Kitfoxxe

Hi Kitfoxxe, I'm the one who rewrote/expanded New federal states. Of course there are nice thigs to say about eastern Germany, but the article focuses on what the new states have in common with each other: the communist-era legacy, and its effect on the east German society and economy today. For more specific (and possibly more positive) topics there's little I could have added that wouldn't have fit better in the article about the state itself.--Nero the second (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I still think the article has too much of a negative slant. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you develop that a bit more, maybe on the article's talk?--Nero the second (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I answered you on the tp of the article.--Nero the second (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes thank you for notifying me, I saw the first one, I will be along soon to comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I also read the AFD and will be making a comment. BTW I understand your rationale. Please feel free to make comments on Who is a Jew? Jim Steele (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I am not sure I'd be qualified to comment there since I am not Jewish, except perhaps by some very inclusive definition. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The BLP Barnstar
		Thanks for standing up for BLP priciples. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

When adding new sources to Moonie (Unification Church), could you please format the citations - using WP:CIT? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure. No problem. I am going to add another item soon. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Can you please format such new entries, using WP:CIT? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kitfoxxe- you left a message on my page regarding this AFD but I guess it has been closed. To give you some background, this article was created initially with a lot of examples, each with a provided citation, and several sources independently establishing the phrase/meme's notability. I see that since that time, the article has been heavily edited down, supposedly citing WP:NOT but only in an extremely vague way. I hope that some of the content from the earlier version can be added back in, as in its current form it is not very encyclopedic at all. Let me know if you need any help with that, although as the original author it would probably be not viewed well if I personally added back content that had been previously removed. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would be great if you added some material. With me anyway. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the heads up about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Everything counts (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ditto, I'm glad I got the warning, as I don't think I would have seen it otherwise. Though, I am quite curious to know how my name came up. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I notified editors of the article and people who voted on the 2 past AfDs. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see it was speedy kept. I didn't want to remove the information. It's just that I don't see why we need two articles, one saying: Ted Stevens said "The Internet is a series of tubes." and the other: "The Internet is a series of tubes" was said by Ted Stevens. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just out of interest; "I would have guessed that 3/3 of the contributors to this article would have been MJ fans, not just 2/3" - I'm not a Jackson fan, not at all - I just help new usersout with their articles for creation, totally regardless of the subject.  Chzz  ►  22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here's a nice ref for you: Korean Moon: Waxing of Waning? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll check it out. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. decltype (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to follow what the AfD page says and notify people who might be interested. I did not even try to guess which side they would take. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed that you posted an explanation on the discussion page, so I replied there. decltype (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would have been simpler to leave one post at WT:Nad. That might have avoided accusations of canvassing. --Ibn (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. Sorry I didn't think of that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have retracted the warning as I realize you were acting in good faith, and I'm sure you will keep this in mind for the future. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You asked the following question at the AfD for Lady:

Here is my understanding of WP:DICTIONARY: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Please tell me why that is wrong.

Your errors are as follows:
(1) WP:DICTIONARY is longer than a single sentence and must be read in its entirety.
(2) The purpose of WP:DICTIONARY is not to bar the creation of articles about words, but to ensure that such articles treat the material in an encyclopedic fashion rather than in the manner of a dictionary.
(3) An article consisting of only a dictionary definition does not necessarily have to be deleted; after all, a featured article on a term will need to explain the history and etymology of the term itself as well as the concept denoted by the term. In many cases an article consisting of only a dictionary definition does not need to be deleted but rather expanded into a full encyclopedic entry.
(4) As an extension of 3, an article which is named for a valid topic but with invalid content is not a candidate for deletion. If there was to be an article on, say, "Green", but the content was to be gibberish, the appropriate response is to stubify it down to the text "Green is a colour generally associated with [x] portion of the visual spectrum," as "Green" itself is clearly notable even if the associated content is non-encyclopedic.
So I'm saying that you're misunderstanding the purpose of WP:DICTIONARY, and you're in error in thinking that AfD is always the appropriate cure for breaches of WP:DICTIONARY. Hope that helps. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.

Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.

Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I really don't care about the fictional history of Spiderman. Good luck with whatever you are trying to do.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please read the two discussion pages on this subject? Literally scores of my hours went into forging a fair consensus on both of these articles regarding the 'madrassa' issue (and other people put plenty of their own time into to), and it is galling to see that you have moved all the text at Insight on the News - citing pov (or 'opinion' as you put it). Please be more careful on your wording, and please read the two relevant discussion pages, and the madrassa article too, as it properly expains the meaning of this word.

In case you have missed this crucial distinction – the Wikipedia-relevant 'scandal/controversy' here is all about Insight's report - ie its style of reporting, NOT their entirely unsourced claim that Hilary Clinton intended to attack Obama by using the Muslim aspects of his background (such as they were)! That cannot be a usuable controversy/scandal in itself, as it pure here-say!

My time is scarce and I am very serious about this matter.

The whole point of including any 'scandals/controversies' in articles is to describe those specific elements in the first place - otherwise what is the point of including them? As it happens, I do not think the United States journalism scandals 'prose list' has any positive value to Wikipedia at all, but the article/list has survived two 'Article for deletion' votes (although at the time AfD's were simply keep/delete headcounts alas, and were not value judgements at all). Enough people wanted to keep the list, in many instances patently to 'look after' their own pet scandals (the clear fault of the list along with problems surrounding the required brevity, ambiguity over inclusion, and potentially limitless size). However, the list/article remains, and Wikipedia must still represent facts and be balanced and fair.

THE IMPORTANT POINTS TO KEEP IN (THAT MAKE IT THE CONTROVERSY):

The word 'madrassa' was used by Insight in a pejorative and not a neutral sense - that detail MUST be kept in, as madrassa simply means 'school' (despite a vogue in the US media at the time - the New York Times had to make an apology when they messed up on this front). Insight's words "Is America ready?" can stand for itself regarding their intent, as it has done. Furthermore, it must also be stated that the allegation regarding Clinton was unsourced – you have removed that also.

Believe me, the whole matter can not be put less delicately than it has been while still being a fair apraisal. In many observer's views, the highly conservative Insight were unquestioningly (and very clumsily) being anti-Islamic and attacking both Clinton and Obama all at once, and without presenting any proof at all. The content for the two articles were ironed out in the lead up to the 2009 elections, where the Islamaphobia was an issue in Obama's campaign (though mercifully a minor one in the end in terms of the whole usa).

With your change, the articles are basically recording the detail of the original attack report. Such dissemination is not for Wikipedia, and the controversial elements are simply hidden. As Obama's education did have some Islamic religion involved, the only conclusion to be made in your version is that madrassa is a negative word. It isn't. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you would like to nominate the article for deletion again you have my vote, even if it's not really a vote.Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why was zero use of edit summary used, when you reverted my copyedit, here [5] ? -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was just putting in the word "the." It did not change the meaning of the sentence. I also marked it as a minor edit. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Did you note my previous edit, here [6] ? -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

If it's about the "the," in my opinion it's a little more proper to say "Barack Obama is the president of the United States" rather than "Barack Obama is president of the United States." The other is not wrong however. That's why I marked it as a minor edit. Was there any other problem? Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the future, please use descriptive edit summaries when reverting another user's edits instead of simply marking the edit as "minor" and employing zero edit summary. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I didn't feel I was reverting anyone's contribution. Just adding a word.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

So you did not notice my edit removing that exact same word, less than one hour before you went and added it back with no edit summary? -- Cirt (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I missed that.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay, thank you for the clarification! :) No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kitfoxxe, I think I have asked you this before. Regarding this, can you please format new entries to the page, with WP:CIT templates? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I will go ahead and do that.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I think you should reconsider your !vote in the AFD on The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, following recent rename and content changes in the article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kitfoxxe, thanks for your input on this AfD. I've responded to your comment and would appreciate it if you could consider my response. Oore (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger vs lion, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AfD is not for posting anti-semitic abuse - it is for discussing the article under consideration. If you continue in this vein, you will stand a good chance of being blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I thought my remarks were pro-Semitic if anything. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not allowed to post anything on UC-related pages, not even a question on a talk page asking if it's okay for me to post. So please don't invite me any more, till the ban is lifted. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Sorry to hear that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, if you can provide third-party sources which discuss these films in-depth than please show them in the discussion, since I have not been able to find any. Also, WP:PROMOTION is written into our WP:NOT policy and violations of that are grounds for article deletion. ThemFromSpace 19:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• My "votes" were conditional on sources being found. I happen to disagree with that policy since I think "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a more important policy. I also recognize that articles are written with many different motivations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I see your point, as I also believe in open editing. But I still feel there needs to be limits on how anyone may edit the encyclopedia and editing for promotional reasons shouldn't be an acceptable form of editing. We are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and writing in order to promote yourself isn't encyclopedic. ThemFromSpace 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • But people edit to promote, and demote, all the time without being paid. If the material is true and meets WP policies I don't see the problem with it being professionally written. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will provide more third party sources for the article and associated stubs. SydMifflin (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I improved it makedly,[7] but was unable to find decent sources. I gave it my best shot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have been able to my satisfaction,[8] show that Bloody Island meets our notability criteria per WP:NF#General principles in that it is verifiable as being part of the curricula in many major universities in its being taught in their African American Studies programs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kitfoxxe. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kevin Short (Christian Brother), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: all -BLP claims are referenced. Thank you.  7  04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seriously. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

No one disputes that the word exists. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your helpful edits to the new article I created, at The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Much appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for saying so. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

... but if you look at the article in Edit mode, it turns out to be very easy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Please avoid degrading the writing quality of a WP:GA quality article and adding run-on sentences and poor grammar and text, as you did at Inchon (film). Please engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James R. Whelan. Since you had some involvement with the James R. Whelan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since you expressed interest in it, I just wanted to tell you that I've created James R. Whelan, and any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good job. I will see what info I can find about the rest of his career.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for letting me know :)

I have no objections to the merge at the moment WhisperToMe (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2. I informed you about this because you regularly edited Unification Church related articles. Andries (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

And when you do comment, would you please clarify whether you notified Ed of discussions regarding UC articles because he started the articles, was a major contributor, or because you were seeking his help with the articles for some other reason? Or if you choose not to comment on the Rfa/amend case, would you let us know here? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I knew that he had been a regular on UC articles, so I included him in the people I informed when issues or discussions came up about them. I tried to inform everyone who seemed to be interested. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC).Reply

Hello Kitfoxxe,

I see you changed your mind at this AfD. Can you please take another look? This term was coined by a high school kid who does YouTube weather videos as a hobby. Take a look at his website and check for professional credentials. Hint: there are none. He wrote the article - look at his user page and contributions. He is arguing "keep". Anything useful in the article is already covered at Thundersnow. Do we really want Wikipedia to be used to promote something made up by a high school kid which has received zero discussion in reliable, independent sources? Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Cult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of the world (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) 10:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've suggested merging Divine Principle to Unification Church. Check out my reasoning on Talk:Divine Principle and see what you think. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I reverted this edit of yours at Betelguese. I'm not sure why you removed the statement that the movement is supersonic - this is what creates the bow shock. Read the article at bow shock about the speed of sound in plasma physics for more information. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Glad to learn something new. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chrisma (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) 11:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cataclysm (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) 11:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed all the work you've been doing to overhaul the Cult article—it's major undertaking, and you seem to be doing quite a good job. I tried to bring some greater historical perspective and nuance to the description of the Chinese government's policy, and hopefully didn't end up giving that section undue weight. I also swapped out the lede image. If the lede image depicts a particular group, that's like saying in Wikipedia's voice that that group is a cult. With just about any extant group, that's going to be a controversial classification and might expose people to stigmatisation (and perhaps more than usual with falungong, since western scholars tend to disagree strongly with the Chinese government's use of the term). It would be best, I think, to use a group that no longer exists, or to use an image depicting 'cults' in the more traditional sense of the word. Keep up the good work. —Zujine|talk 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's hard to find good pictures for that article. I couldn't find anything really general, that was also a quality pictures. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religious abuse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorcery (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) 11:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert LeFevre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Girl Scout and National Economic Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kitfoxxe, Thanks for your edits at DWTF. I have done a lot of work on that article and would love to hear any feedback you have about it. Have you had a chance to read the entire thing? Does it seem fair? balanced? complete? Any suggestions for improvement? Thanks for your input, Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Kitfoxxe, Thanks for your vote at deletion discussion of Religious harmony in India article. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I did get a little carried away and did stop when I realized that I was canvessing. I do feel the AfD needs a little more fairness and honesty. You would gain respect in my eyes (if that matters to you, not saying it does) if you would check that out too. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh well. "Winning is the new losing," as they say. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have determined through some research that the concept of a "Pixar Universe" preceded the Negroni thesis by a decade, so I began working on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe as means of dealing with it. Upon further reflection, perhaps best that my little sourced article be folded into the main topic Pixar so we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory. Think it worth doing? And would you care to help? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm HelenOnline. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Occult seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop adding Category:Cult related terms and concepts to articles about non-mainstream religions, especially when the articles make no mention of the word "cult" whatsoever. The term "cult" has negative connotations and should be used with caution. HelenOnline 15:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry for the misunderstanding. My thinking was that people who wanted to learn about "cults" would be interested in these topics. I wasn't trying to label the topics as "cult" related. You might be right in removing my edits. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for understanding. I think most of the articles where I have removed the category can be found via the more neutral New religious movement which I have left in Category:Cult related terms and concepts. If a particular religion or religious topic has not been explicitly linked to "cults" in reliable sources it should not be included in Category:Cult related terms and concepts. HelenOnline 08:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I agree. You are right. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please join the discussion at Category talk:Cult related terms and concepts which involves your edits. Based on this edit to Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts, this seems to be a deliberate attempt to rename the category in a non-neutral way without discussion. HelenOnline 08:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi I reverted a number of your changes, it would be more productive to discuss the creation of a new category rather than making such sweeping changes. A number of articles you categorized as general "cult-related terms" do not work - for one, the term "cult" has many different meanings, and for another the terms were created specifically by various anti-cult groups, and so should be categorized as such. Zambelo (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Religious-persecution&id=81791 Religious persecution]], Business World, January 9, 2014</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

A. In Providence (religious movement) this edit removed a statement directly supported by the cited source. The edit has been reverted. Google Translate is still quite inept when it comes to Korean.

B. In the disambiguation page JMS, Jung Myung Seok and Jesus Morning Star were removed here and here with the edit summary "Korean names normally written in Korean script, not alphabet". Hangul is of course an alphabet in its own right, so assumably "alphabet" refers to romanization. But I'd like to know where these ideas come from, as they are quite contrary to MOS:KO and WP:EN? The edits have been reverted.

C. The edit in Nathalie Luca here removed a mention of her book Le salut par le foot with the edit summary "no secondary sources provided to show the importance of this article she wrote". First mistake: it's not an article, it's a book. Always make sure to read and try to understand before making changes. Secondly: Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, c.f WP:NNC. Consequently also this edit has been reverted. Thirdly: had any research been done before blanking the mention of the book, a citation to e.g. Keith Howard's review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies could have been added.

D. In the disambiguation page Setsuri the edit here added the wiki-linked word Notable. That's not how to do it. I have never seen {{Notability}} added to a disambiguation page, so I doubt if that's the way to do it, but WP:WPDAB seems like the place to ask.

E. Three minutes after this section blanking in Serpent seed, now reverted, an edit to Yoo Byung-eun here removed the /See also/ section linking to Jung Myung-seok arguing in the edit summary that it "seems to be linked by OR only". I have never before seen WP:OR applied as an argument against a /See also/ entry. However, should the parallel between YBE and JMS not be obvious after having read and understood the 150+k YBE article with 300+ references, something which is not done in 3 minutes, open an article talk page section about it. Sam ^Sing! 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry for any misunderstandings. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem. And keep Providence on your watchlist, please, it is one of numerous articles on Korean, Protestant sects that attract SPA/COI editors. I came across it last fall, and it had been an up-hill battlefield for 2-3 years editing with two users who accidentally disclosed their membership of the organization. The community banned them back in spring after following an ANI discussion. Two socks have subsequently been banned. Sooner or later they'll be back. But enough of that. Pinging is easy. Yes, "Thanks" pings as well - and is a nice gesture. Simple way to ping is with {{Yo}} in front of the reply like

{{Yo|Kitfoxxe}} That looks really good, thanks for the edit. ~~~~

@Kitfoxxe: That looks really good, thanks for the edit. Sam ^Sing! 00:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Or by using [[User:Kitfoxxe|Kitfoxxe]]

Hi [[User:Kitfoxxe|Kitfoxxe]], that's a good idea, thanks. ~~~~

Hi Kitfoxxe, that's a good idea, thanks. Sam ^Sing! 00:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Obviously pinging is not needed on the users own talkpage. Best, Sam ^Sing! 00:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello! This message is for recent editors of the Providence(religious movement) article.

I just wanted to inform you all of some of the changes I was hoping to make to the page! I am actually studying theology, and have been spending a lot of time studying Modern East Asian Christian organizations in particular. You might have noticed the deletion tag I applied to the article--actually I am really new to Wikipedia, I created an account specifically to make edits to this article and am still a bit confused on the whole deletion/editing process ;)

Anyway, I came across this article while I was doing research and found a few discrepancies I thought might be good to address! I know the allegations against this group are quite serious, I was shocked by them, by I think it's important that we get the article right for the academic purposes of the encyclopedia :)

Mainly I just noticed that the article is missing information in a few crucial places, i.e. the details of the trial, an extended discussion of the philosophies of the group, etc. Also, at times the tone does feel a bit hostile--again, as scholars, we should do our best to remain neutral, especially when the topic is highly controversial.

Thank you all for your time, and hope that the article can really be well done!

GIOSCali (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Just wanted to say that I began a few of the edits I was mentioning in my earlier post regarding the Providence(religious movement article). I just made a small sample of some of the edits I want to make, namely changes that will make the language of the article neutral. Also, there are a lot of dead links for references and many references in foreign languages-- I will be deleting these and would appreciate some help! Also I think it would be good to include actual information on the trial and the Korean judicial system, as well as Joshua Jung's early background if any can be tracked down.

Thanks, and I'm sure the article will turn out great! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Global Peace Foundation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• co.uk/world/2008/nov/21/religion-moonies-uk-event|title=Moonie peace group to hold biggest UK event]|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=21 November 2008|quote=The Universal Peace Federation, formerly
• co.kr/www/news/nation/2014/10/113_165505.html Unification can be 'adrenaline' for economy]], ''[[The Korea Times]]'', 2014-09-30</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unification Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Muslim. 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) 10:48, 26 August 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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Wfwpmark.gif. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply