List of groups referred to as cults so that we can talk about them on the talk page. I beleive everything you deleted was sourced. The list has carefully-defined criteria, and if a group meets the criteria we include regardless of our own opinions. •:• Will Beback•:• 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Edit to John de Gray
I appreciate trying to be more precise, but you broke the infobox. The fact that his election was quashed is explained in the text. I could possibly be incorporated in the infobox, just not in the fields, as trying to change those breaks the box. I'll attempt to change the actual statements in the box, so the box won't be broken. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works too! Thanks for not breaking it. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problems at all, glad to have someone else checking the articles I'm working on. Thanks!Ealdgyth | Talk 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not alter quotes
Hi, I appreciate your concern that Catholic priests not be falsely labeled as pedophiles however we do not censor and we don't alter quotes to suit our needs. We could provide a reliable source to show that no priest was involved in pedophilia to balance out those statements however.
Dear Mamalujo, Benjiboi has been reported for his disruptive behaviour. Don't let him intimidate you - you are exactly right about the "quotes". And pay no attention to his last strange sentence. Str1977(talk) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per various discussions on WP:MOS, please do not use Christian-specific dating in articles that are important to religions other than Christianity. Also, per various ArbCom discussions, changing an article which already has a distinct style to another one against consensus has been considered disruptive. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains both Hebrew and Christian calendars, and as such, it is inappropriate to use Anno Domini. -- Avi (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Marcotte
The reason I have twice removed the quotes is that their inclusion is biased. She is notable not only for her inflammatory statements, and even if she were, repeating only the most outrageous of them--i.e., those **selected and repeated by her critics**--places favor on those who criticised her. That's not to say that the quotes weren't rephrehensible, or that they were, but to use the majority of the article to repeat those statements of hers found most widely offensive, without any analysis, seems unfair. Placement bias is a bias like any other. And finally, an article that is mostly quotes isn't really the purview of wikipedia, as opposed to wikiquotes.
I do understand your argument--that wikipedia's mandate is to give the maximum amount of information in those fields which make people most notable--but I feel that it's invalidated in this case, in that none of her quotes were drawn from, e.g., the posts that convinced the Edwards campaign to hire her in the first place, or from other noteworthy posts she made.
I'd like to draw your attention to the Criticism_of_Tony_Blair article. Although it contains quite a lot of his positions that have been criticised, no section consists of simply a list of his statements others found offensive, in their most offensive form.
I won't revert again, because the version that is currently up is the one that predates me, and to stem off an edit war, but I invite you onto the talk page to discuss this with me, and the user who made the original edit. If, as I suspect, we find ourselves unable to resolve the dispute shortly, I suggest we petition a mod for arbitration.
I'd like to mention at this point that I agree that this is a difficult and ambiguous case, and if anything I've said above is insulting or agressive, it wasn't meant to be. You know how it can be on the internet with energizing issues.
Thanks so much for your involvement on this--66.65.125.206 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I also see that the issue had come up (somewhat) before on the talk page, something I had not noticed until just now. I think I'm bringing up something new, but if I ever end up in an area that was already decided, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks!--66.65.125.206 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free fair use rationale for Image:Miguel_Pro.gif
Hi. I noticed you blanked the non-free fair use rationale for Image:Miguel_Pro.gif, but you did not leave a reason for why in the edit summary. Could you please respond on the talk page: Image_talk:Miguel_Pro.gif. Thank you. Dgf32 (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for getting back to me! Dgf32 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding your removal of sourced information from this article, please take conversation to the talk page. As policy sets out at Wikipedia:Consensus, when someone reverts your change, the proper procedure is to discuss it. In respect to this particular proposed change, I've been waiting a reply since January 8th, and, if you continue to feel the information is inappropriate, I will be happy to discuss alternatives for handling that material with you there. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsable sections
Hi! You have done considerable work on the {{Fascism sidebar}}. There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like that one. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I hope you can bring your views to the discussion. - C mon (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring!
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.