User talk:A Sniper

Welcome to my improved civilized talk page!
*Please add all new threads at the end of this page.
*If you are going to leave a comment, please keep it as short as possible.
*I will respond on the appropriate talk page. If you post here, I will respond either on the article talk page itself or your talk page.
*If I posted on your talk page, please respond on your talk page.
*Please note that I do not respond to every comment. I only respond to the comments I feel I need to respond to.
*If the comment can be posted on the article talk page with the same effect, please post there rather than here.
All future comments posted here will be removed after I read them, if I so choose.

You're welcome

Re. User_talk:MrWhipple#Thank_you, I'm glad I could help. I've been out of the Wikipedia Mormon editing community for some time, mainly because of the frustration of dealing with people who create their own POV edits and then "camp out" to defend them. If we can pull together more editors knowledgeable in Mormon history (and historiography), I think we can turn a bad article into something helpful and balanced. --MrWhipple (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jangle pop and lists

Hi, I agree with your criticism of the subjective list in the Jangle pop article. I relocated the list to a "List" article, because it undercuts the credibility of the article. Some Wiki editors seem to think that lists are exempt from the Wiki rules, but they are not. Some lists have a lot of random additions.,..... To improve the article, we need a few good sources. I'll see if I can track one down.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A civil law question

Could you provide some guidance regarding a article in which minor emancipation is being discussed?

We know that once a minor marries he/she attains emancipation by default (this would apply for example, to a minor that gets married with parent's consent). The question is actually this: If a minor wants to get married and his father is dead and the mother is unreachable, is it not the case that the minor needs to go before a court to request emancipation by filling a petition for emancipation so that he can then obtain a marriage license?

Could you please confirm this is the case? My understanding is that the Juvenile court judge assess proof of financial independence, adequate housing arrangements, and sufficient maturity to grant emancipated minor status to the applicant.

Your help would be much appreciated.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished. I'd like to fill in some blanks and see if it makes any difference to your opinion. Here are the Colorado statutes that appear most relevant:

14-2-108. Judicial approval.[1]
(1) The juvenile court, as defined in section 19-1-103 (17), C.R.S., after a reasonable effort has been made to notify the parents or guardian of each underage party, may order the county clerk and recorder to issue a marriage license and a marriage certificate form:
(a) To a party aged sixteen or seventeen years who has no parent or guardian, or who has no parent capable of consenting to his marriage, or whose parent or guardian has not consented to his marriage; or

19-1-103. Definitions. [2]
As used in this title or in the specified portion of this title, unless the context otherwise requires
(45) "Emancipated juvenile", as used in section 19-2-511, means a juvenile over fifteen years of age and under eighteen years of age who has, with the real or apparent assent of the juvenile's parents, demonstrated independence from the juvenile's parents in matters of care, custody, and earnings. The term may include, but shall not be limited to, any such juvenile who has the sole responsibility for the juvenile's own support, who is married, or who is in the military.

Finally, here is the account of the judgement from the Associated Press:

The guru needed a court order to obtain a marriage license since he's too young to be married in Colorado without parental permission. Juvenile Court Judge Morris E. Cole issued the order and the license was obtained Friday from the city clerk's office. Cole interviewed the couple for 15 minutes in his chambers before issuing the court order May 7. The guru's father is dead and his mother couldn't be reached in India to give her consent. Cole said the boy "makes quite a bit of money and he seems quite mature—much older than 16." "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune

It's my contention based on these sources that the judge ordered the issuance of a marriage license to a minor. The minor subsequently married and as a result of being married became an emancipated minor. He would also have been emancipated if his living parent had given consent. So the emancipation was an outcome of the wedding rather than being a precondition of the wedding. Is that correct? Your responses in this matter are appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (PS: You may respond on Jossi's talk page if you like, in order to keep the conversation orderly. -W.)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful response. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For exhibiting several acts of editorial bravery and courage in defense of NPOV. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		"For adding 'special flavor' to the community by acting as a sort of wildcard." I realized after our latest round of volleys at Fanny Alger (which might be deleted anyway, but that is a different story) that the article is much better after the pressure and friction between us (not to mention several other articles we have edited over the last few months). Sometimes we don't see eye to eye, but I think that the Wikipedia is better for it - especially as you are able to remain civil when edits and consensus doesn't go your way. Thanks for challenging me to be a better editor! (and forgive me if I get frustrated with you in the future ;) ). Descartes1979 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

historians

Hey Sniper. I am writing in regards to the Joseph Smith discussion page. I started a discusion titled 'historians?' three quaters of the way down. Can we get your point of view on this, as you seem to be pretty NPOV. thanks (Captain hoek (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I just want to throw in a comment about JFoxe, the main "editor" of this article. A while back he said to you, "If you've like to see what Joseph Smith could (and in my opinion, should) look like, check out my handiwork at Fawn Brodie and Billy Sunday. And yes, there there was a considerable amount of "sniping" in the process of getting those articles together. But now they've been basically stable for more than a year." Well, I am the major "sniper" who disagreed with him about the Billy Sunday article. I am still displeased with the article. It definitely reflects JFoxe's interests (Sunday's conservative theological credentials) and ignores Sunday's importance as a cultural figure. The only reason the article became "basically stable" is that I finally quit--I just gave up fighting with him. I consider him a bully. He is tenacious and very focused. I just wanted to let you know that you probably cannot win your edit war, and you may as well just decide how much of his POV you can live with.--Rocketj4 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosh Hashanah

Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year.

On the subject of Rosh Hashanah, is this edit right? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Yeah, I got a few of my grad school applications done, and had a couple of lazy evenings so I couldn't resist :). Best, --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Jesus (reprise)

Alright, maybe it was an understandable temptation considering the campaign for the Jesus picture, which I suspect was more about annoying people than actually getting his picture into the article. I suppose that any average Christian reading the talk page wouldn't bother getting the Hebrew translated anyway, so the potential for offense maybe was low. Perhaps it is best to not take the risk and resist the powerful temptation to mess with such captions. The harmless fun is over I guess.

You seem to have been here longer than I, so I have a question. I wanted to mention in Will Lee that he is Jewish (since I am pretty sure he is), but I couldn't find explicit mention of it in any news articles or on his Sesame Street profile. I know this place is big on using sources, but honestly this would be fairly uncontroversial. Do you suppose I could add it anyway? Chedorlaomer (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding a source. I guess I got lost in references to Mr. Hooper's Jewishness and somehow missed those that discussed Lee himself. By the way, I like the new caption on Talk:Jew's personal Jesus. Thanks again, Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book

No problem, I was going to give it a few more days then email you since I hadn't seen it yet. Yeah, grad school apps are killing me right now - I am applying to 5 schools, and I have three of them done and submitted. The last two are due next Tuesday. Add that and the fact that we are in busy season right now and I don't have a ton of time on my hands. Yet somehow, I manage to log in to Wikipedia...Ironic isn't it ;). Can't wait for the book - catch you later.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ar wiki

Hi, can take a look to Talk:Arabic Wikipedia? about it's restrictions. regards. --Riyadi.asmawi (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, just to read the talk page in full, nd comment on it, better (Also with a bunch of Friends) , try to put what's been said about the arabic wikipedia..too fundamentalist. thank you for ur time. --Riyadi.asmawi (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MJ

Thank you for your comment on MJ. I think I will take a breather. I just can't understand why SkyWriter has such a vendetta to push "clarifying" the article as "Christian" at the expense of marginalization of many Messianic Jews who reject the label not only nominally, but behaviorally and doctrinally as well. inigmatus (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reform and Zionism

Seeing the ongoing edit back and forth on the Reform Judaism page, I tried to be a neutral party adding additional info on Reform Zionism, correcting some HUC facts, and making the American Council for Judaism note have an "ending" - as it was it implied the Council was just as big and powerful as it was once upon a time. I took the wording that you fact-checked from the ACJ Wikipedia page where it seemed unchallenged and therefore ripe for copying. Before I go out and get other facts, I am curious what your goals/intentions are on this area so I can make sure my efforts might find a conclusion. Many thanks for your efforts to edit the various Jewish and Reform Jewish pages JerseyRabbi (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BNR metal

I have put BNR metal on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. IF you want, you can try and contribute to the discussion.75.159.18.67 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Spread Theory

Take a look at it as a shining example of OR. I've told the editor that he can expect it to be deleted. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your revision. I am new to editing :) Ninja247 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The overly quick finger

You're welcome, I've done almost the same thing myself twice in the last 10 minutes... Harland1 (^t/_c) 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm asking this as a sincere question, not as a challenge. Why was my edit "incorrect"? Un school 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use File:Sugarmonkey.jpg

The file File:Sugarmonkey.jpg states that it is a "public domain photo of sugarmonkey live, taken by Jen Owens, available for download at the band's myspace page (www.myspace.com/sugarmonkeyonline)". I can't seem to find Jen Owens' public domain release of this photo? Can you point me towards it? Thanks. (Feel free to respond here, to keep the discussion in the same place.)—C45207 | Talk 08:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, in the real world, granted Owens the right & ability to take the photo in the first place, and the notice was up at the previous version of sugarmonkeyonline.com when the band was in existence, which (sadly) is no more. This is the only reason the photo was used by me at Wikipedia...and you can see I am a long-time, bona fide Wikipedian. The final version of the web site stated only that content was the property of sugarmonkey limited. If the only way to put the photo in the Commons is to re-edit the photo page with new info, just let me know and I'll do so. The point is that I have the authority personally to allow the photo free usage, as the proprietor and representative of said photo. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is probably to send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the image's talk page. —C45207 | Talk 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi A Sniper,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

I have filed a wikiquette alert concerning your unilateral removal of a POV concern tag at Ashkenazi intelligence. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i forgot to include the link. I decided that ANI was not the right forum as I hope there will be no need to use any administrative tools once input from other users have been heard. Here is the link Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Ownership_issues_at_Ashkenazi_intelligence.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, THAT went nowhere! ;) A Sniper (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Sugarmonkey.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sugarmonkey.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --εω (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less. Delete it. Don't delete it. The band doesn't exist any more so the argument is more or less moot. A Sniper (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your donation!

Your release of File:Eric Greif at right, '85.jpg into the public domain is very generous. Thanks for doing that! —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 04:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

I looked at the version of 12th September as this seemed to be the only stable version (it had sat for about a day unchanged, thus seemed to have achived some kind of consensus).Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DKY

The Garlasco article was nominated for DKY on Sept. 10 and is under discussion.Historicist (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazim talk page

We can built quick consensus around Golda Meir and/or Anne Frank if you want. More, Ashkenazim also made great contributions to American society and their history in Israel can't be ignored-so we have to include at least one American and/or Israeli-preferably by me both. If you agree we can make things faster.--Gilisa (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now we have to pass it on the talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the support. As I recall, you've helped fend off his POV pushes before. I recall (I hope correctly) that he was issued a topic ban, or at least article ban, for this exact same set of anti- 'Ethnic Jew/Secular Jew' attitude before. If so, can you help me find the links, I think we will need to renew that ban. I genuinely cannot tell why he's a POV pusher, but the antipathy towards Jews who aren't in accordance to his perspective of 'orthodoxy' is palpable. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note, and have replied there, it's the same old 'Only Orthodox Jews are the real Jews' attitude as our other POV pusher. It'll be another equally long hassle. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's repeatedly admitted a POV< but she can't understand it's a POV, because it's HER view, I think she's trapped in the WP:TRUTH. ThuranX (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Garlasco

I noticed your comments to the IP editor who is using many different addresses on that page and Talk page. I asked about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page#Editing_with_an_IP_address and was told it is ok, and that editors should not be harrassed to get an account. I seems problematic to me. Millmoss (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what policy you feel I am in breach of, but I find it puzzling because you say you are familiar with policy and have removed tags four times in a day and inserted potentially libelous material in to a biography of a living person. For self-disclosure purposes, I'm not part of a cabal,I'm actually trying to improve the article, and I'd like to work with others to do so.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You following the herd in diminishing the reliability of NGO Monitor with such statements, coupled with your reluctance to create a single user account, just acts to frustrate - cabal or no cabal. A Sniper (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Brutal Death Metal

I just read the talk page and I see absolutely nothing BUT people stating it should be included, I see no "general consensus that it be not included." You might as well take my information as professional original research, I've been in the extreme metal scene for over 15 years now. I know almost everything there is to know about metal. I was there when brutal death metal first began to form, and it is most definitely a real genre. I don't have any magazines or publications to cite for it, but I am sure I can find some online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anathematized one (talk • contribs) 02:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a Jew? reversion

There is not requirement to "go slow" in Wikipedia policy so far as I'm aware.
Please read the cited sources before reverting.
If previous editors choose to use ambiguous terminology that leaves the reader wondering what they mean, that's not my problem. Encyclopaedic articles tend to be explicit in defining what they are about.
If you have an interest in the article, then where were you while it remained unreferenced for at least a year since the last time I looked at it? No article while it remains unreferenced can be considered encyclopaedic by Wikipedia quality standards, as I'm sure you are aware.
As I said in the edit summary, if you disagree, use talk. If you dispute the source used, please find an alternative one, preferably accessible online. Thank you--Meieimatai? 05:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the reversion you made. As before, it has been done is sections so you are able, should you wish to do so, to engage in discussion of any content you find a problem with...on Talk first.

Your assertion that I present an orthodox-biased POV is something you will have to convince me of since, if this is the case, it was not intentional. However, that can be evaluated on the merits of your argument and proof.

Please note that calling in an administrator is a threat when delivered before any discussion has taken place. Please do not threaten me. It is counter-productive to say the least--Meieimatai? 00:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Joseph Smith Jr. Article revision that you undid Good morning, you just undid my revision to the Joseph Smith article and threatened to block me from Wikipedia. However, the only comment you left in your edit summary was: "(Undid revision 322684358 by Wmgcf (talk) rv vandalism)". In your edit summary you failed to respond to the content of my previous edit summaries explaining why I was making the change. You are the third person who has undid my revision without responding to the reason for my revision. I am very game for discsussion and debate, but if you are going to undo my revisions then please first respond to the content of my revision and edit summaries - perhaps even offering alternate edits. If you feel passionately about Joseph Smith's treasure hunting you could make a Joseph Smith peculiarities subpage.

For the record the Joseph Smith article had a very lengthy section about Joseph's early treasure hunting days, but no mention of the event that made him who he was: his first vision where he says God and Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him. Nobody hates or loves Joseph for being a treasure hunter, and his treasure hunting activities stopped as soon as he got responsibilities. Therefore, treasure hunting is out and the vision is in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmgcf (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salutes

Just saying hi. Still listening to the Morbid Saint you sent me every once in a while. Thanks again for that. Hope all is well. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 09:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments on my page, that sounds exciting! As far as me I'm just fine. Quite busy with college and work. Always struggling financially. Life is pretty good, though, for a number of reasons. By the way, tahnk you for your support on Judaism's talk page. I'm not sure what they don't understand. I get their argument that Judaism is a religion AND ethnicity. But there IS an article for the Jewish ethnicity. The article I edited to say "religion" is the Judaism RELIGION article. Two different articles. Not to mention I'm just trying to put "religion" in the intro sentence. The article states that Judaism is a religion about 5 million times in other places, so I don't get the fuss. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH (or should I say Oy vey!)

The Judaism article. There seems to be some argument again. I posted a bunch of evidence on the talk page. Your thoughts and comments on the discussion would be much appreciated. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - you started quite an interesting few days of debate. It was a lot of fireworks, and for a day or two, I was the only editor sticking with the word religion. It really defies logic. Then again, you have a few Orthodox (from their talk pages) editors who have agenda-pushing POVs. Slrubinstein referred to you and me as a "tag team". Hardy har. :) A Sniper (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace on Ashkenazim PB

Seem like your edit is the last for now. In a case of further attempts to change the status quo I will be there to assist you. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Identity

Is there any chance of the name changing for Who is a Jew? I've read through the circular arguments that seem to constitute what people on the talk page consider a "strong consensus" but the name is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, is it? It's rhetorical. Jim Steele (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal/Slam Death Metal

What's so wrong about it? You've removed the categories a few times now and I'm confident that they're real genres. Hell, if deathcore is a sub-genre of death metal, brutal/slam should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithon (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's an article for it on the French Wikipedia, and ask any fan, they're say it's a genre. There's no way that Devourment is the same type of death metal as Possessed is. It's a genre. Why would you say it isn't? --Vithon (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper sourcing

You probably read the comment concerning the edit that I made to the List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. page. I am not refuting the fact that women were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, but the source referenced did not support the claim. Hence why I only removed the citation. If you know of a proper citation that supports the fact that Joseph Smith had multiple wives sealed to him after his death, then your contribution would be appreciated.--Shemseger (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you did not leave a comment with your recent revision so I only noticed that you had "undone" the revision that I had made. Thank you for fixing the citation.--Shemseger (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Emma

What you've written about Joseph and Emma being "legally wed" is certainly true. It just sounds odd. We'll see what the other folks say. All the best,John Foxe (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome to my improved civilized talk page"

Ironic. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to participate in the discussion?

I asked you a question, you didn't respond. "And why is this more notable than an article about a couple of folks saying Africans are dumber? I'm asking a question to question the validity of this article. Why is this important? Why are positive physical attributes more notable than negative ones? Assuming all other factors are equal (citations are just as valid for an article on Africans being dumber), how is this more notable?" Slrubenstein also brought up some points, you didn't address them either. Are you going to contribute to this article, or are you just concerned with making sure no one deletes it? ScienceApe (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I presumed that's all you were concerned about. None of your comments addressed my questions, you're just deviating from my points. Why are positive physical attributes more notable than negative ones? Assuming all other factors are equal, how is this more notable? I'm sure you don't care about an article on African Stupidity. How about Ashkenazi stupidity? Or Ashkenazi nose size? Or Ashkenazi hair length? Or Ashkenazi penis size? Tell me why intelligence is more notable than other other physical characteristics, and why positive characteristics are more notable than negative ones. ScienceApe (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it's pretty obvious that you are just ignoring my points, and arguing a red herring. I'm not even talking about science, I'm asking you why are positive physical characteristics more notable than negative ones. Or even better, you can address Slrubenstein's questions about why do we care about intelligence more than other physical characteristics? You have done none of this. You aren't improving the article, you aren't improving wikipedia, you just want to preserve this one article. I feel that you just have this single purpose. I opened up this discussion with you because you are the single most vocal user currently on that article who is in favor for preserving the article as is, and not merging. I'm asking you these questions so you can find sources which address them, and add them to the article. You're not doing that, you're just repeating the same irrelevant rebuttal over and over again. I don't like how you aren't taking my questions seriously. I'm adding a merger tag to the article. If this article is important to you, participate in the merger discussion, and address the questions that I, and other users raise. ScienceApe (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any personal attacks what so ever. I asked you to address my questions, and you refused to do so. That's absurd, I'm asking a legitimate question, and you are throwing out the argument entirely. I didn't say you are a single purpose account, I said you just have this single purpose. You admitted it as well, you are only concerned with whether the article gets deleted or not.

Removing my merge tags is completely unacceptable. Don't remove the merge tags in the future, or I will have to contact an admin about it. We are having a discussion, contribute to it in a civil way, or abstain, but don't remove tags until the discussion has concluded. ScienceApe (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not cooperating with me at all on this. Work with me, not against me. ScienceApe (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ScienceApe (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie James Dio

Unfortunately none of the claims of his death were accompanied by a source, and the vast majority were made by anonymous users, which is why I protected the page under the "vandalism" banner (nothing personal). If someone can direct me to a reliable source that confirms his death, I will unprotect the page. ... discospinster _talk 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. If true (which I hope it is not) it will be in the news soon, and then the appropriate changes can be made. Right now all I can find is an announcement on "Metal Underground" but I can't seem to access the page. ... discospinster _talk 06:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're in the news. So am I, indirectly. Cool? ... discospinster _talk 07:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal Death and other demos

Dear A Sniper, I've noticed you doing a lot of hard work at the deletion discussions for articles on noteworthy death metal demos, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infernal Death and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infernal Live. I agree with your opinions on how such demos are influential and much discussed, which is obvious to guys like us who have been reading metal mags their whole lives. But I'm afraid you will probably lose the debate for these demos (and probably others) because of the attitudes of the other people in the debate.

You see, there are various types of people volunteering around here, from Inclusionists (like you and me) to Deletionists who have a much different long-term view of Wikipedia. Deletionists by their nature are usually the ones who nominate articles for deletion, and other Deletionists are most likely to participate in each debate with vigor. They tend to be quite inflexible and will insist forever that the evidence you come up with just isn't significant or reliable or verifiable enough to get them out of that pre-ordained mindset. The debaters you've tangled with have proven to be especially inflexible and humorless on these matters. I've seen this from experience.

I fear that your efforts to save these particular articles and others might be wasted. In the case of the Death demo albums I suggest that you add what you find about each demo's influence to the band's article as an item of historical interest. That way your work is more likely to survive on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, and pick the right battles! --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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) 02:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion SoughtCan you snip over to:User talk:Mwgf79#Sterling PriceI am seeking other opinions on this. THNKS. (Don't forget to momentarily hold your breath.) > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Please leave a clarification of your thoughts on Mwgf79's talk page. I said that it would be alright if he used his source material and you said "I concur" to my thoughts. Then you reverted his reversion. This is sending a mixed signal. If you disagreed with me you should have said so, that because of CoI he could not add anything. Please be clear. I don't think that he wants to take the time to read CoI, or many of the tutorials on Wikipedia. If he would have used third party sources, we probably wouldn't be here now. You could hold him to the line technically, but my main focus was that he not be self-serving. Anywho, please help clear this up. THNKS. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Message from Mwgf79 left on my talk page:Let me (mwgf79) ask, then - what's going on here? I did what was asked - I cited primary sources, and added that for a more complete discussion of the banking episode, see my book of XYZ title. Wikipedia has no ban on contributors citing their own work - contributors are advised to use caution, and I did. I noted that readers wishing more information on this subject should refer to my work on the subject. There's a lot more detail to Price, et al.'s involvement with the banks than a couple of newspaper articles. This is not original research - it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Southern History) and by a prestigious university press (Yale). For that matter, my dissertation on this topic won Columbia University's Nevins Prize in North American Economic History. If it's good enough for those folks, I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong re wikipedia. mwgf79Please drop him a line. THNKS. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Why did you revert this editWhy did you revert this edit? I think it made sense. Especially since the information you restored is also unsourced. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Sniper. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.A simple correction would have workedThank you for correcting the broken link at Messianic Judaism. However, you accused me of "agenda-pushing POV" when all I did was take away brackets from aound a non-functioning link. It was a without merit and unnecessary.--DeknMike (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Jacob/James was mine, because that's what's in Stern's CJB; James is not a Jewish name of the time, and scholars think it was changed to honor King James, who commissioned the translation. The other edit was not mine.--DeknMike (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]re 3 revertsSniper, you are correct that I had undone the vandalism at Messianic Judaism twice in quick succession, and rather than continue their nonsense I wrote an explanation on the talk page (which they continued to attack). *** When I did peer-reviewed and graded college history papers, I followed references to original sources. I read detractors and proponents to give a reasoned and defensible judgment of truth. I use this training in my Wiki edits. I use history reports preserved by practitioners and trust them more than recent unreferenced editorials (i.e. their 'authoritative sources'). Apparently others on that board haven't had the same training. I suppose this is why Wikipedia may not be used for school research papers. --DeknMike (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC) (ps. thanks for listening)[reply]MJI think you deleted another editor's comments with your last edit at Talk:Messianic Judaism. Was that intentional? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Polygamy and Joseph SmithJoseph Smith never taught plural marriage to b an indispensable part of the New and Everlasting Covenant. That would necessarily imply that w man cannot be saved in the highest heaven unless he participates in plural marriage. That has never been a belief of the mormon faith. Wikipedia is a place for unbiased facts, not conjectures. You cannot state something as fact that is clearly controversial without at least prefacing it as such. Why my version is better: there is not one person that could disagree with what I have written, Mormon or not. It is completely factual, and informative. Further, it is the official doctrine of the mormon faith unaltered since the time of Joseph Smith. Please refer to section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants for a clearer understanding what was taught by Joseph Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.2 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]ClarificationSorry, there is one point I should have made clearer, that is why the statement yo reverted to is untrue. Polygamy was a very controlled practice at that time, the vast majority of the church not practicing it. Was it Smith's teaching that the majority of his following were to be damned? No, that is obviously an extrapolation. The majority of the church membership at that time were still acting to their salvation under the direction of smith being wed in a monogamous relationship under his supposed sealing power. Lets keep wikipedia great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.2 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]more 'who is a jew' on wikipediahaving editing wars over this. any help and insights would be appreciated. things like "he was born and raised jewish but is not religious, so he shouldn't be listed as a jew, or 'jewish' for religion, or under jewish americans, etc." - are there any real rules to follow? Soosim (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Orphaned non-free image File:GLI LP.jpg⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 14:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, A Sniper. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page. Message added 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Juris DoctorI'm sorry. The editing summary only allowed so many characters. I consciously avoided an accusation of POV-pushing, as I don't want to ascribe motives to actions. I didn't notice how many notes and stuff there were in the chart, and it looked kind of busy. Like I said, the explanatory texts seemed to be out of place and irrelevant. In addition, the potential that the content serve a POV motive and nothing else was high. Therefore, it was my position that the content be excluded to preserve the quality of the article. Of course, a chart is used to quickly summarize information for the analytical benefit of the reader, and while it's important that it not over-simplify or mislead, it becomes more useless the more complex it becomes. The article goes into great detail about the J.D. in each of the countries, and the categories and data are clear enough not to be misleading. Therefore it seemed that the extra information was out of place in a chart. And of course care should be taken against bias when deciding what information is relevant/useful, but basic analytical tools are typically safe means. The category of "education" includes activity that prepares one for an examination, and while taking an exam can be educational, it is a measure or result of the process, and not an element. While it's true that an exam is a requirement for a license in Canada and the U.S., it is separate from the educational one. Therefore the details seemed irrelevant. Because it seemed that the information was misplaced and irrelevant, I could not understand what purpose the content served. It seemed to me that the content would be most useful to someone trying to persuade that the licensing requirements of Canada and the United States are similar. Therefore, it seemed that the most likely motive for including the strange content was to advocate a POV. And since that motive was likely, I included it as a reason for exclusion of the content. Perhaps if your intent was to merely add something about the licensing requirements in Canada, that information could be included in the Canada section? Or a link to the Admission_to_practice_law article could be added to this JD article? Thanks. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thank you, and thanks for teaching me something about Canadian admissions regs. Interesting. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]