Jump to content

User talk:Student7/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Student7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Student7/Policy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Student7/Policy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved this to User:Student7/Policy --Versageek 03:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing fully cited information because it reflects poorly on 19th-century American white men?

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Native Americans in the United States, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anti-Islamic sentiment

Concerning your contribution, Anti-Islamic sentiment, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license. As a violation of the page move process, Anti-Islamic sentiment needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. Anti-Islamic sentiment has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either the page you intended to move or Anti-Islamic sentiment until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Keanu (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Lay judges in Sweden

You asked for clarification in Judicial system of Sweden‎ if lay judges, who are usually politicians, were not attorneys. Politicians and attorneys in most jurisdictions are orthogonol, they are not directly related, unlike judges and attorneys. Being a politician does not affect being an attorney, and vise-versa. I do believe the "lay" signifies they are not admitted to the bar, ie. they are not currently practicing attorneys. But this is not to say they are not skilled in the law, or have not been admitted to the bar in the past. I actually didn't see this explicitly mentioned in the source I quoted, but it may be in there. Does this answer your question? Int21h (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


Please be more careful about the things you add to this article. It needs to be actual criticsm of Islam; the religion. For example criticism of polygamy, Islam's use of the death penalty, women's rights in Islam, Islam's view on homosexuality etc; Just because a bad thing happened in a majority Islamic nation or a Muslim said/did something which was criticised does not mean it should be included in the article as criticising women's rights in Saudi Arabia, 9/11 or whatever is not the same as being critical of Islam. Those things should go to their relevant articles such as Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. JoshyDinda (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Marcopolololo (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/HispaniolaMarcopolololo (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hispaniola". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 December 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia or Anti-Islamism?

Hi Student7, there is a discussion you may be interested in going on at Talk:Islamophobia#Requested move. MsBatfish (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

Merry Christmas
Add ice, try again

. History2007 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Marriage in the United States Article

Thank You for your advice. I will try to fix as best as I can.

Bed28 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Raid on Deerfield, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Seneca (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, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Hispaniola, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Merry Christmas and/or Happy New Year

AlexiusHoratius 11:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Cook Partisan Voting Index

Discussion, as suggested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index#By_state_legislative_districts Dibbun (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Criticism of the Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Our Father (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) 10:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Barnet, Vermont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SCUBA (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) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Institution Chretienne D'Haiti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (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) 11:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Government of New Hampshire

I post-edited you, and then flipped the paragraphs to discuss cities separately. As opposed to the query in your Edit Summary, I think a link to New England town would lose context if merely stuck in the See Also section. But now I wonder whether it was already satisfied by the existing link to Town Meeting#New Hampshire. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that link. The NE town article is a bit torturous. Actually hoping that more eyes might help. i.e. might not help the NH article much! :) Student7 (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My eyes won't help that one; it is an interesting collection of factoids, but it is already warned as "original research" and doesn't need another essayist. However, in view of what is actually in that page, I've moved your link to the end of the first paragraph with different introductory text. Spike-from-NH (talk)

In fact, I was so annoyed as the disjointed presentation, that I developed Vermont municipality from the article, and referenced it there from the NE town article. If all six states did this, we (or someone else) could rewrite the NE Town article, which seems highly desirable. Student7 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As New England is not a state, nor do the states have notable things in common except for incorporated towns and Town Meeting (which has its own article), I don't see why New England town exists. The biggest/smallest factoids could go into the articles on individual states. Separately, the municipal stuff I added to Government of New Hampshire might eventually stand alone as Municipal government of New Hampshire or something. Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Florida

You may well be right.andycjp (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded at metabolism but just in case

Basal metabolic rate? Biosthmors (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. Thanks! Student7 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I-95 in Florida

You commented at my talk page. I replied back. This message is just to let you know and feel free to remove it. Cheers!- William 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Original Barnstar
For going above and beyond the call of duty. When I asked for clarification not only did he respond, he created an entirely new article and even proceeded to almost single-handedly make it grade A material. For that he has earned this barnstar. -Noha307 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Higher education in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (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) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Florida cultural events

Hi Student7 :-)

I now live in Saint Augustine, Florida, and plan to work with cultural heritage organizations and institutions in the area. I'm reaching out to you because you edit loads of articles about FL.

Do you have any interest in doing either outreach to cultural heritage organizations in FL or on wiki assistance to new editors from this sector.

In particular, I want to get the ball rolling planning Florida events related to Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 that will happen in September 2012. This years focus in the US is images of places on the National Register of Historic Places. While living in Kentucky, my husband and I took and uploaded images of places on the NRHP so I have a general idea of the process. I'm most interested in finding the gaps in coverage of historical sites in FL, and figuring out the best way to get these covered with local events. Maybe road trips to get some images in the outlying areas. We have a good amount of lead time so I think that this is doable.

Additionally, I plan to work with the Saint Augustine 450 Commemoration (a four year initiative to celebrate the founding of Saint Augustine and settlement of FL through educational and legacy projects) to see how that we can add value to their current events, and possibly plan some joint initiatives.

I'm also working with User:LoriLee, the U.S. Cultural Partnerships Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation, to create an listing of cultural organizations and institutions in the United States, and WMF volunteers interested in working with these organizations. The beginning stages of it are at Wikipedia:GLAM/US/Connect. We also plan to have State specific pages that link to the Wikiproject for each state.

Would love to hear your thoughts and idea, and to see if you have an interest in one or more of these projects? FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. If you change your mind, jump in and help. :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Satellite Beach, Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian River (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) 10:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see said the blind man...

this is about antalya, not about people, which is why you don't see people in this place article or any other, except under "notables" and govt officials. There would be thousands or tens of thousands otherwise

I get it now. Cheers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy Middle School

Could use some help improving the Kennedy Middle School article. I added an infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_Middle_School_(Rockledge,_Florida)

Brian3030 (talk) 15:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Student7 (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lyman Barnes/Rockledge, Florida

Hi-Many thanks for putting Lyman Barnes back in the Rockledge, Florida article. Barnes did practiced law in Rockledge prior to returning to Wisconsin where he was elected district attorney of Outagamie County and getting elected to Congress. RFD (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment. I am part of WikiProject Wisconsin. I would look at the recent changes there and sometimes have to revert vandalism. Also the anon editors do not add edit summaries or go to the talk page. Even register editors do not do this either. It is frustrating. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the "registered editor" comment. They really need their knuckles rapped, but I hate doing it too hard! They are reading my edits, too! I have requested some voluminous changers to "please remember the edit summary." This seems to help. Some otherwise responsible editors are "just on a roll" and forget. Student7 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment made regarding Barnes on the Talk page. Now that I think about it, is that how Rockledge got Barnes Blvd? Brian3030 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There might be books about the history of Rockledge, Florida and Lyman Barnes may very well be mention in the book. According to the CongBio, Barnes did practiced law in Rockledge for 5 years before he returned to Wisconsin. And my apologies for being critical about anon editors, etc. Today, I had to revert edits that an anon edit made to the Kathleen Falk article. The edits took out cited materials and no reasons were given for deleting the citations. Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)d
Yes. Just today an anon editor de-linked, without comment of course, a link to a wrong person. Had to research it for awhile to discover this but it was a VERY misleading link the way I (or someone else, I hope) had it! They are right sometimes! Student7 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
@RFD: Either way, he still does not meet Criteria #3 for Famous Persons per Wikipedia guidelines. Brian3030 (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I will not pursue the matter. I was working on the Lyman Barnes article in the WikiProject Wisconsin and thought it was a good idea to add his name to the Rockledge, Florida since he did practice law in Rockledge for 5 years. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why my discussion page is being selected for this, but I assume Brian3030 is talking about WP:BIO which has criteria for an article in the first place. Barnes already has an article. He is notable. His inclusion here (or not) is done under Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I see nothing there that would exclude him. I DO exclude kids who went to school at Rockledge High and never came back. They would go under the school. Period IMO. Barnes is not in that category. Student7 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Famous_Residents . "The person's notability must derive from the location OR the person must have derived the basis for their notability in that location OR the person must hold some significance to the location in general." Brian3030 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Neat! I kind of like this! Wished I'd seen this 4 years ago!
Having said that, it is an WP:ESSAY, which means we can do whatever we want. Not a policy or guideline. Student7 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right, but it is some guidance and there does appear to be some acceptance of it. I tend to agree with the essay. I am going to do some research into Barnes Blvd in Rockledge and if it turns out that the road is named after him then I will add it back in. I think that is the best compromise.Brian3030 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Besides places, here's where it would have come in handy years ago: Order of St. Gregory the Great. I wanted it reserved for Bob Hope, GK Chesterton, Roy Disney, that sort of thing. But I couldn't justify it and lost the war. Now it's everybody with an article who got the award. Not sure that essay would have prevented that, though. Student7 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rockledge, FL improvements

I made substantial improvements. Let me know what you think Brian3030 (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Made many more improvements over the last couple of days. I think I am going to buy the Rockledge History book though :) Brian3030 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

History of Rome

Yeah, I did start the article, but I think it was a long time ago.

Personally I wouldn't mind setting British English to be the spelling today. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Caesarea

You have participated in discussion over possible merge of similar articles into Caesarea, you are welcome to participate in the ongoing merger discussion there.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

CHSLD

You've gotten this article deleted, with apparent ignorance of the topic. Its a potentially notable topic, but its just a piece of a bigger picture. CHSLD has a subsection currently in the retirement home article on the French wikipedia, see fr:Maison_de_retraite#Qu.C3.A9bec, the paragraph on "Les CHSLD" describes that care level. fr:Centre d'hébergement et de soins de longue durée redirects to it as well. Clearly the topic deserves coverage somewhere within the context of our coverage of Quebec's healthcare or retirement care infrastructure.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The speedy has been reversed, perhaps you can help resolve where we should cover the content.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about editing military unit articles

Hey, Student7. You are a man of great wisdom usually. Is there a proper format for military unit articles? I'd like to improve this article substantially, but not sure on a proper format: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Army_National_Guard Brian3030 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me responding here. If you check out 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States) that should help or else you can take a look at User:Ed!'s user page. If you click on the green round icons you'll see a lot of Units. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait! What do you mean by "usually?"  :)
And, "232", can you reply on Brian3030's page? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko

Thanks for the note. Not sure I am coming back to be honest. I really lost my appetite for Wikipedia and its just not the same. Happy editing though. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)(formerly Kumioko)

List of Haitians

I cleaned up the List of Haitians article a lot. Do you think we should format the article like the List of people from Florida? Brian3030 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Elections in Alabama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Beard (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) 18:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.119 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations

Dear Student7, I changed the title back to the original because the article is not about the organizations that the MB has influenced but rather about the MB's operations to influence governments around the world, especially the US govt., using not only political action but also public and cultural diplomacy. Readers who do not know what influence operations are can click on the "influence operations" link to learn more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twells1208 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations

Thank you for the comments. I got the idea for the title from three other wikipedia articles that already existed at the time I created this article: "Russian Influence Operations in Estonia," "Russian Influence Operations in the United States," and "Russian Influence Operations in Canada." I thought I would keep my title in-line with the wikipedia body of knowledge that already exists on the subject of influence operations. What are your thoughts in light of this new information? Do you still think I should change the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twells1208 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Catholic Health Association of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daughters of Charity (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) 11:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, bot, I did intend this one. Let someone else figure it out. Lots of choices!  :) Student7 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Brownington, Vermont

Your last edit explanation said "the article must be a biography". Why? There is no consensus on that. I've come across a number of good examples where the person meets notability and is part of a Wikipedia article but may never get an individual biography page. Olympic medalists, Metal of Honor recipients, perpetrators and victims of nationally notable crimes, many notable bands are never broken out into individual biographies, Miss America winners, etc. The notability of all of these classes can be verified with links to Wikipedia pages mentioning them. An individual biography should not be a qualifier for their mention if they meet notability. Just a Wikipedia page. Dkriegls (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I originally added this note to Brownington and thousands of other towns/cities. Then realized "Biography pages" was too narrow and went back through recently to remove the word biography. If I can find the person meeting notability on any Wikipedia page, I keep them and make the effort to link the name to the specific page. I hate leaving red links after I clean up a Notable people section. Cheers Dkriegls (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I go back and forth on the "visited" or "vacationed" notables. I am against adding them, but I got some flack when I was cleaning up in Maine, where they apparently take great pride in who vacations in their hamlets. Then I ran into towns in the Midwest were a famous debate happened or president made some notable speech. So, I take it on a case by case basis. If I think I can get away with it, without causing backlash, I just go for it. Dkriegls (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hm, what I find in editing Notable people sections is that a lot of the above types of Notable people do not have individual biographies. Whether they are worthy of one or not. But I know they meet WP:Notability. And inclusion criterion for discussion on Wikipedia is Notability; not Notability and Biography. Additionally notability does not automatically mean biography. If I come accross a red link for a Metal of Honer recipient and I can Google search to verify their existence, I am not deleting because they don't have a biography and likely will not for a long time. As long as the are notable, they should stay on the list. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators is a perfect example of why the Biography inclusion criterion is not needed if WP:Notability is already required. Being notable for a single event does not call always call for an individual biography. Just my prospective on it.
I do understand your perspective and desire to keep the inclusion criterion tight so that these lists don't get unmanageable; but in my editing, I have not found that the biography criterion vs the WP:notability criterion adds much distinction to an editors work with these lists Dkriegls (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.33 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would feel better about this if 1) I had been that active and 2) you weren't an unregistered editor who has just 3) been blocked from Wikipedia for vandalization! Oh, well. Take compliments where you can get them, I guess!  :) Student7 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Your response to this made me laugh so hard :) Dkriegls (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heliopolis (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) 10:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Epistle to the Philippians

Hi, you left a tag in the Outline section of Philippians stating that it sounded pedantic. To me, it looks like a very good outline presenting the structure and content of the letter in a succinct yet informative manner. What did you mean / what kind of imporvement would you like to see in the section? Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 06:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Dkriegls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peter Paddleford

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Peter Paddleford, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.vermontbridges.com/paddle.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Modest Barnstar
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.140 (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Florida Legislature

It seems you're only other user still involved in the convo concerning the name of the "Florida State Legislature" page, thanks for your input. I wanted to let you know that I've gone ahead and moved the page back to "Florida Legislature" since, as we know, that's the official name of the body. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please check

Hello! I hope you will check Matsue Incident. Thank you in advance. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot. I am interested in Japanese FA and GA not linked with English articles. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Please click 陸軍部隊最終位置 大本営直属Ⅱ大本営直属管下部隊Ⅱ東部軍管区 東海軍管区 中部軍管区 東北軍管区 中国軍管区 四国軍管区 西部軍管区 北部軍管区 朝鮮軍管区 台湾軍管区 　Do you know in Japan there is a word Potsdom leutenant, meaning the cheap position of generals and officers. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yase Doji

Hello! I hope you will check Yase Doji. By the way, it should be Yise Dōji but I cannot do so with my computer. Please help. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

See Biota of Tokyo Imperial Palace

Hello! Please check Biota of Tokyo Imperial Palace. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake, Characteristics of Biota of Tokyo Imperial Palace was placed both in the front and at the last part. Please improve. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Vermont radio stations

I've begun a discussion at Talk:List of radio stations in Vermont#History section – I'd appreciate it if you added your comments. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

See Houkisugi at Nakagawa

Hello! See Houkisugi at Nakagawa. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Student7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Charles J. Hanley 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Peter Paddleford, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.vermontbridges.com/paddle.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Peter Paddleford saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Monty845 05:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Student7. You have new messages at Monty845's talk page.
Message added 15:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monty845 15:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check Ho an den

Hello! Kindly check Ho an den including its title. Please help. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Vermont Sports

I reverted your deletion of the Vermont Catamounts from the template. All the other states include amateur and college sports teams. So to keep with uniformity, Vermont should also conform. For a good reference point take a look at Template:New York Sports Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Please check Mid-Sea Road

Hello. I hope you will check Mid-Sea Road. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Help edit the Mid-Sea Road. Thanks again. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Please check Tensei Jingo

Many thanks! Please check Tensei Jingo. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

Hi, wiki gnome here. I wanted to take my first shot at editing an orphan page, so I picked a subject I knew about - but was not affiliated with - Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. I spent a month or so gathering up reliable and objective sources and finally worked up the nerve to put the page up last night.

I had noticed in the past you have made some definite improvements on the page, and was wondering (if you have the time and interest) would you mind taking a look at it? I patterned it after several other energy efficiency non-profits I had reviewed. I want to make sure I was objective and that my writing was up to standard.

Very grateful for any and all comments, and thank you,

Sahnsey

Sahnsey (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Another request

Could you check 1754 Horeki River Improvement Incident ? Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will improve with references from the library in the meantime. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See Ikema Wetland

Hello! Please look at Ikema Wetland. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Anti Christian Sentiment

I have summarized the consensus and edited the article Anti-Christian Sentiment accordingly. Please see that it meets your approval. Veritycheck (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comfort Women

Hi. I'm Japanese. I cannot understand "ABBREVIATION", "SLUNG" and delicate representation of "idioms".

I wrote 'According to Japanese senator Eriko Yamatani, the Japanese-American children had called "serial rapist's descendants" by them, and human rights violations have occurred against the Japanese children.' in "Comfort women". This is only the article. Why you erase it?

And I cannot understand the your write "This is a bit wierd, maybe the translation. Anyway, comfort women cannot be justified because Russians raped all the German women in Berlin after they took the city. This is not a germane refutation, even if true". I cannot understand the relevant. Please teach me.Wingwrong (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please check Ooike (Okinawa)

Hello! Please check Ooike (Okinawa). Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Cybernetic Racist

I just figured out that the The Cybernetic Racist was posted to me by you. Lol. I kept clicking on Bender and not on "Talk". Anyways, thanks...I think? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

??Student7 (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely Bender! Student7 (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Nursing home, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare (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) 15:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please check Hogyu Jizo

Hello! Please check Hogyu Jizo. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please check Kushiro Wetland

Hello! If you have time, please check Kushiro Wetland. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is our Kushiro Wetland? --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Where can I find your e-mail? --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have read your e-mail, and sent my reply by return mail. Have you read it ? --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see Help Desk. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

On Lake Furukawanuma

Hello! This time it is Lake Furukawanuma. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please check Isao Okazaki

Please check Isao Okazaki. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

on Genko Borui

You have checked Genko Borui and I want to improve it at least to the start article. It has remained a stub. Please help. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Pages

Hi, As stated on my user page, I plan to gradually fade away from Wikipedia. I am still watching some pages, but not as often as before, and the trend will be to reduce involvement. If you could add a pages to your watchlist and guard against vandalism and crazy edits that will be appreciated. Most of these pages are very stable and hardly get any vandalism, but it would still be good to have someone look at them once in a while.

I think what you may be interested falls into three groups:

Many of the Marian pages were Afd-ed before and survived intact, and hardly get any vandalism, but still may need occasional attention.

Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those pages. Most of them are stable now, and just need someone with knowledge of the field (say Faustina, Mercy, etc.) to keep an eye on them. I will still watch things once in a while, and if you are wondering about the reason, it was this. In any case, although the science wikipages are lower quality, these religious pages are now rather complete. Problems come from users such as User talk:LoveforMary and their puppets who make pious inventions like this and have caused havoc elsewhere with invented dogmas, etc.
In any case, most of those articles are complete now. There are occasional outbursts by IPs, but if you just keep an eye on them they should be fine. There are also other people watching some of them, but your good eyes on them will be appreciated. FYI, Google has now started to siphon-off Wiki entries. Search for this and you will see. However, although the Google Knowledge Graph has entries for millions and millions of "notable" people, guess the one person they do not have an entry for? So there are still things to do, elsewhere. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see where this would be disappointing. Imagine being supported by the likes of John Carter and Dougweller with that result!
Having said that, and being able to look at this a bit more objectively, I'm glad they are subjecting candidates to a bit more scrutiny than they were a few years ago when it was kind of automatic, and people nominated themselves. We have a number of admins (not too many) who really shouldn't be holding that job.
But having decided a long time ago that I did not want to be one, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. (Not that would I be electable BTW!) It seems to me that admins are now responsive to vandal control, which is my main complaint. For me, they don't really do anything else that is worthwhile and, worse, get recruited to do a lot of things that I wouldn't want to do, which would be distracting from my editing.
Please don't think that the way the decision went was any reflection on your reputation in Wikipedia. I really don't recognize most of those people. Almost everyone would have voted for you who had worked with you. (I wish I had known about the nomination).
I once found that there were "lurkers" who did not edit but jumped in for pov Rfc on controversial topics. I suppose it's that way now for admin nominations. If you have ever held an opinion that this lurking (?) group doesn't care for, that's it. But just the opinion of a couple of dozen low-edit folks, maybe. For the hundreds of high-producing workers at large, the opinion is much different.
So please reconsider. The results are unimportant in the long run. (You didn't pick Sarah Palin as a vice-admin running mate, did you? In that case, I might change my opinion :) Student7 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
We will AGF and assume that no one objected due to my editing so many Christian pages. But... let us not talk about that. As for reconsidering, if you had known me in real life, you would have known that I am one of the most single minded people on the planet. I always do what I say. No exceptions. I said I would walk, and walk I will. But as they say "the Lord works in mysterious ways". I had planned to fix the articles on computer animation and robotics in the next 2 years - now that effort will be spent elsewhere - and rest assured it will be for the Love of Christ off-Wiki. So Wiki computer related articles will be ignored (no one else is working on them) but that effort will be spent elsewhere. I promise you. On that note, I eventually fixed most of the page on Jesus, and now the issues on his existence, historicity, language, etc. have been clarified, if you look on that page. By the end of the year I will touch up the pages on historical Jesus. Now, they are semi-literate pages as best - see the India comment there. But anyway, please do watch the Jesus page too, for it is somewhat central. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Comfort women". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Comfort women, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Battle of Okinawa

Hi, It's much better to post comments such as this on the article's talk page rather than in the article itself, especially if you actually want to discuss issues with other editors. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

True. That's where I thought I was. Thanks for catching it.Student7 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Pages

I do like your fixes on the Marian pages. It is good that we don't have to deal with this type of thing there any more. I am adding sources to all Marian pages now, so they will be pretty defensible afterwards, but te insanity of ANI debates is just turning out to e too much.... History2007 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on those discussions. Dirty job, but somebody needs to do it. Student7 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Just take a look at all the Afds of the Marian pages we went through. Something like 10 Afds at once from Hymns to Mary to Roman Catholic Mariology all the way. Marauder and I were just exhausted typing on all the Afd pages If you look at the histories. And I still had o do this today.... History2007 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Tatsudaryo Incident

Hello! Please check Tatsudaryo Incident. Thank you.--Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories 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 template from the top of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please check Kanjin

Hello! Please check Kanjin for upgrading. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary

You said, "taken almost verbatim from Wikipedia. Getting brickbats here, but no help. Still lacks information on warrants for non-felonies. Nor dast I provide a reason for WHY this is here, for Pete's sake. Let the WP:OWNERSHIP decide." As far as I can tell, I am the only one who reverted you, so your edit summary makes no sense. Your original version was completely different from your current version; here's what it said:

Borders are sacrosant among the states. A person wanted for civil or criminal court proceedings by another state must formally request judicial extradition from the state in which the wanted person resides.

The first problem with that is the first sentence. It's not clear what that is supposed to mean. There are no border controls, and borders are no more or less sacrosanct than they are between countries or localities. You next sentence says that a person wanted for "civil proceedings" can be extradited. That just isn't true. You can't be arrested just because someone sues you. Finally, your original version implies a state can only request extradition from the person's home state. That's not true. They can request extradition of a person from whatever state they happen to be in, even if they are just passing through. On top of that, your version had no source whatsoever. Not even the 4th Amendment. I was perfectly in the right to revert you, and I had no obligation to fix it. There were no "brickbats", and it is bizarre that you make the allegation. It is offensive that you made a WP:OWN claim your edit summary, and I ask you to withdraw it. -Rrius (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now (unless it's been reverted again, haven't checked), the material lacks context as to what it is doing there. In most states that I am familiar with, a peace officer, unless engaged in hot pursuit, cannot cross a state line for a person believed to have committed a felony. So it needs a lead-in IMO. If it still exists.
Warrant (law) doesn't seem to get into non-criminal activities, nor non-residents. But if a sheriff is executing it, it would seem like an arrest, wouldn't it? The point being that ignoring it is potentially contempt of court, which is a misdemeanor. Somewhere. Student7 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You are confusing a bunch of separate things. First, borders are borders. The rule you are talking about with state borders also exists with local ones. In most cases, a police officer from town one can't arrest someone in town two except as a citizen's arrest. So treating interstate borders as though they are different from other kinds is a bit odd, and making grandiose claims like their being "sacrosanct" certainly needs some kind of support.
I don't know what the sentence "Warrant (law) doesn't seem to get into non-criminal activities, nor non-residents" is supposed to mean. Warrants are issued for two things: arrest and search. In each case, the warrant only has force in the jurisdiction issuing it. But that really has nothing to do with extradition. The Extradition Clause only applies to people who have been charged with a crime and fled the jurisdiction. If that was supposed to be about civil versus criminal law, there are no warrants in civil law. When a person in Minnesota sues a person in another state who is subject to Minnesota's jurisdiction for some reason and has to be served in their home state, the plaintiff sends the summons and a copy of the complaint to the local sheriff or equivalent official for service. If the person receives the summons and ignores it, there is no crime. The court can issue a default judgment giving the plaintiff what she wanted. If the defendant dodges service, there is still no crime. In any event, the Extradition Clause has no application to civil law, which is clear from its text.
Finally, the sentence was off in the middle of nowhere, so I put it in with the rest of the 4th Amendment provisions. -Rrius (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's a US state article. State borders should mean something. Anyway, they seem to in the US Constitution. I don't know whether there needs to be a statement about other jurisdictions, county and city, in the article about a US State. Perhaps it does. I thought the statement about state borders was worth mentioning because this often differs abroad because there may be a national police force. Not sure about similarities or differences in municipal jurisdiction.
I yield your point on purely civil law. Student7 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments on R & S page

Hi. I'm addressing you because you seem to be a major contributor to Religion and Sexuality. Please see comments I added to the talk page about removing the tag the main article has on it. Thanks. "Selene Scott (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)"

Hello! Could you check Yase Doji

Hello! Please check Yase Doji. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your e-mail on "scandal"

Sorry it took me a while to read this - I send my WP e-mails to the same address as Facebook notifications and shop memberships, so I don't check it as regularly as other addresses. Anyway, I moved the article for consistency with the main article Catholic sex abuse cases, believing that the US article was the odd one out ("scandal" is also not an ideal term because in my view it implies sensationalist brouhaha created primarily by the media, rather than real systemic decades-long problems), but now that I look in the main category, I see there's no consistency at all, many categories and articles use "scandal." Maybe we could write a proposal together and put up the whole lot for a rename. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

While I like the idea of renaming the whole lot, I have rarely seen an Afd/Afc of more than one, work. Like you, hate to do it one at a time. Student7 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's really a logistical pain to combine all of them, and you risk a WP:TRAINWRECK if people agree with some and disagree with others - on the other hand, separate nominations mean that we could still wind up with inconsistency, even if it's only because people notice and comment in some discussions but not others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Place namesake

Template:Place namesake has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Colossus of Rhodes

The addition of the {{pp-semi-indef}} template (or any other pp-template) will never protect a page. Also, I'm not an admin, and I cannot protect pages, in no way. Also, there is little vandalism (or no vandalism at all, in fact) because the page has been protected since January 2009. If you want to request unprotection contact the admin that protected it. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Guessing graduation class

Regarding this edit to the article for Saint Benedict's Preparatory School‎, year of birth is always relevant, under all circumstances, for describing a notable in a list of this type. Graduation year is an excellent added piece of information for an alumnus, but the year you have added is merely a guess, and could be off by a year or two based on his month of birth and his progress through his education at the primary and secondary level. As it is presented in the article as fact and doesn't even rise to the standard of original research, it will be removed and should not be reinserted without a source to back up the graduation class. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the logic of this. It's like saying that "height" is relevant. What year could possibly be more relevant to a school in a biographical note, than graduation year? There have been nationally publicized instances of older people receiving their diplomas. Would birth year be germane to them? Why? Student7 (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your inclusion of not-most-specific category "American psychologists" in article Philip Zimbardo

Please see Talk:Philip Zimbardo#Categories: American psychologist already in by including "Stanford psych dept faculty" category Churn and change (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

'Guise' at Sixth Fleet

Wiktionary defines 'guise' as 'External appearance in manner or dress; appropriate indication or expression; garb; shape.' Sixth Fleet is effectively a USN fleet with bolt-on extra NATO nation headquarters staff to serve as Striking Force NATO, in which case it may command other nations' naval units as well. However to make things clearer I've substituted the word identity. I've also reverted the total removal of any mission statement. The officially stated mission should remain - otherwise how can people think about what they officially say they're for? In addition, 95% of other U.S. military unit pages have their mission statements, as well as tens and tens of other national military units articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Please check Haru Kobayashi

Hello! I would be very pleased if you check Haru Kobayashi. Thank you. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from "Educational Institution"

no point of view, ignoramus; the section of the article is comparison with other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.71 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(Annnoyed because I reverted his statement comparing US incarceration, unfavorably, with the former Soviet Union, using a Department of Justice citation which contained nothing of the sort).

Nomination of Persecution by Muslims for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Persecution by Muslims is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution by Muslims 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 template from the top of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello I was wondering..

Since you made comments about the East West schism. I wonder what you think of the role that Western Christianity played in the loss of protection for the Eastern Christians in the Ottomon Empire after the Crimean War. In specific how one would address the effects of say the Crimean War on people like Gavrilo Princip (and the Black Hand (Serbia) of course) and also the Pontic Greeks genocide or the Armenian Genocide and the Assyrian Genocide. All of these groups had been protected and or under the protection of the Czar of Russia but after the defeat of the Russians during the Crimean War (and later the Soviet revolution) there was no protection for them including the Serbs and the Romanians. Also how this plays historically into places like Jasenovac concentration camp and people like Father Miroslav Filipović. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Government of New Hampshire

Well, I thank you for assuming good faith, but disapprove of being reverted. The year of adoption of New Hampshire's constitution is not notable; the fact that it has not been recodified every half-century, as is the case in many U.S. states, is the real reason for leading with this aspect of the state constitution. So I favor the word "still," though not enough to start an edit war. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

30

Do 30 state constitutions prohibit same-sex marriage? (First note that not allowing it or not recognizing it is different from making it "illegal". It's not a crime to call yourself married in a same-sex relationship. It's a question of validity.) You'll find some constitutions say nothing on the subject. At least 2: Rhode Island and New Mexico, I believe. There may be another. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Illinois? And of course Minnesota! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
And Delaware. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Making the sentence run-on doesn't make anything better. Teammm talk
email 03:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the current article seems to read correctly. It is not legal in 37 or so states, or explicitly limited by statute or constitution. Student7 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 20:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for the edits to the Education in Haiti page. I appreciate it! If you have any suggestions on how to make the page better please let me know! Kdumelle13 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Chian diaspora

Thank you for your edit to the Chian diaspora article. I accept both the data and the sentiment. I am now thinking about how to reconcile it with the claim here that "We calculate that the heart of the Chian and Phanariot community in England never numbered much more than about 600-700 at any one time with perhaps another 500 or so throughout the rest of Europe." My guess is that when Long writes of "the heart of the .. community" he is counting only the rich shipowners and their families, and ignoring all those of whom we have no record. Or maybe the other 19,000 or so exiles remained in the Ottoman Empire, free or as slaves. What are your views? Maproom (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you also for your response. The answer (obvious in hindsight, particularly now that I have read the tiger quotation at the top of this page) must be to quote what the sources say, and let the readers worry about how to reconcile the figures. Maproom (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with your edit but I would also like to read your argument on the liberation (from occupation of course, like Paris) of the city. It would be good to add your opinion to the TP. Thanks and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East–West Schism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Cyril (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) 10:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Roman bishops"

By "Roman bishops" Romanides did not mean bishops of Rome. He painted a racial (I won't say racist) picture of what happened in the West, with the abominable Franks enslaving the previous inhabitants (the "Romans"), and replacing bishops drawn from the previous population ("Roman bishops") with bishops of their own race. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right. The unpleasantness of papal succession was a few years after the Frankish papacy. Thanks.Student7 (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The archbasilica of St John Lateran is in Rome, not in Lyon, where the 1272 council was held. For a picture of the Lyon Saint John church, as it is today, see Lyon Cathedral. Esoglou (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my previous remark into account. Another unfounded statement is that the schism (or rather the first signs of its coming) "may have started as early as ... the Rebaptism controversy at the time of Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage in the middle of the third century". That was a disagreement within the West, not between West and East. Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Your moving the Council of Nicaea (325) to immediately after the founding of Constantinople (330) not only violates chronology, but also breaks up the thread of the expansion of the power of that bishopric from the position of suffragan to Heraclea to having Heraclea as its own suffragan and having authority over the whole of Thrace (formerly under Heraclea), to having rank (whatever about authority) next after Rome, to having direct authority not only over Thrace but also over Pontus (formerly under Caesarea in Cappadocia) and Asia (formerly under Ephesus ) to ... I doubt too that your more recent move of the 6th-century assumption of the title of Ecumenical Patriarch to a position that makes it an appendix to the Empire's political hold over the city of Rome until the 8th century is illuminating. Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Removed rebaptism controversy. I wonder how it got into article in the first place. Anyway..
For some reason, it never dawned on me that the council was held before the founding of Constantinople. I have moved it. Still some stranded paragraphs.
I don't know what to do about the 6th century century assumption of title. It did seem to me that when Constantinople started calling the tune for Rome, that it would seem reasonable that in light of Canon 28 or whatever, the Patriarch of Constantinople would step up to the plate, as it were. Student7 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, for a start you could give a single heading to the two sections "Establishment of Constantinople, the New Rome" and "Growth in power of the see of Constantinople". The first is explanatory with regard to the second. I think it would be more logical to have "Growth in power of the see of Constantinople" as the main heading with "Transfer of the empire's capital", "First Council of Constantinople", "Council of Chalcedon" as subsections: these were all steps in the growth of the power in question; no other aspects of the work of these two councils is dwelt upon, nor indeed are those other aspects relevant to this article on the East-West Schism and what led to it. The assumption of the title "Ecumenical Council" would also fit under the same main heading. As things stand, the Council of Chalcedon is dealt with also under the heading of the First Council of Constantinople, and indeed even under the First Council of Nicaea: the tome of Leo (who wasn't born for some seventy years after the Nicene Council) obviously played no part in that council! The assumption of the claim to be patriarch of the oikoumene, whether that meant the whole inhabited world (the literal meaning) or only the empire (an accepted meaning of the phrase at that time), was objectively - whatever about the subjective intention - a claim to have authority even over Rome, which was then part not only of the inhabited world but also of the Constantinople-ruled empire. No wonder Pope Gregory responded by pointing to the title he himself preferred to use: "servant of the servants of God"! The move of the mention of the claim to the new position also makes nonsense of the following phrase, "Along with it, the political unity of what had been the Roman Empire fell", since "it" now refers to the title of Ecumenical Patriarch. The logical unity of the section on the growth of the power of the bishop of Constantinople, as it was before the general revision was begun, has been lost through the removal from it of pertinent matter and, to a lesser extent, the insertion into it of what has little relation to it. Esoglou (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
On the three Petrine sees, see these reliable sources. Esoglou (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe something got truncated on the Petrine sees link. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. I don't know how that happened. Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me with that. I picked one off the list which seems reliable, though it is Catholic, and someone may wish to replace it for that reason. Still, the assertion is that "The pope claimed that..." What better cite than one which is Catholic? Student7 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope your removal of the "in use" tag does not mean that you are withdrawing. I much prefer not to touch the article myself and so not provide a pretext for an outburst of activity by another editor. Leaving editing to someone who is reasonable and neutral is much better. -- I wrote this before you gave your explanation on the article's talk page. It is still my thought Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur... even if the History section is not actually shortened, your efforts to rationalize it, remove redundancies and otherwise improve the text have been much appreciated. Also, it's been refreshing just to have an editor that doesn't stir up inflammatory comments on the Talk Page. If you're done, I'll take another look at the History section and see if there's anything that can be shortened. But please stay engaged on the article. Your participation is much appreciated. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Did I discourage you by pointing out that you still have material on the Council of Chalcedon inserted under other councils? That was certainly not my intention. The last sentence in the "First Council of Constantinople" section, "Eastern Orthodox state that ...", obviously belongs to the section on the Council of Chalcedon. In that same section on the First Council of Constantinople you could also, for instance, start a new section at "In 382 a synod in Rome ..." and give it a heading such as "Claims of the see of Rome", since only the first sentence in it is related to the 381 council. In the earlier "Council of Nicaea (325)" section, the one-sentence paragraph "In 342 Pope Julius I ..." also probably belongs under "Claims of the see of Rome", while the last paragraph, about the Tome of Leo, is unrelated to the Nicene Council and concerns only the Council of Chalcedon, which was "the ecumenical council" that the paragraph mentions. Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope you will find that, after all, this is far from being too complicated. Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to implement these suggestions. Student7 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. It would be better to readjust a change you made, under "Council of Chalcedon", from "The Tome of Leo of Rome was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the ecumenical council's formulation" to "The Romes's Tome of Leo (449) was highly regarded, and formed the basis for the Second Council of Ephesus' formulation." The "tome of Leo" (i.e., the dogmatic letter written by Pope Leo I to Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople) formed the basis of the formulation of the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. The Second Council of Ephesus, which is not recognized as an ecumenical council, refused even to let the document be read.
I prefer not to intervene myself as long as LoveMonkey does not edit the article substantially - more than with his slight edit of today. Any edit by me would provoke a flood of edits by him. There are many things that I see as needing correction, and doubtless some day I will have to edit them, but as long as there is both peace and hope I am letting them be, though I may from time to time draw your attention to one or another, leaving it to you to judge whether they should be fixed.
Corrected the council. Student7 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As you know, from the outset I had doubts about the possibility of presenting the East-West Schism without explanations of what led to it. I am not the best person to ask about eliminating "trivial" councils. I would say that the section "Filioque and Primacy issues (867-879", with its reference to three or more councils/synods, would be better replaced by an explicit reference to the Photian Schism. But that is only a very short section and I think that LoveMonkey, who inserted it, would react to its removal by restoring and amplifying it. I do think there are elements in the article that could be omitted. The political division of the Roman Empire by Diocletian, when Christianity was still illegal, has at most a very indirect connection with the schism. I would even say that it has only a "far-fetched" connection and certainly ought to be omitted. But I suppose that not everyone would agree. Sorry for not being able to help. Esoglou (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC) It probably is best if you ignore this comment, which I placed here under the mistaken impression (it was late in the day for me) that an enquiry on my talk page came from you. Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East–West Schism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auvergne (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) 11:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Delaware zone map

The same editor has added similar maps to the Rhapidophyllum hystrix and Sabal minor articles (and perhaps elsewhere). The source of information for these apparently self-made maps is unidentified and thus completely unverifiable and they are clearly identified as original research in years-old comments on the talk pages for those articles so I removed them. It's amazing they've lasted this long. 98.218.23.114 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Johns River Water Management District, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Black Creek and Trout River (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) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C. supporters (2nd nomination)|AFC supporters AfD]

Don't know if you have the article on your watch list or not, but I think one or two are asking you some questions! I've had my word on the article too. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Book of Ezekiel

Hi Wikitiki89, Til Eulenspiegel and Student7 - Grace and Peace! Might I invite you to the discussion topic I've started on the Book of Ezekiel talk page regarding the use of 'God' vs 'YHWH' in this article. You all clearly have knowledge of and passion for the subject and I would really appreciate seeing that harnessed into a new section. Wikipedia covers well the 'Yahwist'/'Elohist' source ideas that arise in higher criticism, but there is little on how the use of different references to the Deity has been interpreted through succeeding generations of Rabbinic and Christian interpretation. The Book of Ezekiel has its own emphasis here, particularly in the use of 'Lord GOD', so it's as good a place to start as any, and your collective enthusiasm makes you the ideal team! ;) For what it's worth, I come from a conservative Christian position, well-read but formally untaught in Theology. Blessings of Hannukah just past and Christmas about to come!John M Brear (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Student7/Archive_11&oldid=1139010472"