User talk:Vapour

User_talk:FWBOarticle

Hello, Vapour, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Francs2000 13:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you sign your posts, please use four tildes instead of three, like this: ~~~~. This adds the date and time to your signature, and makes it easier to keep track of posts. Exploding Boy 17:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! When I suggested the merge, The Ten Perfections was a brand new and very short article. Someone else changed it to a redirect to Paramita after that, which I agree is a better way to handle it. I'd have done so myself, instead of suggesting a merge, if I'd known that there was such an article to redirect to. I've removed the merge tag on the main Buddhism article now. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused! --Icarus 05:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have created several long articles about Patimokkha including: Sekhiya (bhikkhuni) and Sanghadisesa (bhikkhuni). Please note:

• Whilst an article about these rules is most welcome, lists of the actual rules themselves should be posted elsewhere - see don't include copies of primary sources.
• Everything published here is released under the GFDL - you do not include any copyright notice in an article. (But if the material has been copied from elswhere on the web, you should state that on the talk: page and explain that you have permission to use it here.)

-- RHaworth 17:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to slow way down. You are adding some misinformation to the article, and are also making it necessary to copyedit for language, which, since you are making so many edits, is becoming difficult. Please discuss on the talk page before making any more changes. Exploding Boy 04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a new section on the Talk:Gaijin page where we can discuss changes to each section, one by one, before changing the article. It seems to me that this is the only way that this will work. I've also added dispute messages to the article, and placed it on Requests for Comment and on a Wikipedia Japan-project message board to ask other editors to look at the content.

Instead of trying to talk about the entire article at the same time, which is making the talk page impossible to deal with, let's do it section by section. Please see Talk:Gaijin#Discussion on the Intro section

Exploding Boy 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss changes on the talk page. You've been asked repeatedly, but have yet to contribute anything. Exploding Boy 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say, why did you create Buddhist Ethics? There's hardly anything there. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Buddha was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning for editing Buddha. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // Tawkerbot2 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour, please ignore this message from Tawkerbot. Bots probably shouldn't be threatening users with blocking, and, in this case, you didn't do anything wrong, so you definitely won't be blocked. If there are further problems, I'll look into the situation. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm shutting him down, he should only revery you once... hmmm... you may edit freely now. Sasquatch t|c 03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive Tawkerbot2, he some times makes mistakes. He is usually right 99% of the time. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2 is a grand bot and I'm jealous I didn't create him. The actual creator is Joshbudy and the bot is run by Tawker. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, still trying to figure out what happened, though I'm half asleep right now (flight landed about 30 min ago) and am not really thinking straight. Sorry about that, not sure why it gave you the test4, it shouldn't have gone anywhere past the first revision there, I'll take another look when I'm finally awake. Sorry about it giving the "threat to block" - it's just the bot doing auto warns, the bot doesn't have sysop and can't block, it just tags em for a human to take a look at :). Update: What happened is you had the word "penis" in the article and the bot didn't see it anywhere else in the article and it triggered it, probally a little extreme on the bots part, I'll take a look to see if that can be improved -- Tawker 06:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour, would you please comment on the first paragraph of "Gaijin" so we can move on? Exploding Boy 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, by the way, you probably shouldn't go around making dictionary-definition-style short articles like Atthakatha. - 04:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

hi -- in archiving the whole page you archived at least one very active discussion (on the "course of study"). do you know what the right procedure is from here? do we continue the discussion on the archive page, or move the whole discussion back to the Talk page? I don't think we were quite done! thanks, bikeable (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole page is no good from beginning to end, and I've been endeavoring to put together a version with proper citations and a neutral point of view, but it is likely to be some days or weeks before I can finish it. As far as A. goes, he is about to hit his fourth revert in 24 hours if he hasn't already. But I don't think the three-revert rule is automatically effective, and as he has been using rotating IP numbers, somebody would have to inform an admin that all of these are the same person. I'm not sure what the issue is with the Tathagatagarbha material -- both Page and Hodge are co-creators of the Parinirvana Sutra site listed in the External Links list. They are, it seems, strongly in support of the MPS' atman-doctrine, and perhaps they are just trying to qualify that the doctrines of the MPS are not that popular. There may be other ways of saying this than calling it "controversial". On the other hand, it disturbs me that they link to A's web page from their site, with a positive commentary that is hardly justified [1]. In light of that, it's less surprising that they've been soft-pedaling Attasarana's misuse of his editing powers. RandomCritic 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get the problem do you, Yoji. It's your constant high-handed provocative quasi-vandalizing style of editing that is the problem. You go out of your way to antagonize people along the lines described in your Edit Template. Personally, I don't really care much for Attasarana, but he has a right to be treated with respect. You provoked him and see what has happened. And you sanctimoniously think YOU are in the right.--Stephen Hodge 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that RandomCritic is also writing another version of the anatta page. Lets' see how our versions compare -- perhaps they can be merged. I presume you will not include any non NPOV assertations based on Theravadin material and translations. I shall challenge you all the way :) --Stephen Hodge 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Open tasks for Buddhism page is not a valid article. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a template, a Wikiproject: page, or your own personnel notes pages. Please move it to the correct location and tag the resultant redirect with {{db-author}} so that the redirect is deleted. Article space should be for articles only and not include to do lists. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 23:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please more Open tasks for Buddhism out of mainspace. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh there you go above. :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want me to zap it? took away all the info? I'm zapping it per your request. Let me know if you need any more help. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCritic's views in this matter are not NPOV. He/she'll have to do better than that. User:Stephen Hodge|Stephen Hodge]] 01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your POV vandal is now on the Plotinus page. This vandal has found an allie in user: Goethan. What can be done since this individual does not sign in and or sign their comments (check out the Plotinus talk page). LoveMonkey 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks V! LoveMonkey 15:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chg your username at WP:CHU. As for the rest of your question, I didn't really understand it. If you still need an answer to smth, please explain to me what exactly happened/needs to happen - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Show me where your name appears on WP. You can do it over email if you want to keep it private. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw your expansion of the definition of "La Raza" in the article Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. Where did you get this information? If it can be referenced, it should be moved to the La Raza article. Some of the claims (i.e. "La Raza does not include indigenous peoples") are potentially contentious, so sourcing is a necessity. At any rate, since your addition deviates substantially from the article's topic, I am removing it for the time being. Please communicate with me via my talkpage with any concerns.--Rockero 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this from you on Nat Krause's talk page: "Unfortunately, SH is using my real name to obtain personal information. He is doing the same with RandomCritics which isn't nice given that RC really hasn't done anything. SH is also making a legal threat to anyone concerned. From now on, I will eliminate my link to FWBOarticle where link to my real id can be revealed. Please do not add link in my profile as you did before. Unless, someone use two profile simultaneously, it is not considered as abuse." There seems to be a lot of paranoia around at that moment. You were using your real name openly a while back and I remembered it from then. You also mentioned that you studied economics. So it was not difficult to do a Google on that name -- you will know what I found, as can anybody else since it is in the public domain. You can stop worrying: I was just interested to see if you had published anything as I do that for most people I encounter-- you should actually feel flattered that I thought you might have published a book or two. Most of my publications are listed openly on my user page for a to see -- and hopefully buy. As you have not published anything as far as I can see, I have lost interest. You seem to be unnecessarily worrying youself on my account -- but if you do not want your real name dredged up from the past, you should go ahead and have it blanked. I'll never mention it again. It's true that I find a lot about your editing style very irritating, but I have also learnt a lot from you which I shall put to good use in the future. Also your statement that I am "making a legal threat to anyone concerned" is quite mistaken. Even if I were to have made such threats (which are against Wiki rules), why would I do so against you ? On what grounds ? You have not, for example, made any defamatory statements about me as has RandomCritic -- you are very mistaken to say that "given that RC really hasn't done anything". You obviously have not read carefully what he/she/it has posted on my user talk page and elsewhere. RandomCritic should think carefully about the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. So, as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to come out of hiding -- the Buddhism etc talk pages are so quiet without you. I don't think that we shall become friends, but perhaps we can work together constructively and courteously. What do you think ?--Stephen Hodge 00:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I don't know if you remember me, but I was involved with some of the earlier discussions on the Nanking Massacre page.

Anyway, having looked at some of the pictures used there recently, I thought that some of them should be deleted. The wikipedia version of Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg has been deleted, but the Commons version still makes it available. I also noticed there is a host of other images on Commons (in a single category) from the same website.

You suggested on the Talk:Nanking Massacre page that you know why these pictures are so dubious, when you said "Btw, why is "Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch" photo (or for that matter, any photo from Prenceton University Gallery, which were compiled by a student body) still used in this article. That was shown to be misatribution.". I have currently listed most of them for deletion over at the Commons deletion requests page [2]. If you could provide some help in explaining the problems with these pictures, I would appreciate it a lot, as you seem to have more knowledge that I do.

Please look for "Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg" and "All Nanjing Massacre pictures (bar "Nanjing Ditch" and "Slayers")" - they should be at the bottom. Thanks in advance, John Smith's 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the information. But I can't "vote twice" if you get my meaning, so if you could offer your thoughts on the links I provided that would be more useful. John Smith's 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures have already been listed and voting is open. The location of the deletion entries is as follows.

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#August 4 - Image:Body everywhere.jpg

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 August 4 - Image:Nanjing massacre heads.jpg, Image:Killednanjing.jpg, Image:Nanjing massacre beheading.jpg, Image:Nanjing massacre skulls.jpg

Wikipedia Commons Deletion requests - "Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg" and "All Nanjing Massacre pictures (bar "Nanjing Ditch" and "Slayers")"

If you could throw in your two cents that would be grand. John Smith's 22:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for the link to the document that shows the "Nanjing ditch" picture happened in Xuzhou, not Nanjing. I've asked the admin whether he will change is vote because of it. If he says yes, I'll list it as evidence. However you can list it yourself if you want when you vote. John Smith's 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admin says he thinks it should be renamed, but someone else is trying to pull the "but it happened in the same area nonsense". Was I clear enough in explaining where the pictures are listed? John Smith's 21:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not going to comment yourself? If you did it would help speed things up. John Smith's 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot for your help. John Smith's 11:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am just wondering why you think that newsmedia is the only suitable source of information on many articles. Also, why is Steve Best not a good source, regardless of whether his writing has been published? He has had lots of work published and is a well known person on the subject of Animal Rights and the ALF. Your insistence on these very narrow definitions just shows to me that you do not know much about animal rights and these edits are damaging the articles.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are defining verifiability far to narrowly. As you have seen on the SHAC page, SlimVirgin agrees also. As I also stated, if we use your narrow definition then we end up with barely any information in the encyclopedia. I now see your rationalisation but completely disagree with it. If an organisation is well known and respected on a subject then they are acceptable as a source. I do think that all citations should be attributed to the people making the claim though.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you made some extensive edits to the Capital Punishment page. While I think a lot of your contributions are well reasoned and add useful information, there are a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes. I hope you don't mind, but I looked at some of your recent contributions and tried to fix the mistakes as I saw them. Perhaps a spell check program would help avoid those sorts of problems. Regards. JCO312 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the last edit because I thought you blanked too much text, not because of spelling or grammar. JCO312 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has its first time, if you have never seen something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The book has never been translated into English. But I owned a copy before. Here are the details in Japanese:

發行者 橫內正昭 發行所  東京都涉谷區惠比壽四－四－九 大黑〒一五○ 電話 03-5449-2711(代表) 振替 00160-1-157086 印刷所 新井印刷 製本所 製本 ISBN 4-8470-1203-8

If you continue to remove that material from SHAC, you're likely to be reported and may be blocked from editing, either for a 3RR violation or for disruption. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop disrupting that article, I'm going to request administrative intervention. You've completely misunderstood our content policies — for example, you say that court documents may not be used because ordinary people can't access them, which is 100 percent nonsense — and yet you dare to turn up and lecture editor after editor after editor. You've been told by four editors that your understanding of our policies is wrong. Two of those editors are regular editors of the policy pages you think you understand; one of those editors wrote parts of them. And yet still you insist that you, and only you, know what they say. Do not remove sourced material or images again. Do not tell us again what you think the content policies say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to explain the problem with the sources you cited in Gallaudet University and another article (either Dr. Fernandes or Dr. Jordan)... first, I'm a student at Gallaudet. I'm pretty much neutral about the whole thing- I only call things the way I see them. During the first few days of the protest, the Washington Post failed to grasp the complexity behind the faculty's and students' motives. When Dr. Jordan and Dr. Fernandes painted the protest in a certain light, the Post took their lead. However, the Post reporter covering the protest gradually appreciated (although not quite fully) the complexity I mentioned and her later articles came to reflect that. The articles you cited were published during the baffling first few days. When I have time, I'll cite the Post's later articles. Thank you.

Greetings -- I would appreciate seeing your comments on this: Talk:Gaijin#Shortened_word. Jpatokal 14:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to in the main article on whaling?

See your point.

I'm not certain, but I think you might have missed the new points I brought up on Gallaudet University talk page here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gallaudet_University . For now, let's agree to leave the Neutrality in Dispute tag in until we both can reach a sensible compromise. Thanks Cflannagan 23:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your contribution history not only to Gallaudet University but also to the Gallaudet United Now Movement I have no choice but to question your ability to edit things in the best interest of keeping Wikipedia neutral/encyclopedic. I have placed a request for meditation for our conflict here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-28_Gallaudet_University Cflannagan 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added more detail to the sentence as you thought was needed. Please overlook. The info we both contributed is great. A glance at the talk page shows a mob of vegetarians attacking me. I merely demonstrated the facts and almost everyone jumped me. All the other articles on vegan, vegan nutrition, vegetarian nutrition, and etc... all need the same type of balance. Just paste info from Vegetarian and add to the other articles where they are needed to bring balance and clean up. I have read the other vegan articles. They are just promo ads. They are all a mess. Thanks for your support. It is just us two. Your friend that is... Just an onlooker 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yo! I was cruising the vegetarian article when I noticed some info about Buddha. The info is a bit too long. If possible, please try to condense it a bit. Just keep the info that is most important. Thanks, bud. See you around. --Just an onlooker 03:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the comment by Just an onlooker, I've reverted your changes to the Vegetarianism article, since it's not appropriate to add content to the main article when it's been forked. By all means, add the information to the article on Vegetarianism in Buddhism - it'd fit there nicely. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that you look over your handling of R. J. Rummel. He may be one of the biggest academic crackpots around, and I consider his moralistic nonsense to be qualified drivel, but that doesn't mean that his webpage and his writings are inappropriate as sources about the man himself, his actions or the opinions he expresses. You need to evaluate each source on its own merits, not discard them as hopelessly biased and useless just because they're produced by Rummel himself.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vapour. Could you be a dear and sign your comments with four tilde's please? It's hard to follow the timing of comment threads if you don't datestamp/timestamp your comments. People insert comments into threads and it's the only way to figure it out. Thanks --Christian Edward Gruber 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour, I have to agree with Christian on this one. It makes it devilishly tough to follow. No need to respond, I saw your post to his page just now. I understand that it makes it easier. For me, when I trip up over an edit, I just delete it and replace. Cheers, MARussellPESE 05:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you have a habit of responding to several people at once in a single section. This has the effect of starting several threads in the same place. The absence of dates does make it hard to follow, despite the indentations. MARussellPESE 05:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vapour. I get what you mean about correcting later, but I don't mind if you correct your content and keep the old dates. I'd rather you do that if you haven't actually changed the content of the comment, than try to follow your several comments throughout the conversation. I mean, it's obviously not a requirement, but it makes it easier to track what you are trying to say. --Christian Edward Gruber 06:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your comments on capital punishment. I've requested a move to Death penalty (see talk page). Please contribute to the discussion. Cheers, Nobbie 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Stop Huntigdon Animal Cruelty.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You left a message on my talk page and I responded on my own talk page to maintain continuity. Hope that's okay. Check back to respond when you can. Rupa zero 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on the Help desk, see here. -- Kesh 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've seen you editing Crowded House related articles, and would like to invite you to join WikiProject Crowded House, an effort by Wikipedians to improve the band's coverage on the encyclopedia. Please consider signing up here.

--lincalinca 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Thanks for uploading Image:Ultrahand.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you moved Samatha to Samatha meditation in April 2006, I wanted to let you know (as a courtesy) that I'm contemplating changing Samatha into a non-redirect article about canonical usage of the term "samatha" (that is, prior to any seeming concept of "samatha meditation"). I've started a talk entry regarding this proposed change at Talk:Samatha_meditation#Samatha_in_the_Pali_Canon. Your knowledgeable input would be welcomed. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a capital punishment external link on the capital punishment page. Since you've been editing on this most, curious of your thoughts on the viability of this link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.115.208 (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is constantly vandalized by one single user, who seems to plan its deletion or destruction (see also Talk:Soy cheese). I am watching over the article from now on, but it is better when more people interested in this subject (especially vegans, people with dairy digesting problems like lactose intolerance or Jews) are looking upon this more frequently.
Thank you :-)
Daimakaicho (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your recent edits on this page. I have now heavily edited your original comments because I do not think they are supported by the link given. I will show my thinking here, line-by-line:

"Because U.K. religious education only has small content for non Christian religion, many, especially, those belonging to non Christin religion see it as little more than state sponsored Christian education."

• There is no evidence to support your claim of "small content", and it is certainly not mentioned in the BBC article which refers only to faith schools and non-faith schools; it does not comment on the content of RE lessons. "many" is a weasel word which again is not supported by any further evidence. As it happens I agree entirely with your comments, but they are far too controversial to go unchallenged if unsupported.

"This is pointed out as one reason for the growth of non-Christian Faith school, which some argue to be devisive."

• Pointed out by whom? Who argues them to be divisive? Again there is no evidence for either of this claims, and it certainly isn't covered in the BBC article.

My personal opinion that the final statement about the NUT decision does not relate to this article, since the article is about Religious Education which is distinct from religion in education. I'd also argue that a single proposal from a union conference is not really sufficiently noteworthy. However, I agree that the broad sketch of the proposal is evidenced by the BBC article, so have left it, with reference attached.

I hope you will understand the reason for my edits; perhaps if you feel that you can support your other claims (which as I say, I do agree with), then you might choose to edit the article further. Tafkam (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not keep deleting that paragraph in the BJJ article. Please discuss on the article's talk page, where a new thread has been started on that tissue. --David from Downunder (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for contributing to the article on Internet suicide, but I'm afraid I have reverted your changes for the moment. I'm concerned that you didn't cite any sources for any of the material you added, and as they stood the additions made the article more confusing. If you have a good source, feel free to add the stuff back and copyedit it a bit, or if you let me know I can do it for you. Cheers, Eve (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I partially reverted the recent changes you made to Futures exchange and left my reasons on the talk page. Please discuss at Talk:Futures exchange. Cheers. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, before I revert you again, and thereby reach 3 reverts in 24 hours, could you please discuss this text on the article's talk page? Nick Dowling (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have lodged a complaint against the comments you have made about me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Vapour. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour, please:

1. assume good faith in your interactions with others - assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia, instead of making assumptions of bad faith like you did here and here;
2. remember the no personal attacks policy - comment on content, not contributors;
3. remember that edit-warring (as you did on MV Oceanic Viking) is unacceptable.

Note that failure to refrain from this conduct may lead to blocks for disruption. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate,

I just wanted to drop you a line as I've reverted one of your recent changes to the whaling article (I don't think it's only in anti-whaling countries where it's widely accepted whales are indeed *sentient* -- are you suggesting that, in contrast with basically all other animals, or at least mammals, there is significant dispute over whether whales are sentient?)

Also I've altered the wording on a couple of the others, although that's only for grammatical reasons, basically.

And to let you know I'm actually in sympathy with the anti-anti-whaling cause (I'm not PRO-whaling as such, as I don't CARE if people do it or not, but I am very much against the uninformed, hypocritical and culturally imperialist anti-whaling lobby).

Regards Jonathanmills (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your changes to the article Haibutsu kishaku, which wasn't simple because they were so many, and wanted to tell you why.

I did this not so much because of the gramatical and spelling errors (too many: please re-read your contributions before saving them) but because of their content. It seems to me you either didn't understand the nature of the sentences you deleted, or you didn't read the article, because without them the article was confusing and self-contradicting. In the article I spoke of two separate meanings of the term haibutsu kishaku, not just one. I referenced the distinction between the two (it's made in the Encyclopedia of Shinto), you didn't document the important (and wrong) changes you made. In the future, if you make drastic revisions, please re-read them, reference them, save them all together to make reverting easier and leave a line in the talk page about them.

Since I wrote the whole article, before intervening again with such big changes I would appreciate it if you discussed the subject with me. urashimataro (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted a number of comments and an image into the Manga article. Thank you for your interest but I have reverted the changes as unreferenced original research. Please see my comments on the Manga talk page. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly happy to assist you in writing your additions to the manga article and putting your contributions into Standard International English. But you must -- simply must -- cite references in the material you are adding. Neither I nor anyone else can do anything to help if you do not work with us in providing material, like references, that are needed on the English language Wikipedia and on this article. I am urging and inviting you to work with me, but you must "meet me halfway," as the expression goes in English. That meets you must cooperate with me and others here. Only then can we help you. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vapourさん、どう言えば分かっていただけますか。文献も引用も無しに勝手に色々変更されては困ります。日本語版ウィキペディアは記事数も少なく基準もアバウトなので、そういうやり方は通用しますが、こちらでは何よりも「証拠」、verifiabilityが重視されます。確かに英語版のmangaの記事は間違いだらけですが、だからと言って本語版をそのまま訳してポンと、入れ替えて、ほかの人が書いたものを消すのはルール違反です。非常に困ります。まずは、discussion pageの方で「I would like to make the following change for the following reason」と、変更を提案して、consensusが生まれば変更しなければいけません。それから、申し上げにくいですが、あなたの英語力ではちゃんとした文章にはなりません。何の相談もなくやりたい放題変更して、「あとは英語の訂正よろしくね」という態度では困ります。ようするに、いい加減にして下さい。 Matt Thorn (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your debate with others at the Mark Wahlberg article's discussion page. For what it's worth, I did find at least one comment regarding the ABC interview -- Debbie Schlussel mentions it at [3]. Myasuda (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were caught in an autoblock. For some reason, Wikipedia's software is treating all IP addresses from your ISP as though it is one IP address. This is causing massive collateral damage whenever a vandal editing from your ISP's range is blocked. (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Major_UK_ISPs_reduced_to_using_2_IP_addresses for more information, if you are interested)

The autoblock was lifted, so you should be able to edit now. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Isaac Newton, but could you please add a citation? This article is currently at WP:FARC. PaddyLeahy (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Yes the data included is the combined market share of Morrisons and Safeway until Safeways market share hit 0%, The data collated by TNS and contains separate figures for Morrisons and Safeway until takeover on 5th March 04, at which point they combine the figures and show the deperate data. You can find the data on the TNS Library (link below), the files your looking for the 12 W/E grocer Share of Trade. It dates back Jan 2004 and up to Nov 2007, they don't seem to update the site anymore which is a pity. Hope this help.

Link: sorry wikipedia doesn't seem to like the link due to the characters in it so have to post it like this, you will need to copy and paste it to get it work. http://www.tnsinfo.com/TNSInfo/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[23CDADC3E5AA1C42A6EC5DE7CEE926CD]] Andy^reply 14:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do damage to an already controversial geopolitical article by inserting biased lines in the lead. Thanks. Excuse me. Gregorik (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything you can do? any help gratefully received! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.145.3 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour, I reverted the edit you made putting in the criticisms as most of the sources had been in dispute and particularly the ones sources to Japanreview.net had been decided on after lengthy discussion as being unsuitable for a BLP. If I inadvertently removed properly sourced material I apologize, but I would ask that you visit the talk page and have a read there. --Statisticalregression (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As an attorney at law from Europe, I can tell you with respect to [4] that the presumption of innocence is very much a component of French (and other European) criminal law; see Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I'm not undoing the edit because the case is now being decided and the article could do with a rewrite anyway. Best,  Sandstein  07:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the meaning of the principle of the presumption of innocence goes a bit beyond just the burden of proof being on the state, but in general, yes, we at Wikipedia are not bound by it. We are bound by WP:BLP, though, which also prohibits us talking about people as criminals prior to their conviction (or a credible confession). But in this case, calling them "alleged" criminals is sufficient. In fact, now that I believe they have all been convicted, we could rewrite even that.  Sandstein  07:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the principle as applied in common law jurisdictions, but in European jurisdictions subject to the ECHR the prosecution must indeed fully prove the guilt of the accused, and any judgment holding that the accused failed to prove his innocence would be reversed on appeal as gravely flawed. There is some discussion about this at Presumption of innocence#Differences between legal systems.  Sandstein  07:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Sangharakshita, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Hi - sorry if this is the wrong place to post a deprod tag (or if you are not the person who posted the prod tag): I am new to Wikipedia and am on rather a steep learning curve! :) But if this is the right place, I understand I should notify you that I removed your prod tag proposing deletion of the Sangharakshita entry and inserted an oldprod tag in its place. There are clearly strong differences of view about Sangharakshita - and the citations are not sound on both sides of the argument. However, I and others would contest the deletion of the entry and will be making more of an effort in the next six months to contribute constructively to the page. Please do not flag this page for deletion again. Again, apologies if it was not you! Candradasa (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vapour. Thanks for your response to my note about removing the deletion tag – and no worries about the late reply, it was timely enough! I'm sure you're right that I didn't follow quite the correct procedures either - I am very new to all this. However, my hope is that we can arrive at a sensible compromise over the citation issues you have with the page. You are, of course, free to continue to pursue deletion via the proper channels, though I will continue to contest it. Personally, I will try to be very careful about any editing I may do on it in future and, in the meantime, I shall educate myself as best I can about best practice on Wikipedia! Best wishes Candradasa (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you so much for helping expand the article, however, it would help me a great deal, if you would use appropriate citation templates, such as template:cite web and template:cite news and instead of putting (see wikilink) in the middle of the sentance please use the Template:See also or template:main prior to the appropriate paragraph, or adding the wikilink to the See Also section, lower on the page. This helps with the style and flow of the article. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-add removed editorial references, as it conflicts with WP:RS#News organizations bullet point one

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I see. Sorry about that. I'll look for a course. I've read the same reference elsewhere. Vapour (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the summery you provided, and the quote of the unnamed official, I can't help but think that they are talking about to different events. As stated later in the article, Japan doesn't see the action of a Japanese national/citizen taking their child/children away from the parent as a crime, as it is a non-violent/non-directly confrontational departure, thus possibly explaining the statement by the unnammed american official. Whereas, since the parent and child are in Japan, thus setting up within Japanese courts who has primary custody (as later stated in the article), the parent who is attempting to take their child out of Japan is seen as commiting a crime within Japanese law, thus explaining the articles and the ruling of the Japanese supreme court.

Therefore, theoretically, if the non-Japanese parent were to be able to transport their child away from the Japanese national parent without the use of force, they would not be commiting the felony, only the civil act of abduction?

Does that sound right? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your numerous edits to International parental abduction in Japan. You must provide a title when using the Cite web template, as explained in the documentation. Please study that documentation before you make any further edits. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple: use ref>{{Cite web |url= |title= }}</ref> and fill in both the url and the title. Wihtout the title, you get an error message at the bottom of the page. Good luck, Debresser (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you want to add a quote, use ref>{{Cite web |url= |title= |quote= }}</ref>. And do not add "" (quotation marks), because the template does that automatically. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder, please remember to sign your comments with your name, as well as the date and time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, the reverted statement was in the wrong section and lacked a citation. Still, the statement was true. Please put my peremptory edit down to vandalism patrol fatigue. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vapour, the latest edit you made on Nick Baker page still has some issues - Mark Devlin, the owner of Metropolis at the time, had carried on a compaign of sorts against Bakers mother, and information in the local papers that picked up Devlin's opinion appeared to have originated from directly from him, and the effect is fact laundering. These are pretty serious issues and the result was Mark Devlin (aka Sparkzilla) getting kicked off Wikipedia. I would urge you to discuss this on the Nick Baker talk page Statisticalregression (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If a section needs expanding, please use {{expand|section}} and not {{stub}} - the latter is only used when the whole article is only a stub, and was inappropriate for Painting. Thanks.

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to the Bethune article but screwed up the edit summary. It was reported that he plead guilty It was also reported that it was misreported that he plead guilty. It is something that could be explained but no one has done it yet. Since it is a BLP we hve to be extr cautious so until it is done we can't say he plead guilty. Realistically, I should spend the time writing it in the article instead of saying anything at all here but I didn't. If you don't add it in I am sure I will get around to it.Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Concedes the facts against him" was in a source. It might have been removed. I don't really care how it is worded but "plead guilty" has been disputed by those close to him and BLPs must be written with care. You are not interpreting the policy as it is typically used by the greater community. Like I said, "it was reported x then later reported y" is acceptable but I haven't gotten around to it. There is also a section on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, I found a source that summarizes it well[5] That other line about his lawyer has annoyed me for awhile but I conldn't find anything else even though I assume the guy was not his lawyer. I'm going to redo the paragraph so feel please tinker with it if it looks off since I will be removing your edit basically.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of the sources[6]. It was his wife to the local press. SSCS also said it but they are historically not RS. Doesn;t matter though since I think the newest edit should fix it while removing th at bit about the lawyer who several people hve questioned if he is his actual lawyer on the talk page. I'm actually really happy you said something. Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So "It was reported that he plead guilty." "It was later reported that..." ? There are multiple sources if you google news it that it was later clarified but I didn't want to WP:CITEKILL. Like I said though, I don't really care that much how it is worded so saying both works for me too.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the system in Japan so it was confusing with the contradicting reports. There was someone else on the talk page who was explaining the system over there and it sounds like you have a grasp of it too so that is good. I'm admittedly not a fan of Sea Shepherd but watching Bethune on Whale Wars and reading up on him made me like the guy. We'll know in a couple weeks.Cptnono (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the criminal proceeding under common/English law, the judge act as a referee over the contests between the prosecutor and the defence. So the moment the defence plead guilty, the contest is over. In Roman law, the criminal proceeding is not a contest but an investigation by the judges who act as inquisitors. The defence represent the accused and the prosecutor represent the victim and the police.

Therefore, the plea does not matter. But, there is no disputed facts in the first four charges so the end result is the same as pleading guilty. As of assault, given that this is a first time felony, he should only get suspended sentence even if he is found guilty. Only problem is that he doesn't appear to show any remorse. It is hard for a judge to grant leniency in such case. Vapour (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you add an inline citation to articles, please use templates. This one is useful;<ref>{{cite web | title= | url= | publisher= | accessdate=2010-06-20}}</ref>. Bare links should be avoided. So I reverted your addition on Peter Bethune. 'Cause I didn't want to clean up your mess. I'm not here for your 尻ぬぐい. Please educate yourself. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have to learn your own language more, if you are a native ja speaker. Please see these pages. [7], [8], and [9]. I used the ja word in a figurative sense. If you are a newbie, I wouldn't have posted the message above. Matt Thorn pointed out your way of editing above in another thread too. You've been here for long enough to know what is appropriate and what is not. Please be a helpful editor. And do not reply on my talk page. Please remember editors here customarily reply in the original thread. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

尻という言葉にずいぶん過剰反応なさっていますが、この言葉は卑猥語ではありません。国語辞典を引けばわかりますが、見出し語はどの辞書でも「尻」であって、「お尻」ではありません。「尻」が卑猥語だとすると、ja:尻も「お尻」とすべきでしょう。Alcのページは「尻」を意味する、ありとあらゆる訳語を並べたものですから、あれをもってして「尻」を卑猥語とするのはまちがいです。失礼だったかもしれませんが、Bethuneの記事では、内容をよく読まず、重複した情報を追加してもいましたね。だれにでもまちがいはあります。ですが、長く編集をなさっているのなら、当然、記事の編集の仕方はご存じのはずです。程度問題だと思いますが、そちらのあまりにも無責任な編集ぶりを見て、おなじ日本人編集者として恥ずかしく思ったので老婆心から忠告をしたつもりです。前回の返事で、元のスレッドに返事を書くのがここでの慣習だから、わたしのトーク・ページには返事を書かないでください、とお願いしましたが、それも聞き入れてはくださいませんでしたね。わたしは郷に入りては郷に従えで、編集をしています。言葉のハンデもあるし、編集上の約束事だっていろいろ面倒くさいものもありますが、長く編集を続けていくのなら、やはり、それなりの編集態度が求められるものです。マットさんは穏やかな方ですよ。その方が、あそこまできつい言い方でだいぶ以前に忠告をなさっているのを見ても、そちらの編集姿勢には問題があるではないかと思いました。そういう理由から、あえて記事をリバートし、ここにメッセージを残したのです。今後はもっと慎重に編集を行なってくださるようお願い申しあげます。それだけです。それでは。Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry about wrongly presuming your nationality. As of the talk page convention you talk about, I'm not aware of it. You are the first person to tell me. And really, I don't see why one way is better or necessary. Please remember that not everyone live up to your standard and English wikipedia tend to have the largest variation of people. I really don't care too much about this any further because it is nothing to do with the article. So, so long. 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reported you for violation of WP:3RR in International child abduction in Japan | here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermud (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think there are some outstanding issues with using the term human spirit in this context. I also think the previous wording indicating "disease, illness, educational disfunction and shorter lifespans" was better, although I dislike parentheticals in leads. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the sources, I'm going to revert your edits. You removed the primary theme of "destiny" and replaced it with "human spirit" for an unknown reason. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please to explain how/why "DocumentsTalk" is a personal website & not admissible. By those standards, virtually all FBI documents in this domain & the Schecters "Sacred Secrets" would be inadmissible. Isn't commentary from the Russian viewpoint useful? So far pretty much all we have is "former KGB agent" commentary, clearly salting our tail & having a great time at it. DEddy (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour. Have you asked someone you don't know what they think about Wikipedia? You should try it. I think you'll find the answers interesting & surprisingly consistent. I, for one, have made my last contribution. Thank you for making it crystal clear what a colossal waste of time Wikipedia editing is. DEddy (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable to editorial policy to put a pointer to the "Documents Talk" site in the External Links section? DEddy (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your edit in The Cheesecake Factory. Please avoid blanking out a whole section. Section blanking can often be viewed as vandalism. If you have question about a source's reliability, a better solution would be to update the source or consult with other users instead of blanking out the section. At last, please direct your attention to Talk:The_Cheesecake_Factory#Labor_Lawsuit_Controversy for this issue. Thank you. >g2g886 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining the discussion. >g2g886 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of acting in bad faith. (If you disagree with this, please show me where I made such an accusation.) Instead, I simply pointed out that your edit was non-POV-neutral and expressed a pro-bear-farming perspective. ChicagoDilettante (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vapour. I noticed you added this text to the 'Controversies' section of the 'Cardinal utility' entry: "There remain economists who believe that utility can, if not be measured, proximated somewhat to provide some form of measurement, similar to how prices... could still be indexed to provide 'inflation rate' ". This text is not very clear to me, do you have a reference to back it up?--Forich (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted you again for the reason given in the edit summary (in short, that you are presenting disputed views which are subsequently discussed in the article as facts). Please start a discussion on the article's talk page if you think that this should be in the article (per WP:BRD). Regarding your comment in the edit summary, please don't expect other editors to write passable prose for you - take the time to do this yourself. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dennis Shanahan 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/Dennis Shanahan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]