Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Minor edits
You have repeatedly marked edits as minor that are, in fact, not minor. This is considered very misleading on Misplaced Pages, and when done repeatedly can be considered vandalism. Here's one example (out of many): On the disambiguation page Money (disambiguation), you made these three edits: 1, 2, and 3. The first edit removes two legitimate items from the list and adds a red link (and on your user page you claimed to be trying to reduce red links). The third edit makes the first edit redundant as well as a red link. Of the three edits, only the second one is in fact minor. I suspect perhaps on the "Editing" tab of "My Preferences" you have checked "Mark all edits minor by default". That's fine if you remember to uncheck minor when the edit is in fact not minor. Please read Help:Minor edit before making additional edits. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I need to ask: why do you continue to mark the majority of your edits as m minor in clear violation of the minor edit guidelines? The latter (Help:Minor edit) state: "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word." In addition to the above listed violations I would add the following recent examples: ;; The list goes on and on. I brought up my concerns with you about this a few days ago ] and you agreed that you had made this type of mistake. Yet you continue on in the same pattern. So I'm asking kindly, why? Can I help out in some way? Let's try resolve this here and now. Just to keep everything above board I want to let you know that if we can't resolve this between you and me, I intend to ask other editors to take a look and give input. Help me out here. Peace. -Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- We are dealing with two (and only two) possibilities here. The first one is that Andycjp is maliciously marking non-minor edits as minor, which is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If that's the case, the rest of us need to make a WP:ANI report to see if we can get him blocked. The other possibility is that he has (perhaps unintentionally) selected "Mark all edits minor by default" in his editing preferences. That's a simple matter to fix; uncheck the box; if you don't know how, read what I wrote above, or ask us and we'll help. So I am now asking Andycjp to tell us which of these two possibilities is the reason he marks virtually all of his edits as minor. If we get no response and he continues marking non-minor edits as minor from this point forward, we can safely assume the he is maliciously editing and go ahead with the WP:ANI report. Ward3001 (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not malicious, sorry.Andycjp 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- At this point that answer is not good enough. Here's a specific question: Is "Mark all edits minor by default" checked in your editing preferences? Please look and respond "Yes" or "No". If you don't know how to check this, please ask and we will help you. If it is checked, it needs to be unchecked. Please confirm this and let us know before making additional edits. Respond on this talk page so everyone can see. Ward3001 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
unchecked now.Andycjp (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. But be aware that if your edits continue the previous pattern, there will be a WP:ANI report made. Ward3001 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
History of England
Please return here and post to Talk to what exactly you object. The sentence is compound and so which part you're disputing is not clear. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have reverted your change to the previous version which was accepted by editor-consensus. You can review the discussion on the associated Talk page article. Please seek consensus for your change. Thanks and have a great day! Wjhonson (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Citation needed on Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum
It is entirely unreasonable to put a "citation needed" tag on a passage at 7:12 and then delete the passage at 9:56 the same day. Have some patience. A citation may be provided. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
January 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. In your recent edit to Altar Boyz, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Misplaced Pages's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. --omtay38 07:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your recent Schopenhauer edits
Regarding the above (17 separate "minor" edits) I would like to strongly urge you to either:
- use the show preview button more often or
- work in a sandbox.
This will help keep the edit counts down and allow other editor's to more efficienty follow the substantial changes you are making.
I also want to echo the editors above who make the point that the m for minor edit should not be used for changes in the meaning of an article, only small spelling and grammar corrections. See further: Help:Minor edit
If I can be of any assistance just drop a line. Thanks, Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
recent fish edits
Hi - good job on these. however, the last one you did, for npov reasons(?), leaves things a bit confused. It is now like the culture section begins in the middle of a sentence. I don't see how the original text was POV, but maybe I'm missing something. In any event, it needs a bit of touching up to make more sense. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Paraclete in Islam
andycjp, thanks for your attention to the Paraclete article. That said, I think your distillation of the fairly confusing block of text may have drawn out the wrong point that whoever posted that bit (and presumably added the Muslim prophets template) meant to make. I think that rather than identifying Gabriel as the Holy Spirit, and therefore as the Paraclete, the poster was trying to say that in his/her interpretation the Paraclete isn't the Holy Spirit at all but rather that the Paraclete refers to a new prophet who will be sent as a counselor after Jesus is gone and that this prophet is Muhammad. I have changed the text to reflect this interpretation instead. Check out the references and see what you think. Certainly it was unclear though what exactly was meant in that original mess. CharlusIngus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.187.201 (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- No apology necessary. I was pretty confused by the whole thing before you got to it. so I really appreciate your efforts to summarize the thing. getting it down to a managable size helped me see where that bit might have been going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.187.201 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Aya Hirano
Quite a bit of history in your talk page here. Not surprised. Please explain your edits for deletion of an entire section and sarcastic edit summaries while taking out information in the discussion page. Blood type is often listed in Japanese profiles. Please do some research before deeming things only you consider excessive or inappropriate.
I hope this further helps to serve as proof for editors of other articles when they find Andycjp making edits of this kind to articles they help watch over. He seems to repeat the same mistakes and I would hope he is up for a ban in the near future if he continues this.--Willsun (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- "rv inappropriate personal details: inappropriate marketing"
- Please explain why this is marketing. I'm not even sure how this remotely has anything to do with marketing. Also please explain to me the inappropriate part. Is it the "racism" involved in the blood type part? If so, I've given my explanation in my talk page which you've seemed to ignore debating before making edits again.
- People who look up Aya Hirano will want to know information. I don't know how those two details you have an issue against is inappropriately "selling" Aya Hirano. There is no extraneous details tacked on to those facts to build any sort of artificial image.--Willsun (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Defamatory content
Please do not add defamatory content to Misplaced Pages, as you did to User talk:Willsun. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
SocialPicks
I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
John Hick
I saw that you made some contributions to John Hick in the past few months. The article was recently up for deletion due to its lack of sources. I completely rewrote the article and currently everything is sourced. If you can, please re-add your contributions (as they were good) but please make sure you provide sources. Thanks! Hazillow (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good edits, thanks for removing the POV. Hazillow (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Dude
An editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages 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 by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dude and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Isaiah 53
Would you care to explain your revert on Isaiah 53? The user has made a proposal on the talk page, and your revert without comment or discussion serves no purpose excepts to continue the edit warring. Talking things out is much more productive than unexplained, blanket reverting.-Andrew c 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
red link on Notre Dame
Hi, Andycjp. fyi, I restored the red link you removed from Notre Dame. As it is a disambiguation page, it is fine for that red link to be there as List of universities in Japan and List of current and historical women's universities and colleges in Japan also point to that same red link. Check out MOS:DAB#Red links for more info. Happy editing. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation needed tag on kingfisher
Could you explain exactly what you are wanting a citation for? You have put the tag right after 'evolved', and you seem to be a bit of a bible quoter, so I'm suspicious you may be placing it here because you doubt the fact of evolution itself. If that's the case, though I wouldn't take the time to educate you myself, I must request you stop making such edits to articles. Richard001 (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity
Hello Andycjp!
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity
The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Misplaced Pages. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
|
You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
BVM page
Hi, The Blessed Virgin Mary page is beng debated on the Admins notice board. Please wait for them to make a decision via mediation prior to further reverts. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
Noah's Ark
Taiwanboi has asked for a vote on certain matters on Noah's Ark. As a recent editor you might like to be involved. (See how impartial I am - I invite absolutely everyone! :). PiCo (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
evolution
Per this edit, how does the word evolution violate WP:NPOV? Looking through your recent contribs, it looks like you've declared war on the word and that just isn't sensible. Can you discuss the change on talk page before continuing please? Ben (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to know the answer to that myself. If you are POV-pushing elimination of the word "evolution" from a religious standpoint, you are way out of line, especially when you don't discuss such a pervasive change on the talk page first. If you don't give a reasonable explanation for removal of "evolution" in a day or two, I plan to revert all your page moves and deletions involving that word. Ward3001 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- And one more point. You have resumed your old habit (discussed at length earlier on your talk page) of marking non-minor edits as minor. A page move is not a minor edit. Please explain that also. Since this has been covered with you extensively in the past, I am about ready to assume that you are malicously identifying potentially controversial edits as minor so that they will go unnoticed. That is a clear Misplaced Pages policy violation. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Not the case ward.Andycjp (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, give the explanations, both of them. Why are you removing instances of evolution? And why are you marking major edits as minor. Details please. Your typical three or four word explanations will no longer work. Ward3001 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop trying to defame me as usual and read the Formation and evolution of the solar system talk pageAndycjp (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing on that talk page that explains your behavior. So give us your explanations here. Again, why are you repeatedly removing the word evolution. And why are you marking major changes as minor. Don't hide behind a "defame me" or "wikilove" argument. We are talking about fundamental Misplaced Pages policy. It is inappropriate to make such a major change as a page move without thorough discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I moved a page and then as wiki guidelines recommend started to update the links until Ben here asked me to stop. Who do you think you are to be my judge and jury?Andycjp (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, Misplaced Pages policies are your judge and jury, and you have violated those policies on two counts. If you are sincere on this issue, the proper thing to do is to move the pages back to their original names and start a discussion of the talk pages about renaming the articles. And stop marking major edits as minor. You have been asked to explain your behavior and have not done so. Make the appropriate changes or other editors will do so. And if you continue this type of unexplained editing, it will be taken up on WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I moved the pages back to their original names. If you wish for them to be renamed again, discuss on Talk and wait for consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Minor edits, again
You have repeatedly marked edits as minor that are, in fact, not minor. This is considered very misleading and rude on Misplaced Pages, and when done repeatedly can be considered vandalism. Please read Help:Minor edit before making additional edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Red links
Can you stop removing red links because they're red please? Example. The idea is that hopefully someone will write an article about red linked item at some point. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
Overlinking
I recommend to you the Misplaced Pages guideline Only make links that are relevant to the context. When I am dealing with links, I sometimes imagine myself editing a traditional encyclopedia (although this thought process can be flawed), and think, Is this something people reading the article would want to look up? People reading about Andy Warhol might be interested in the church he attended (whether it had and article or not), but they probably aren't interested in the saint after which the church was named. If they are, they can easily type that into the search box.
It is a good practice to actually check out the articles to which you're linking. Rank and File are both disambiguation pages that are in no way useful to a reader who has encountered the phrase "rank and file". A better solution would have been to remove the link entirely, as it is unlikely that an encyclopedic article on the phrase would be created, or to insert an interwiki link to Wiktionary, like this: ], generating this: rank and file. Please consider these suggestions and policies in the future. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Re: Links - Your argument is not invalid. However, it is in conflict with Misplaced Pages policy. As an editor, you must conform to such established standards. I think that most editors of Misplaced Pages have reservations about at least one policy. I, for example, disagree with the current policy on spoilers. However, the policy is a consensus, the result of extensive debate, and it would be totally unproductive of me to become a renegade spoiler restorer. Your argument is, in effect, a challenge of the overlinking policy, and therefore belongs on its talk page. I warn you that you are unlikely to be able to change the policy, because (unlike that of spoilers) it is relatively uncontroversial. That's not to say there isn't discussion and controversy; I am sure you'll be interested in what others - many of whom agree with you - have had to say there. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop now! Perhaps this analogy will help. Many people are painting a house white. You think it should be blue, so you dip your brush in some blue paint and start on the house. Now, there'd be nothing wrong with a blue house, but what you've created is a whole bunch of blue splotches all over the otherwise white walls. You have made hundreds of edits in the past few days, and it will take many editors' time to whitewash them. I'd hate to see you blocked, because that would prevent you from making constructive edits. However, indiscriminate links to things such as food are not among your constructive contributions. Please consider my analogy and stop consciously disregarding the order that has made Misplaced Pages successful. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Re: Links - Yes, you are "guilty". If you want to think about it in those terms, you are guilty of a crime that you don't think should be a crime. Have you actually gone to the overlinking guideline talk page to challenge the policy? Do you really see value in the splashing of blue paint? Glory? Misplaced Pages doesn't belong to you alone. It belongs to millions of people, and you are not serving them as a renegade editor smearing the walls. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
'Relevant' is subjective.Andycjp (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, like most things, it is subjective. (Did you even look at the page you just linked to? It's a disambiguation page.) However, as I have said before, the problem isn't that your view is wrong. The problem is that it is contrary - "pretty much diametrically opposed" in the words of administrator The Anome - to the consensus on Misplaced Pages's operating procedure. The reason that multiple users, including an administrator, have called you on this is not that we find it "irritating"; it's that it is disruptive, destructive, and egregiously inconsiderate. Even if you consider what you're doing an improvement to the site, it is only a matter of time before your edits are undone (time that could be spent working on articles constructively). You cannot get out of this by changing the policies without consensus. The only way is to cease and desist. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Quotations
I am not sure if it was a good idea to remove the tag "Copy section to Wikiquote" from the article "Theology" (). Wouldn't it be better if those quotes would be moved to Wikiquote with the link to them (using Template:Wikiquote) being left in the article "Theology"? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Additions of blue links / removal of red links
Andy, some of your recent additions and removals of links seem to me to be perverse. On the one hand, you have added what seem to me to be unnecessary links to common words in some articles, whilst removing red links to uncommon terms in others. This seems to me to be unhelpful, and pretty much diametrically opposed to the normal linking policies, as articulated in WP:CONTEXT and WP:RED. I'd appreciate it if you could re-read those policies. -- The Anome (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so you don't get the wrong idea...
Your critique of Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show was not removed from the Talk page because I have an issue with your opinion, but simply because the page is for discussing the article, rather than the show itself. Many have raised the issue you raise on the comments for the YouTube videos; incidentally, many would argue the point that stereotyping is acceptable when done by a member of the stereotyped group, finding that still to be offensive, if indeed one agrees that the characterization constitutes stereotyping, which not everyone does. It's an interesting topic for discussion — even as someone who enjoys the show, I debate it with myself all the time — just not on the article's Talk page. Best wishes. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Galaxy Quest
Hey, thanks for your help editing the Galaxy Quest article. I've provided a bunch of web-accessible sources on the talk page if you are interested in contributing more. If not, that is fine, any help is greatly appreciated. :) Protonk (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Naomi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Naomi, you will be blocked from editing. Explain why you keep removing any mention of Naomi (porn star) and referring to it in the main Naomi article as vandalism? Are you attempting to censor the article? Vinh1313 (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that Misplaced Pages is not censored. —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I thought it was 3 reverts per day, not within 24 hours. Please reconsider as my point about school children using this site is valid.Andycjp (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- If schools are concerned that children could access inappropriate content, they should consider blocking the targeted pages or the site in general. Again, this is not a new issue; this is also covered in the content disclaimer. —C.Fred (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, the warning text at the top of this section very clearly says "24 hour period". —C.Fred (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
More red/blue linking problems
Can you tell me why you re-linked "St Peter's Hospital, Bristol" to "St Peter's Hospital, Bristol" in this edit? Doing so not only removed a red link to a potentially article-worthy building, but also created a blue link (to St Peter) which is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the article. You have previously been asked by other editors to desist from making these both of these kinds of edits to links. Since you have not only been made aware of policy regarding links, but have also actually edited one of the relevant policy pages, you are now clearly aware of the policies regarding linking, please could you let me know why you are still making these edits? -- The Anome (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please see my reply to your comment on my talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I've replied again, also on my talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Gabriel
I think you did a good edit/delete on Gabriel. If it is reverted, I will suport your edit. Many ofthese pop-culture sections miss the point. History2007 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Religious Superstition
Thank you for your editing of the Matthew Arnold page. Would you join me on the discussion page of that article to confer on this a little further? Regards, Mark Dietz Mddietz (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Misunderstood deletions of tags
Your recent edits removing tags from Economic and social consequences of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy have been reverted. The section involved is:
- Property damage
- On 4 February 2006, the buildings containing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze, although no one was hurt.
- On 12 February - 15 February 2006, during three days of riots in the city of Peshawar, Pakistan people demonstrated against symbols of Western culture. Fast food restaurants, banks and two offices of Telenor (a Norwegian telecom company) were vandalized.
- On 18 February 2006, eleven Christian churches were torched in riots in the state of Borno, Nigeria. A number of hotels, stores and vehicles were torched in Maiduguri, the state capital, after the local police force used tear gas to disperse rioters.
You removed:
- "although no one was hurt."
- and
- "after the local police force used tear gas to disperse rioters."
These edits were silly. The tags no doubt were asking for a source for each whole statement (dates and all). You've removed a few non-essential words from the statements and left the rest unsourced and untagged.
These edits could have been done in haste or misunderstood somehow. However, after reading parts of your Talk page, I'm inclined to believe that they are intentional vandalism. I'm sure that sources for these statements can be found, probably without a great deal of effort. (Maybe I'll go look for some.) Meanwhile the unsourced statements must not remain untagged.
Please refrain from making destructive edits in future. Thank you, --Hordaland (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)