That's 100% true information from the Crystal Pepsi movement. 100%. Don't just assume things and be a jerk. You can look at the skippy62able YouTube channel and see. It was additional info for the movement. Look at it right now and I demand you bring my edits back now, I have a right to edit without criticism, have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmorgthgfhu (talk • contribs)

@Mmorgthgfhu: Okay. I apologize; I rushed to conclusions and assumed that the edits were poor. That is my fault. However, just because something is true doesn't mean that it's encyclopedic. I don't feel that the expansion of L. A. Beast's campaign is necessary; it seems to be excessively long for a YouTube reaction to an article subject which has not been covered in reliable sources. Please don't demand things; anyone has the right to revert and criticize anyone's edits (including yours to revert and criticize mine), but a major step in the Bold, Revert, Discuss edit process is to discuss controversial edits, as we are doing now. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 02:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Origamite, I Have Just made a new article about a Rack Extension on the Chip64. I Need at least 10 People to Confirm it. You may make any changes to the page. If you think it should be deleted I will add that to my Vote list :)

Vote List for Chip64

Wakalaka123 (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wakalaka123: Where did you get this impression? A confirmation isn't part of article creation. However, there are no sources, so those should be added pretty quickly. I'm also unaware why you're consulting me on this matter; the editor interaction analyzer says that I have never encountered you before. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Ok! Nevermind. Also idk where I got the impression. Wakalaka123 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

articles for creation
Thank you for quality articles such as Edith Hirsch, for "Start with an infobox", for serving articles for creation with helpful explanations, for a noticed "combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service"- you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering if, given your participation in the discussion on his wife, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George de Menil (2nd nomination).

(To be clear, this isn't a canvass; I have no idea how you'll vote, but I do know you'll provide a reasoned opinion if you comment. That's more than can be said for the current "keep" voter, who, when pressed to explain just which sources establish notability, could come up with nothing better than a personal attack.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You sent me a message asking about what methods were used in the Holocaust. Primarily, Gassing was used, because it was the fastest way. BUT, Execution could also take place by Firing Squad, and by being Burned Alive (In the Crematoria)

Yes--the source supports 1 million, I think. Are you sure that gassing was the primary method in all camps? Can you give me a breakdown between methods? I'm not a Holocaust denier (far from it, I'm Jewish), but I believe Zyklon B did not kill the majority of the victims. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 19:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Says here[1] that it killed 4.1 million, but was changed to 1.1 million

@BigCJ123: I know. I've known that the death count was revised down with new information. That's why we can't edit war on Wikipedia, even if we're right--because being right about the facts can change. I hope you enjoy the Middle-earth wikiproject, and continue editing productively. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)