User talk:Moby-Dick3000/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Your edit to Christianity

Thank you for experimenting with the page Christianity on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Jkelly (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. If, as you write, you meant this edit seriously, I'm not sure what to tell you. Wikipedia really isn't the right place to come up with a radical redefinition of either Christianity or henotheism. You are, of course, welcome to take up a discussion of your edit at Talk:Christianity, but I'd suggest it probably isn't worth your time, and I imagine that you'd get accused of just trying to rile people up. Jkelly (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wiki symbols

A tag has been placed on Wiki symbols requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vianello (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wiki Symbols

Putting it on your user page is more than fine. You don't need to create a whole article for it, however. - Vianello (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, no problem! Accidents happen. On Wikipedia, they happen quite often. Thanks for understanding! - Vianello (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Paella

You said: I don't understand why you placed the dubious tag in the etymology section of Paella, especially since it's well cited. The root is a romance one, that might be Indo-european, or not. The Welsh padell is most probably a latin loanword, otherwise the same root should be present in many other Indo-european tongues. --Jotamar (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Mixed red paella.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mixed red paella.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Xanthe Milton

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Xanthe Milton, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.curtisbrown.co.uk/presenters/client/user1637. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Paella

Official web page of the Valencian community tourist organisation. here you can find the basic recipe of paella. If you want more recipes of paella without the garlic, there are tons in the internet.

Notice that Paella is a dish that traditionally has been cooked with the things that peasant had in their fields, so there are plenty of recipes. If the wikipedia wants to have a NEUTRAL point of view about what is a paella, has to go to the basic paella recipe, that means only put the ingredients that everyone puts in a paella. Garlic in paella, specially in Valencia (I don't talk about mixt paella, very rare in Valencia, except maybe in some interior parts like Alcoi) is very rare. --Coentor (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

African American/Black American

Please don't copy-and-paste content from one article to another. And don't decide to change the article's title from African American to Black American without discussion on the Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I copied the contents of African American to create the article Black American because I tried perform a move to change the article's name but for some reason the server wouldn't let me. It interpreted my action as vandalism even though that clearly wasn't my intention.

I wanted to change the name of the article because I hate the phrase African American as do many Black Americans. It's inaccurate, clumsy and too long. African Americans aren't from Africa despite the fact their ancestors are. Very often they have multi-racial ancestry even though many of them aren't aware of it, thus making the phrase African American even more inaccurate. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your rationale for wanting to move the article, although I don't happen to agree with it. You couldn't move the article for technical reasons, not because the system thought it was vandalism. Please discuss any proposed name changes at Talk:African American to give other editors a chance to express their opinions on the subject. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism page: citations needed

I appreciate your point on the Buddhism page. Nevertheless, you'll need to find citations from Reliable sources to back this up. I think you'll find that as soon as you have a good source, opposition to the change will melt away - and the source will probably also clarify all of our thinking on the matter. I find it an interesting point! But let's try to work cooperatively, and on the basis of existing research, rather than our own opinions (even though these are always right :) ) . hgilbert (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Life of the Buddha

I saw you made a lot of edits to the section. I didn't look at all of them (takes a bit long for each diff to load), so i can't tell you if i like them all, but your editing inspired me to look at the section a bit closer. I hope my additions don't conflict with what you had in mind for that section. Also: please don't take offense by my edit summaries. I somehow got the impression you were shortening too much and only later realized that your edits were actually quite surgical :) I'd be happy if you let me know if u like my additions; or not, of course :) My idea was to provide the first-time reader of the Buddhas life story with at least a wee bit more background info, i.e. use this possible first encounter with a reader new to Buddhism to leave him with at least some idea of what "enlightenment" could mean (i imagine, many readers will start with the life story). Thanx, with metta, Andi 3ö (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please be more careful in your use of the word never as in your edit of Christianity. -- allen四names 23:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about pics in the Oral Sex article

All of the arguments against displaying explicit pics strike me as ridiculous and disingenuous. We can always include both close ups and full-body pics if the sexually inexperienced find close-up pics confusing. Also, how are we to know whether readers associate explicit pics with pornography? Quite frankly, why should we care? I always thought the goal of Wikipedia was impartiality and accuracy in the information it provides, not worrying about whether we're upsetting our readers. To be honest I believe the editors who are opposed to the explicit pics have a moral objection to them and the reasons presented above for not displaying them are nothing but excuses for that. Keep in mind, if the pics in question depicted insects having sex nobody here would be raising these issues. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I find your comment to be a bad faith attack on the editors who disagree with you. I strongly suggest you refactor your comments and read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I also highly recommend that you restrict your comments to the editorial content of the article and not make further comments about other editors. Dreadstar ☥ 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disgree with you. I feel my comments were neither in bad faith nor were they an attack. I very carefully considered them before posting them and rewrote them several times. The fact that you want me to refactor them makes me feel like you're trying to prevent me from expressing myself in a forum where editors are encouraged to do just that. Therefore, I will not refactor them. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is indeed bad faith for you to accuse other editors of being "disingenuous" and claiming that the reasons they gave are just "ridiculous..excuses" to hide the "real" reason behind their objections. Not only bad faith, but a personal attack as well - you're in essence calling people liars, that's a blatant personal attack, period. Again, I strongly recommend you not make further comments about editors and restrict yourself to commenting on the editorial content of the article, per the Wikipedia Policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you persist in attacking other editors you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I disagree with your interpretation of my comments. If you feel compelled to block me for mild comments like disingenuous, ridiculous and suggesting that other editors are lying about their motivations then you indeed have a narrow-minded view of free speech. Therefore, I will not refactor my comments or apologize for them. Feel free to block me if you like. I will wear it like a badge of honor. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read over Wikipedia:Free speech. Dreadstar ☥ 01:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to read Wikipedia policy to know what free speech is. Also, please stop leaving messages on my talk page. I no longer have any desire to discuss this issue with you because you refuse to see my point of view. Apparently you're only interested in quoting WP policy and threatening me with blocks. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)