Septegram

Hello Septegram, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Jkelly 17:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

At some point, we should chat, as I think we have a lot that might make for interesting discussion. I figure I should already know you, but I'm not sure.--Vidkun 02:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, indeed, all those DO refer to me . . . but I'm still drawing a blank, based on your birth location, lived places, and age. As for his harp, it was in his hands, or flying to it when he called it.--Vidkun 16:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now I've got you, I just didn't know the name of it in the Gaelige. I'm interested in how you pegged me out based on my wiki profile.--Vidkun 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Duh! Non-native mass. resident, VFW member, Mason, studying B* (my userbox used to have the word studying linked to the B* article). Just realised those are an awful lot to piece together, and still not have met me.--Vidkun 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I wasn't sure who could put those together that hadn't met me or was flisted by me. Which you weren't, but are now.--Vidkun 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Glad to make ya laugh; I'd actually forgotten about that since I havn't updated my userpage in what feels like eons XD. Look forward to seeing you around the neopaganism section ^_^ Kuronue 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you told me to make an account. Now what??

AndrewChristian 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did?

OK, I'm working on getting you some help. Watch this space, or your user page.

Septegram 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, now you sent JKelly to help, which is good. Next I need to know what article you would like me to write?

AndrewChristian 17:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have to confess, I don't recall asking you to make an account, so I'm not sure what I was thinking you should work on. Me, I just buzz around Wikipedia, looking at things that interest me and sometimes tidying things up. I have yet to create a new article, and only make modifications beyond cleaning links or grammar when it's material with which I'm pretty familiar. Your mileage may vary.

Septegram 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do any of the other editors come up with article ideas yet? I'm not sure which ones I should write.

AndrewChristian 17:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

[[[[[[[[[[[

Okay, I wrote the first article, see? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillij Now how to make it look more professional?? Difficult the writing, you know?

AndrewChristian 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. No the guy is actually a cousin of mine who I email every now and again in peru he isn't happy with the article existing but beleive me his work is great. Actually the real spelling of his name on his birth ceritifcate is Jonathen a welsh spelling but his comopanies and related searches on him will probably come up with Jonathan normal spelling because people assume that is the spelling. It should be Jonathen. The reidirect Jonathan should go to Jonathen beleive me. I'll have to correct the into have a look at it after I've changed it Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Blocking policy explains the theory. I left a note at the WP:AIV page, which is where this sort of really obvious vandalism should be reported. Sometimes accounts get blocked super fast, sometimes not. I think it depends on whether any of the admins are paying attention at the time. Anyway, it looks like that particular vandal has had her/his fun for the day and has gone off to do something else. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart. Thanks! :-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi therrrrre. I've been expecting you Mr Septrgram. Ha! As you can tell I have quite a sense of humour. Yes of course layer means lair but it is part of the Dodgy Hunagarian or whatever it is accent- the way that bald headed SPECTRE no.1 mofo who loves to hold an Angora cat speaks! I did have an incredibly large picture of [Ernst Stavro Blofeld]] myself but got removed cos of copywright. My volcano in some absurd place in Japan is the next best thing. Think of me as a breath of fresh air to wikipedia. Some other long registered users take things way too seriously. Anyway nice to meet you amigo. I have to go and inaugurate a little war. I bid you adieu. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I now have a picture of my kitty Mr Bigglesworth on my page. Love him and stroke him. Kadeeesh. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ha ha ha yeah!! I love the bombing reference! THat last line though is not mine it belongs to Francisco Scaremanga Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Either vandalism or bad newbie mistake. Fixed now. Jkelly 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've been meaning to find out exactly what that does, but each time I remember...I'm in no position to check it. Thanks again! Chairman Meow 15:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's going on? Timmy12

Why them? And if you are not taking sides, and you said you are not taking sides, then why don't you inform me when things happen? I would certainly appreciate not being kept in the dark all the time. Timmy12 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link to Mattisse asking me to get an email address. Wonder why she thinks I would see it on Timmy12's page? Since I'm not particularly interested in communicating with these users other than publicly where what is said can be archived, I won't bother to do so... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the typo/spelling cleanup on the 2 Emerson pages. I was paying more attention to sourcing etc and missed those.

--Mike Searson 07:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Septegram, you write:

OTOH, BostonMA, Hanuman Das has a point. If ^{[citation needed]} tags get applied all over the place, what else does one do but provide citations? If the only citations available are links that may appear commercial, one is between the rock and the proverbial hard place.

If a fact is notable, then there should exist references to it in independent literature, such as newspapers, magazines, etc, and fact tags should be replaced by citations to such sources per WP:V.

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

--BostonMA ^talk 13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You were correct: Talk:Stress_(medicine)#Possible_Copyvio.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm unaware of any obligation on our part to treat this sort of thing differently than any other abuse of our resources. If you think that there is something here that suggests credibility that I'm missing, you should feel free to do what you think is the right thing, but it looks to me like the intent here is to vandalise Wikipedia, as opposed to anything more sinister. Jkelly 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Just letting you know that an RfC has been opened on Mattisse, here. As it provides strong circumstantial evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet of Mattisse intentionally using two computers to evade checkuser, I thought you might want to comment. I don't really care what side you weigh in on, but I know you've been in a position to observe at least part of the situation and any view would be helpful. —Hanuman Das 11:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for letting me know. However, I'm afraid that I agree that this particular meme didn't "catch on", so the page probably ought to be deleted. Sorry. :) Vashti 14:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to drop by long enough to say thanks for the barnstar. It's my first, so you've really made my day (maybe even week). It's nice to be noticed, especially when I look at the sheer volume of edits some people put out and wonder how on earth they find the time.

-FunnyMan 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Septegram! I'm a cult/counterculture film enthusiast and member of film project. I had If... (film) on watch, so I noticed the addition of the cult film book, added ISBN, followed user contributions and did the same to the other entries. Then I noticed your welcome and warning to the author. I read the conflict of interest page and I am not quite clear on this point. I haven't seen the book and don't know if it's published in an important edition. From the ISBN I gather it's a new edition. From the film project point of view such books should be mentioned somewhere, maybe not in individual films but in an article on cult films (which doesn't exist yet, as far as I know). Where exactly is the inclusion limit? I mean if the author hadn't used his name to log in, we would only know that someone added a reference (which happens all the time). Is there any more precise information on this issue? Hoverfish 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If the author had not put in zir name, then we wouldn't know. However, anyone who checked the user's contributions would see that there was a string of edits on one date, all of which added a single book. There have been no edits by this person before or after, which could lead to a not-unreasonable suspicion of linkspam and, in my case, did indeed lead to that conclusion. I'm trying to decide whether to delete it as spam or leave it.

Septegram 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

He has added the link in articles of some British cult films. There are lots of cult film articles (Category:Cult films), so it looks like he added the link to ones his book expounds on. Taken face value, the author of the book "Your Face Here: British Cult Movies Since The Sixties" offers his book as additional reference to 6 notable British cult films. Hoverfish 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My points is that the author's intention appeared to be to promote the book rather than to improve Wikipedia. Despite the author's obviously considerable knowledge of the subject, there have been no other edits to Wikipedia by this account. No attempts to improve articles, no corrections of egregious errors (surely there must be some), no comments in discussions of minutiae of obscure cult films. Just a string of "and here's my book" links. I do tend to assume good faith, my credibility can only stretch so far. I'm leaning toward the "delete 'em as linkspam" side of things.

If you like, I'll contact an administrator or someone with considerably better experience in these matters than I to get an independent review.

Septegram 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My sincerest apologies for confusing you with a vandal. I really must have worked too much on Wikipedia today, to get so muddled up. It's past my bedtime too. Once again, I sincerely apologize for wronging you. -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Septegram, Ouishoebean has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Heh ... Thanks for allowing me to delete it and forget about it. I really appreciate it :). Have a good day! -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I note that you participated in the discussion of deprogramming and exit counselling. As a Wiccan, you might be interested in an article on my web site I wrote some years ago criticizing the hysteria against New Age movements emanating from the Christian countercult movement but also influencing some people in the secular anti-cult movement. If I was writing the article today, I would point out some of the best material warning against totalitarian cults comes from Wicca sources. There's a great check list at one of the Wiccan websites and also I have in my files a fine analysis of cultism in a book by a police office from British Columbia who is a Wicca practitioner. As to Hassan's statement that there still may be extreme cases where forcible deprogramming might be warranted, what would you do if you had a son or daughter in Rev. Jim Jones' group and found out they were all moving to the jungle in Guiana? There are (or have been in recent years) a number of extremely scary groups out there. I first heard about Colonia Dignidad (the cult torture factory in Pinochet's Chile) from a Wiccan journalist who went down there to find out about it in the early 1980s (I can't remember his name but he talked about it on WBAI and in a phone converstation with me; it was utterly horrifying). Anyway, Peace.--Dking 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. The article on my web site is at http://dennisking.org/satan.htm Dking 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re your reply to the above, I would probably have reacted the same way since no one could have predicted what happened in Guyana. But post Guyana, one could possibly identify situations in which a new doomsday cult might emerge (and indeed several have emerged). This is why I think Hassan is justified in leaving open the door to the use of deprogramming in extreme situations. (If a Ted Patrick type person had kidnapped and depogrammed a member of Heaven's Gate days before the mass suicide, should this deprogrammer be regarded as a life-saver or a criminal?) Of course people would inevitably misidentify such situations and use deprogramming when it is not justified by any kind of threat to a cult member's life. A parent who had an adult child in the LaRouche organization came to me in the 1980s and asked for advice. I repeated told him not to go to deprogrammers, that the situation didn't warrant it and that it probably wouldn't work anyway. He didn't listen and ended up in serious legal trouble and more estranged than ever from his son. On the other hand, I talked to a woman who was deprogrammed from the LaRouche group in the 1970s; she is grateful it happened. She has kids now, and a life, which she would not have had if she had stayed with the LaRouchians (of course, she might have become one of the approximately 50 percent who dropped out of LaRouche's group in the following decade on their own steam as a result of burn-out or factional strife). In sum, the question of what to do when a loved one joins a cult is one of those moral conundrums for which there is no absolute answer that fits all situations.--Dking 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You'll want to be aware of this Request for Arbitration opened by Paul Pigman. Don't feel left out, he didn't notify me either. Seems the mediation isn't going the way he would like it to... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, the arbitration is obviously open. I would appreciate any advice you can give me as to how to proceed (or not proceed). Someone named User:RasputinJSvengali has already deleted the fact that the Starwood Festival is run by ACE, information which was in the Starwood Festival article when it was created over a year before I first inputted anything to Wikipedia. I have been assembling whatever "3rd party sources" I can find for articles I've created, but I'm not sure I know how to properly list them as references. Since they are not to the ACE website, I hope they will be taken as fulfilling what was asked for. I suspect, however, that nothing will satisfy these folks. Rosencomet 15:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while. Rosencomet 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Impact most certainly is a verb: [1]. Rmhermen 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware that there was an article about Kenny & Tzipora's tradition. As I said before, if they're notable enough for that, I see no reason not to include them in the Starwood past entertainers' list. However, others may not agree; as you know, I'm under a pretty constant attack not just about links, both internal and external, but every edit I do on any page remotely associated with any OTHER thing I do, which certain people are hounding my heels about.

It is my opinion, and you can do what you think is best, that this act may not pass their judgement either because the act no longer exists or because they aren't widely enough known or, frankly, whatever excuse one of them can come up with to delete an addition to this page. If it stays, I think it should be moved so it is in alphabetical order like the rest of the list, and a redirect link should be provided from Kenny & Tzipora to Kenny Klein's article. Also, someone could add the album Kenny & Tzipora: Live & Kickin' at ACE to the discography in Kenny Klein's article. Rosencomet 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Saw your note at talk. Always feel free to contact me directly about something like that; I didn't see your post until just now. The text you say I deleted - I actually moved it to the intro and it is also referenced a second time in one of the lower sections. I think you may have missed it?Kaisershatner 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks your right, I was fired up at the moment I guess; he's very inflamatory, considering his tunnel vision thinking.100110100 16:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edit to Modesty Blaise. Please note that you don't need to use HTML or ASCII coding when creating a wikilink. For the link to La of Opar you need only put La (Tarzan). Cheers! 23skidoo 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

'm not sure if 100110100's comments relate to my comment. Anyway, one link we'll have to look out for is Wold Newton Universe was renamed Wold Newton family. I made that correction to the MB article, too. 23skidoo 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure Go right ahead! I particularly like your last one, haha!100110100 17:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Figured I'd let you know that there's an RFC out on the explanations in Bushism, which you awarded me a barnstar for a while back. You can follow and/or contribute to the discussion at Talk:Bushism#Explanations of Bushisms - Request for comment. --FunnyMan 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I taking this to your talk page to just dump the colons. I'm sorry if I've been contentious with you on Talk:Starwood Festival. Unfortunately, despite my trying to focus solely and dispassionately on the merge issue at hand, I'm afraid some of my other concerns and issues have leaked in. This is not helpful in clearly discussing the issue. Please accept my apologies. It's possible I'm being harder on these articles than I would be on other, equivalent, Neopagan festivals and groups. But I also view the aggressive stance and editing of these articles by folks with vested and material COI as really quite unacceptable on Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking this way. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, sir. I appreciate your position, and I'm sure you appreciate mine. It seems that a relatively unimportant subject (in the Grand Scheme Of Things) has gotten a lot of "sound and fury" of late, and I'm not entirely sure why.

*sigh*

With my manager out sick for at least another week and my daughter sick with strep throat and an ear infection (guess who got more sleep than Daddy last night?), I need this stress like I need a death in the family. And no, O Gods, don't even think about it!

Anyhow, I appreciate your opinion and your concerns. Right now I just don't have the energy to pursue this discussion, but it'll shake out how it shakes out. It's not like we're conducting brain surgery or flying passenger aircraft, after all... {weary grin}

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gods! Please, just take care you and yours as needed at this juncture. I certainly don't want to add additional stress on you. As you say, much of it is sound and fury. Unfortunately, I'm sort of stuck with some of it due to the arbitration on this matter. I generally try to keep myself reined in and focussed since, as you say, in the grand scheme of things (or even things Wikipedia) this is a minor scuffle. However it's interesting that it parallels to some extent the issue of whether large corporations like Microsoft should be deliberately editing their own entries on Wikipedia to present a positive image. I don't mean MS employees in general of course but employees "authorized" by management to edit the articles.

Still, again, I'm sorry for any stress I've caused you. It's neither my intent or desire. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 23:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

that was your question and i have my responce:

• If you can get a jar in the path of a tornado and it an survive not being thrown 30 miles in to the next city no it cant! Never! Im no Weather Channel guro but i know that is impossible.--Mr.Taka 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Mr.Taka has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

An RFC on the mention of child care and youth programming in the Starwood Festival article has been opened[2]. If you are interested, please read the information there and the discussion that led to it immediately above it[3] on the Starwood Festival discussion page. Your input would be appreciated. Rosencomet 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi - Function (mathematics) has just got the User:arcfrk treatment that you witnessed on the talk page of Hilbert space. It is possible that the existing editors will recognise the substantial improvements that this rewrite provides, but there may also be resistence, since it is a popular page with a long history. I thought you might like to know anyway. Geometry guy 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Hello once again I need help editing an article! This time I tried to write http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_San_Giovanni_Evangelista but of course it needs much improvement. AndrewEditor 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, Andrew. Don't feel you need to ask for help: simply Be Bold in creating and editing pages. You'll get feedback from all over the place, don't worry.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I chanced upon your talk page (from Cube Zero). If you don't mind me asking, can I ask you something? When I was going through your profile, I saw you have the "supports recycling" logo thrice. It made me curious... is there any special reason for that? Regards, -- Hirak 99 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nope. I've been scrounging userboxes and apparently picked those up on three different userpages. A hint to me that I should rework my main page, huh?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I happened to notice that you Support Amnesty International twice and oppose smoking twice in your userboxes. Just thought that it would make the userboxes seem tidier. TheTrojanHought 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help on this article. many of the links you moved from references to external links were in fact referecnes used by the original writer of the article. This editor didn't use in-line citing per se. They did put in some inline cites in an old format. i went back in and teased out as many as I could but it remains for someone (me, you or someone else) to go back and click on each cite and add back in the correct data so a full and proper cite can be teased out. Any further help you can givbe with this article would be aprreciated.LiPollis 06:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

RE: your comment on my talk page: As you said, it was a well-intentioned blunder and I can easily see why you made it. The primary editor of the article was using an old wikipedia style that has since been supplanted by inline citation. I tried to fix all that using a format that is a tad less complicated than the one now in use for Good Article status since I didn't have the info on the previous editors access dates. When we have time, each of us can now go click on the cites I teased out and ferret out a little descriptive info. I'm pleased to say I found a semi-academic journal that publishes on the subject and in it some well documented articles. I included a block quote from one written by Patirck Williams. Using his quote permitted me to sneak in a little rreality check since he states that Life Coaching is at least partially derived from EST. FYI - my approach towards skeptical editing on wikipedia is to try and be respectful of the subjects I'm editing rather than to try and pad the article with "proof" that the subject is bunk or pseudoscience. I believe that when readers are given facts and accurate descriptions of fringe beliefs, they can decide for themselves if the subject is credible. I'm not one of those wikipedia editors on a mission to rid wikipedia of fringe topics. Perhaps I'm too much of an optimist, but I really do believe that information speaks for itself. I'm a member of [WP:PARA|The Paranormal Project]] as well as the Rational Skepticism project. Right now there seems to be a war between the two with the skeptics gutting articles and nominating as many paranormal topics as possible for deletion. Such actions disappoint and sadden me. <sigh> My goal with Life coaching is just to cut down on some of the hazy language, get some good cited sources about the progression of this "profession", define what Life caoching is and isn't more clearly, and include a balanced section on the controversial nature of it. RIght now I can see a person reading through it and saying to themself "whaaaa??". Any help you can provide, be a little or a lot, would be greatly appreciated.LiPollis 15:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir,

I work for the PROUT community. There were no complaints within our circles of the addition.

Why did you feel the need to mark us for copyright issues? Couldn't you simply have asked Brianguy15, the user who made the changes, why he changed the wikipedia page without citing references? All changes are tracked, as you must know, under the history tab.

I feel you made this into an unnecessarily complicated issue. Please try talking to people before declaring war.

Be well,

The PROUT community

P.S. Massachusetts must be gorgeous right now! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.71.186.102 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

I'm not "declaring war." I have no problems with there being an article on PROUT in Wikipedia; quite the contrary, in fact. However, Wikipedia has specific policies on copyright violations, and this is not the first time I've had to point out cases of wholesale lifting of text into a Wikipedia article. This is nothing against the organization or the person who posted it: I'm simply alerting the administrators to a copyright violation. If the copypaste was done with permission, there should be no problem.

Please feel free to discuss this on the article's talk page.

Sadly, I don't know how Massachusetts is, as I'm living halfway across the continent in Minneapolis.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I should also let you know that there's another article on the subject at PROUT. You may want to check that one out.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Septegram. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:King And Jester webcomic.png) was found at the following location: User:Septegram. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see my note on the talk page of this article - I'm not at all sure about the Bolline alternative! Blessed Be, Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

{{helpme}}

In an attempt to create a disambiguation page for "Fixx" (I was looking for Jim Fixx and found a Marvel Comics character and a band, so I thought it reasonable to create a disambiguation page that would include all three), I ended up creating not the page

Fixx (disambiguation)

but the page

"Fixx (disambiguation)"

complete with the quotation marks. Hence my remark that I'm an idiot. Can I get some help/advice with resolving this?

Thanks,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have already fixed it..All you needed to do was "move" the page which is a tab that you find on all pages beside the "history" tab..Cheers..----Cometstyles 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Its a word exclusively for Abrahamic religions. Sikhism is not an abrahamic religion, it is a Dharmic religion. Sikhism prohibits idolatry. Therefore there doesnt need to be a section on it. I understand where you are coming from, but the user that believes that Sikhism is idolatrous was recently blocked for inciting religious hatred.Bakaman 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Septegram, I wanted to make a correction and some changes, along the lines of our discusion, and I found the page locked. Do you have any idea of what's going on?LCP 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

No idea. I've posted something on the article's talk page, so an administrator should be by shortly.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please check out my latest comment in our discussion. It turns out your scepticism was well placed!LCP 16:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a very kind and very nice surprise. I’ll be sure to make the edits when the site is liberated. BTW, I will still be looking for evidence to “refute” Brownson (and if I can’t find any, I’ll cry “uncle”). While I have a difficult time accepting that people were credulous enough to worship stones, I think it more untenable that the First Commandment is based on just a big misunderstanding.LCP 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Marketing aimed at dogs would fail quickly, as dogs seldom buy anything. I seldom laugh when I'm on this site. Congrats. --Liface 15:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Basically, considering that many (I can't be sure all) of the articles relating to Halloween will in some way deal with content related to the traditions of Halloween, which clearly do fall within the scope of the project, it made sense to me that the project would be interested in them. The addition of the banner basically , in these instances, indicates that (1) articles which have been "bannerized" will be added to "Lists" the project maintains and creates as appropriate, and (2) that the articles are added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism/Articles list, which has a recent changes link to help keep track of any vandalism and whatnot, and (3) if there is any content directly relevant to the project's specialty, that that content can be well handled and that, with luck, the articles won't be turned down for GA or FA consideration on the basis of lack of info or poor info on that basis. I don't see that the project will necessarily consider these articles a higher priority than, say Halloween itself in general, but it would probably be the best group out there to handle material specifically relevant to that subject, in those cases where such content is relevant. John Carter 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not sure I entirely follow your comments, but I think I understand your reasoning with respect to my initial question. I think this could lead to a dangerous link-creep, but am not sufficiently worried about it to try to talk you out of including it.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the project intends to specifically ensure that content will be added in all cases, or that specific links will be added in all cases, only where such is specifically relevant. However, there probably will be cases where a specific reference to some specific tradition is made in one of these works, which an individual outside the field might not necessarily know of. (Actually, particularly in horror movies, I personally have seen that almost all of them have some generally obscure references to mythic traditions, rituals, etc.). Also, in the event any of the articles get demoted from FA or GA status, or considered for promotion to same, generally the more interested hands the better. John Carter 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've taken the bold step of removing the banners from the Simpsons episode and the three Halloween movies. I've stated my case on the project talk page so I won't repeat myself here! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Septegram,

Can I invite your opinion on the latest discussion on Straw-bale construction. If you have the time please read the discussion so far and take a look at http://naturalhomes.org/naturalhomesmap.htm and http://naturalhomes.org/learning-straw.htm to see if you think both links are worthy of being added to the article.

Regards, Oliver naturalhomes 12:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Septegram:

Please compare the articles being posted by Docclint and I. The real substantive difference is that Docclint only wants to see Charles Atlas mentioned. For the longest time the Dynamic Tension article was merely an advertisement for Charles Atlas (and Charles Atlas Ltd.)

I have simply sought to expand the universe of knowledge concerning this exercise system by listing many of its modern day proponents. This system of exercise is centuries old and has many modern day advocates. All I have sought to do is make the various sources of knowledge on this topic available to the general public. Docclint seems intent on preventing anyone from knowing anything about anyone but Charles Atlas (which of course markets an exercise course).

Decide for yourself, again compare our articles and links and decide who has the interest of the general public at heart.

Sincerely, Pardoned

I see you haven't given up trying to imrpove this article. Thanks for that. I got a little frustrated having to explain and re-explain the same things over and over again to new editors who are in the business of Life Coaching and who come into the article with the intention of remaking it over in the image of their personal concept of Life Coaching. I thing the tagging on the article right now is a tad excessive, especially the one claiming it has no sources when anyone with eyes can clearly see there are lots of cites. I'm going to try and go into those cites and tease out some more descriptive info. If you can help I'd be in your debt. I still believe we can keep the article simple, concise and clear without merging it. I could, however, be convinced that a merge would be a good idea. let me know what your thoughts on this are. it's easier if you just leave me a brief note on my own talk page to look here if you respond below. Thanks again for not forgetting about this article. LiPollis (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that your userpage was a little....askew.I was wondering if you would like me to help with that. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you can see here, here and here I'm getting multiple additions of uncited info from someone claiming to be Debbie Andersen whoever the hell that is. I'm going to continue to revert if there are no citations.--Vidkun (talk)

 

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) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: Saturday, 20 November 2010
	Time: 1:00 - 3:30 (click here for full agenda) R.S.V.P. by Nov. 17 for free lunch + parking
	Place: Minnesota History Center 345 Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, Minnesota 44°57′00″N 93°06′20″W / 44.95°N 93.1055°W / 44.95; -93.1055

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Septegram!

I'm reaching out to researchers and writers interested in the emerging, or re-emerging, movements inspired by ancient culture in the areas of religion/theology/mythology/culture...I spare-headed an artistic collaboration between a music professor, rock-vocalist and poet to create a modern multi-media experience of the cathardic journey inspired by ancient pagan poetic traditions; A romance to nature seen as a beautiful, divine and omnipotent woman.

It has singularly been my goal to respect tradition while allowing a free and spontaneous interpretation...I believe the utility of a quasi-rebirth of some aspects of the ancient religious tendancies would be achieved in an increase of tolerance, sympathy, and freedom of expression in our modern discoures on religion...so much needed. Until we have a cultural revolution tantamount to the politcal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries [aiding the rebirth of a government of, by and for the people] in the area of religion, I will not rest. Until the rebirth of religions which are of, by and for the people, as fluid as art, as deep as mythology and theology and as powerful as culture, I do not believe we will be truly free no matter what economic or political conditions surround us. Democracy without a democratic cultural is as frustrating as it is ineffectual.

If you have a moment could you peruse the poetry project site. http://www.misbeliever.net As you are a worker in these areas, having ebhanced the Wikipedia, the world's greatest encyclopedia, I would be very honored with any remarks or critisms you could offer either me or my collaborators.

thanks much,

sincerely

Pdiffenderfer (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

paul m. diffenderfer

düsseldorf germany +49 (0) 178 178 2117 http://www.misbeliever.net pdiffenderfer@yahoo.com

Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article; your recent addition here was mostly a show of pretensiousness and patronization. Please watch your tone in the future. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 07:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

My edit was born of disgust at a highly inappropriate comment. As a member of a minority religion, I am appalled that Santamoly's attitude exists to this day, and expressed my disgust firmly. You had over a year to point out to Santamoly the inappropriateness of his comment in a fashion you found more appropriate/constructive, but chose instead to descend pretentiously and patronizingly on me. Where are your priorities?

I admit that my first and last sentences could have been rephrased, but your arrogant comment here could have been too. Check your eye for beams.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your comment was, as I'm sure you're aware, very verbose, hence "pretentiousness", and that in combination with words like "your oh-so-sophisticated" and "you would do well to educate yourself" way too patronizing to be considered civil (WP:CIVIL).

I understand what you feel as a member of a minority religion, but you should understand that Wikipedia is the last place to express your feelings. No one here is interested in getting into a debate with you or apologizing for their appalling opinions on controversial subjects. Why? Because article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. You may have made a point or at least tried to, but either way it was lost behind the point about how appalled you are and how you want the other editor to feel really stupid about what they said.

I wasn't watching the article over a year ago, and whatever I may have to say now seems irrelevant since his comment is old and it doesn't seem that anyone is currently considering removing mentions of Vodun being a religion from the article. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 13:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not pay attention to unsolicited commentary on my writing style from strangers on the Internet. What you call "verbose" and "pretentious," I call my style of writing. Don't like it? Suffer.

You will get no further concessions from me on what I might or might not have said. If you had been around Wikipedia for a while, you would have noticed that discussions sometimes get somewhat sharp.

You do not get to say what "no one here" is or is not interested in.

I made the point I was trying to make, which is that Santamoly's comment was entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia and reflected a culturally arrogant and utterly obsolete view of religion. My point was made just fine, thank you very much.

You are not qualified to say what I wanted. Kindly stop your pathetic armchair analysis of my intention or goals.

The fact remains that if you're watching the article, you had plenty of opportunity to address Santamoly's remark. That you chose instead to dump your attitude on me indicates that your own eye may be due to be inspected for beams.

Go away. Stop wasting my time.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#User:Septegram.Thanks. Wifione ^Message 10:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up, but it appears to be resolved, for good or ill.

For what it's worth, if Jean Calleo had come by and politely said "Gee, I think you were a bit harsh in your remarks. Do you think you might tone it down a bit?" I might well have agreed, but when some stranger wanders onto my talk page and starts trying to tell me what Talk pages are for, pompously instruct me in my "tone," and disparage my writing style, I am unlikely to be particularly receptive.

Just something for your passing information, Jean Calleo, in the unlikely event you're still watching this page. No response is needed.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 04:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You weren't harsh, you were pretentious beyond hilarity. It's distruptive to start drama because you're ~offended~. I realized that you'd be unreceptive so I took it to Wikiquette to see if anyone neutral can assess the situation from there. But apparently yalls lack a proper sense of judgement. I'm discouraged from pointing out attacks or incivility in the future, if the only result I can anticipate is getting told "no u!"

It's not "arrogant" or "pompous" of me to tell someone that they're acting against policy. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 09:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

{sigh}

Apparently you missed the "no response is needed" above.

There was not a drop of "pretentiousness" in my comment. I didn't "start drama:" "drama" "started" when you showed up on my talk page and presumed to instruct me in a brusque and arrogant manner as to what talk pages are for--as though I were some noob and you the wise and experienced Wikipedian--and what my tone should be like. You are correct above where you say that "talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article," but I didn't see you telling that to Santamoly. If you jump on anyone who uses a talk page for anything less pure than "discussing how to improve the article," you're going to be a very busy bee indeed, and probably to little effect.

I wasn't "offended" because Santamoly disrespected my religion (Voudon isn't my religion), I was appalled and disgusted (see my original reply to you) at her/his provincial and outdated attitude toward a perfectly legitimate religion, and made my point firmly. I admitted to you that I could have been less snarky, but that wouldn't do.

Apparently, people only have a "proper sense of judgement" when they agree with you? You're not "discouraged from pointing out attacks or incivility," you're discouraged from doing so in a pompous and arrogant manner which exacerbates rather than resolves. As I said, if you had courteously suggested that I was out of line, you might have received a "thanks for the reminder" from me. In fact, despite your pompous attitude, I was nevertheless "receptive" enough to offer the concession that some of my remarks could have been better phrased, but that wasn't good enough for you: no, you charged onto my Talk page to slap me down. When I declined to cower, you went looking for bigger kids to beat me up, only to find that they were disinclined to do so.

Perhaps when you've been around Wikipedia for a while, you'll have a better grasp of how things happen around here. Or maybe not. Either way, if you don't like my attitude you're welcome to stop reading my Talk page any time. There's clearly no way I'm going to get through to you that I'm not the only one who was out of line here.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Apparently you missed the "no response is needed" above." -- apparently you missed my edit summary.

"but I didn't see you telling that to Santamoly" -- his comment was directly about the article, whether Vodun should be called a "religion" or not. If his comment was recent, I'd've replied disagreeing with him. Your point could've been made with a single sentence and without the dramatics. Belittling other editors is specifically mentioned (as something not to do) in the civility policy.

I was very aware you'd try to reflect it back at me (I'm uncivil for telling you you're uncivil), so I tried to keep it (my first comment) as short as I could, instead of the verbosity I was accusing you of. Apparently instead of short it came across as arrogant.

"and probably to little effect" -- scroll down a bit here, an example. Maybe my intention (behind telling people to keep the talk about the article) comes through better in that example, than the Vodun one. Whatever they said and whatever you said may or may not be entirely valid, but we're going to have a problem if other editors have to scroll through people's general religious opinions and feelings when they're (only) looking for what people have to say about changing the article.

Before you imply that I'm a n00b for the third time, this is my third account and I first registered in 2006, I'm very familiar with general policies and how things tend to work here, thank you.

"I'm not the only one who was out of line here" -- since you admit you were out of line, I won't push it anymore.

"you went looking for bigger kids to beat me up" -- I wanted to refrain from replying since at that point I'd become biased about the situation and my opinion couldn't have been taken as seriously as someone's who was not involved. I didn't think stacking my personal opinion against yours ("pompous" and "pretentious" are subjective) would've gotten us anywhere.

(Didn't click the link, btw, can't youtube.) — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 16:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

My remarks weren't "dramatics" any more than they were any of the other epithets you have tried to apply.

No, you're not uncivil for telling me I'm uncivil, you're uncivil for doing so uncivilly. It's pretty obvious that you're not willing to admit that, which makes your endless blathering about the civility of my remarks somewhat ironic. I admitted early on in the discussion that my remarks to Santamoly could have been phrased better, but I don't see any corresponding admission from you.

You weren't looking for an objective opinion, you were looking for someone who would agree with you and put me down, since you weren't able to do it yourself. This is clear from your comment above that the people who disagreed with you (while not particularly agreeing with me) "lack a proper sense of judgement."

As for whether you're a n00b or not, well, all I have to go on is how you behave.

And I wasn't trying to start another discussion with you, I was simply making a suggestion as to how you might address similar issues should they arise in the future (i.e. gently and courteously, setting an example, not coming in like gangbusters and giving orders. Pretentious? Pot.Kettle.Black). But, again, you're not interested in taking advice, only giving it. You're also wasting space on my talk page.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 02:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you hit me up backchannel? Switzerland is accurate, but not verifiable.--Vidkun (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.Reply

	Great American Wiknic - Boston
	The Second Annual Great American Wiknic will be an opportunity for Wikipedians across the Greater Boston area to meet for an afternoon of Food, Fun, and Fellowship. Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about upcoming activities, and just enjoy a day at the park!
	Saturday, June 23 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM Boston Common	Food Fun Fellowship
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/Wiknic/2012!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC).Reply

Just came across your name while reviewing some archived material on my talk page, and I thought I'd wish you a happy upcoming Thanksgiving.Rosencomet (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd let you know I'm following up on an old comment you made on the Polytheism article. I wholeheartedly agree with all you said regarding Wicca and Polytheism and I think there are as many citable resources that disagree with the 'BTW initiatory only' view of Wicca as are cited in favor, but more importantly that such a statement is irrelevant to the article. Given that it's irrelevant, inviting the inevitable controversy over the subject is undesirable and not necessary to maintain the quality of the article. I'm removing the lines regarding initiation on those grounds. aremisasling (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nobody has brought it up since then (aside from that rather bitey/involved admin), so I don't think it's an issue. I'll be sure to leave you a note if it does come up, though. Thanks! Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Good move with your edit on the wicca page, it reads better. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Always good to get positive feedback on my edits.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the category Category:English novelists because it had been superseded by Category:20th-century English novelists, which I added last night as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry--I didn't see the new category had been added.

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your QA is getting sloppy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.86.131 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be clearer.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm engaged in a dispute with another editor here. S/he made an edit (with the one-word summary "arbitrary") with which I disagreed. I reinserted the information and reworked the phrasing a little. S/he then removed it again and left a comment on my Talk page (see the preceding entry). I invited the other editor to discuss this more fully on the Talk page of the article, but when s/he posts the responses make no sense to me. At one point s/he baselessly accused me of "only inserting your edit to cause unwarranted controversy." I don't understand what this editor is trying to do: I'm trying to assume good faith, but i gets harder with every exchange.

I don't know what my next step should be, but I feel I've gone as far as I can with this conversation. The behavior of this editor, "Styles," seems questionable to me; at one point s/he said "I will not allow your "edit" under that exact "paragraph", " which (as I pointed out in the discussion) is perilously close to claiming ownership of the article. Such a statement smacks to me of someone who has made an inflexible decision and is unwilling to entertain the notion that s/he might be wrong.

I would welcome some assistance with this but I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate approach, so I'm using this "help me" template.

Thanks,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 07:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

When there's a dispute between two editors and you cannot reach an agreement or compromise, the way ahead is to seek wider community input. Standard approaches would be requesting a third opinion or leaving a note seeking input at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, such as WikiProject United States or possibly WikiProject Religion. See WP:Dispute resolution for other available steps in the dispute resolution process. Huon (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Huon! I'd gone to WP:Dispute resolution, but wasn't sure which was the most appropriate approach. I'll start with requesting a third opinion, and see how that goes. I'm feeling pretty frustrated, but am trying to maintain civility, and figure the best approach is to get an uninvolved party to step in. I think I've been entirely reasonable and that my point is well-supported by the MoS; I'm really not sure what Styles' objection is. Perhaps an outside viewpoint can help resolve this calmly.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I've sabotaged the "third opinion" approach by commenting myself - the editors over there take the "third" part seriously and tend not to bother if already three or more editors are discussing. However, with TransporterMan and me agreeing with you, and keeping eyes on that article, we should have matters under control. Huon (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, sabotaged or not, I thank you and agree that having the two of you weigh in on my side should (should) take care of it. Honestly, half the time I couldn't parse what s/he was trying to say, which is why I finally called for help.

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions*

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Where do I find the template for a box at the top of an article that indicates it's written like an advertisement? I want to do some work on it, but not right now, and if someone else can clean it up, so much the better. However, I can't identify the right "WP:something" to find the list.

Thanks,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! {{advert}} is the one that you might be looking for. (There are more templates viewable at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup too, if you're interested.) /wiae /tlk 22:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly, @Wiae:!

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 00:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Also, "strong" is not a font face; markup calling for a non-existent font face results in the browser default font, which differs from the default font in Wikipedia. The skins Vector, Modern and Monobook default to the browser's default sans-serif font; the skins Cologne Blue, MinervaNeue and Timeless default to Arial. (For many users, the browser's default sans-serif font is Arial anyway.) I am guessing that you want the user's default serif font, so I'm suggesting it that way.

You are encouraged to change

<font face="strong" color="green">*[[user:Septegram|Septegram]]*[[user_talk:Septegram|Talk]]*[[Special:Contributions/Septegram|Contributions]]*</font> : *Septegram*Talk*Contributions*

to

<span style="font-family:serif; color: green">*[[user:Septegram|Septegram]]*[[user_talk:Septegram|Talk]]*[[Special:Contributions/Septegram|Contributions]]*</span> : *Septegram*Talk*Contributions*

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Anomalocaris: I'm not sure what a lint error is, but I don't want to be creating one regardless, so thanks for the heads-up. I've made the suggested change.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC) (who has been fascinated by anomalocaridids ever since he saw an animation of one swimming)Reply

Thanks! The Cambrian Explosion would have been an incredible time to be alive! But there wouldn't have been anyone to talk to. For more on what a lint error is, see WP:Linter. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I restored your changes there except for one (which was inside a quotation, so I assume it was an accident) and commented in the talk page thread. In case the other user decides to edit war, it might be helpful to have your eyes on the article again. Cdlt, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 22:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Struthious Bandersnatch:

I actually went straight to discussion; I didn't make changes to the article itself. Thanks for taking this on, though. I'll see if I have the resources to get back into that particular fray.

16:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SIAI-Marchetti SF.260, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DC3. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is go on bdldedhejek 2409:4041:D9C:6199:0:0:404B:480F (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Satyaraj777 2409:4041:D9C:6199:0:0:404B:480F (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply