Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Nishkid64 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in answer to your two questions: 1) yes in preview footnotes will number themselves from [1] without the rest of the article to pull them together. When you save they will appear in the correct sequence. 2) Yes, feel free to WP:BEBOLD and make the change to condense the section. If anyone objects to it then it can be discussed at article talk. Be sure to put an explanation of your condensation in your edit summary to clarify that the length of the section was placing undue weight on the episode. Mfield (Oi!) 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work improving this article. It needed it. Thanks! Markhh (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How funny that you dropped that note when you did. I was in process of looking at what you've done and intended to post comments about it afterward. I'll get back to you on the article talk page in a few minutes! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at the talk page about the article. You've done some great work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BashBrannigan. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing,

Even though youtube is not a reliable source, I was wondering if it be ok to mention that there exists a video out there that suggests so and so... and that the video can be found on youtube and NOW Magazine, without saying that it is official surveillance footage.

Check out my talkpage for response. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Just to let you know, I agree with your position at User_talk:GoodDay#Who_was_the_Leaf_captain_for_2008-2009 and have added my arguments.Danlaycock (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you asked about this website's reliability. Seoul Sisters is very good for learning background information about any of the South Korean golfers or Korean American golfers. It will tell when they turn pro, any junior achievements they have, and what they done since turning pro. Birth dates are provided, something LPGA.com doesn't provide.

SS is definitely a cheerleader for these golfers, but for gleaning data to include in wikipedia entries, it's a good source. I'd say a 9 on the 10 point scale. I've used it to build wikipedia entries on Sun Young Yoo and M.J. Hur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 02:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for editing the post on consciousness. I am new to Wikipedia and am still getting used to it. I did not think that my changes were completely irrelevant and should be removed. As for the suggestions you had, I hope the following explanation clarifies my position regarding these changes.

I understand that I may not be of the same "stature" as some of the other editors, but that is simply because I am new. As for the words being "amateurish", I do not quite understand the claim. There seems to be nothing amateurish about the holographic representation of consciousness and its relation to the ideas of somatotopic and topographic maps which describe the neural circuitry of the brain. While the authors of the book did describe this idea, they never followed up on it with any peer-reviewed publications, hence the phrase: "were not able to prove this idea with research". Therefore, they only deserve the credit for first imagining this idea as philosophers. Many neurologists since have figured out that a similar concept does exist in terms of motor and sensory memory. It is important to have that excerpt as a part of the Consciousness article; it contains information on the philosophical beginnings of an actual scientific fact.

I look forward to your next review/suggestions regarding this post. I hope we can figure out a solution where this information is added, but also written in a concise, less amateur way. BolonYokte (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BashBrannigan,

I noticed you reverted my edit on Émile Bouchard regarding a redirect of Defenceman. Allow me to explain, I had earlier done redirect fixes on various ice hockey articles but was then told to stop. At some point we will return to the (ice hockey) dab in defenceman and my edits caused them to have more work done than normal, so by reverting it, it saved less hassle. Hope this clears everything up, I've already been told off about it twice and to be honest I wish I hadn't have started it. I appriciate your help all the same and understand where you come from with your revert, it was my original intention to edit all redirects but I believe it's a good idea not to fix redirects unless there are broken. Raphie (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more information - WP:NOTBROKEN.

I wanted to apologize for the mis-correction I introduced. When I read "Fischer's lifetime score in tournament and match games with 5.0-0 was six wins, three draws, and no losses (83.3%)." I took the 5.0-0 to be a score (albeit oddly presented) rather than a move (O-O). Of course, I should have noted that 6+3 didn't add up to 5! A space after the "5." would have helped, but apparently, that isn't the approved style. WHPratt (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an approved style in WikiProject Chess. I've seen both. I was also confused by "5.0-0" (interpreting the "5.0" to be some kind of "release number" or some such thing. I think I looked at it five times at least, puzzled, until finally seeing it represent a chess move!). I'd like to see WikiProject Chess adopt like in the Yugoslav publications (i.e., the space). If we were both confused, it can't be a fluke. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BashBrannigan. You have new messages at Jojhutton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A tag has been placed on "Basic Food Flavors, Inc." requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Judit Polgár. You have greatly improved the article. Quale (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be angry please. i am new at this and I do apologize as I don't mean to be "A PAIN!" as you so eloquently stated. Please give me a little leaway here. You're an expert at this and I know that it's second nature to you. However, I'm new. I've read a lot on this site. It's confusing at times and so I'm grateful that there are experts out there, like yourself, in addition to the written information, that can help novices like myself. I don't want to feel like I'm imposing on you. I was asked to do this (by a media director) and I will do this. I hope that you can be patient with me!:) thankyou,--Katty24 (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please,

1. go here: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/
2. enter the term you are interested in the search box (try "Arya")
3. press enter

--dab (𒁳) 09:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't add any original research. Caffeine is classified as a psychoactive drug, that is a drug that alters the central nervous system, much like nicotine does. . That list includes the mentioned psychoactive drugs without citation btw. Please do not remove helpful edits. Thank you. 71.139.195.201 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. First of all, before you try to revert my edits keep in mind that the whole statement ."Wake-up drugs such as flumazenil reverse this process. Many other drugs (such as alcohol, nicotine, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), heroin, cocaine, LSD, MDMA), have a consciousness-changing effect" was uncited, even when it didn't have caffeine in the list. All I did was add another psychoactive drug to the list that was provided as to avoid confusion, as psychoactive drugs by definition change consciousness (caffeine, cannabis, cocaine, nicotine, ect.). This is not original research, I was only adding to what was there. 71.139.195.201 (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the NPOV guidelines. Either remove the whole paragraph or do nothing at all, because that entire paragraph is un-sourced, and to date you have not been able to find good reason why thc should be on the list while caffeine shouldn't, when the thc claim is unsourced. Zachorious (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving you a heads up that I nominated Émile Bouchard for GA. Considering that you were the one who made the article what it was, I give all credit to you for it when it passes; all I've done here was get it through the process. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hope Staff meet Patton.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bash. Just letting you know I'm also keeping an idea on the vandal at Steve Ditko. Good eye. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've just added a belated reply to your comment on Talk:List of world records in chess about the "maximum moves" position. I agree it is out of place and should be removed from the article. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the 'phantom capitaliser' (User:96.51.68.195) to AIV, earning him/her a weeklong block for disruptive editing. Just thought you should know. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BashBrannigan. You have new messages at Radiolarion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Radiolarion (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bash. Just wanted you to know that I was shocked as you to see that someone had changed verbatim quotes. I had caught something in the lead that had removed Ditko as co-creator, and fixed that. I had no idea someone had done it throughout the article. Good catch -- you have a better eye than I! --Tenebrae (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve is currently in the final stages of terminal cancer. He is no longer taking cancer treatment, and is medicating with pain-killers while enjoying his final chapter. The section I added simply reported that Steve's is in the death-zone as he has made us aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickallwiz (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is complete BS. Editor had added POV material with sources which didn't support the material. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a rather lengthy reply to Ravenswing's message to me on his talk page explaining what I was taking issue with, so to keep it short (it's well after 3am here in Chicago), and provided you're interetsd in reading it, I'll just direct you to his talk page here... click on the subheader 'Montreal Maroons'. Cheers. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a very nice job on Judit Polgár and made it one of our best chess biographies. I know it's been a struggle. For some reason that article is a magnet for drive-by editors who don't have enough experience with chess to make good judgments. Another example is Talk:Rook (chess) which every so often will get bogged down with complaints that "castle" isn't give the proper respect in that article. Quale (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Bash. I will follow your advice and add to Australian films of 1983; however when I write a separate and extended entry page for the film (in a couple of weeks) can I send it to you for a check first? Also, I am a film and video valuer for archives and libraries here in Australia (and lecturer in documentary film at UTS). I notice there's few entries in Wikipedia about independent filmmaking practice/history in Australia, or feminist filmmaking history. Can I create pages on these topics? I have published in this area in Australia. Jeni Jeni thornley (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote fragment "Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government" is also verified Here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.124.223 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the edit by Oliver9909 you reverted, I agree that it does not belong, but please note that I had already started a discussion of the issue on the article's talk page -- it might be useful for you to comment there. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That brought a smile to my face. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted recent edits to "Aryan Migration theory" saying that it is tagged, but you should know that simply tagging wrong info doesnt means it is right. For example look at what you reverted:

1)"There are however some high caste hindus such as the Brahmins and Kshatriya in North India who are originally from central Asia and have settled in the North. This has been the basis of Caste division."

This statement is wrong because the theory is about Aryan migration and Hindu castes that exists today whether Brahmins or Kshatriyas are all of mixed race and not the alledged original migrant race. This is also not the basis for caste division because castes in india is very complicated division and cannot be explained by migration alone.

2)"The other Hindu castes spread around various parts of India (North or South), like the Vaishyas, Shudras and the Dalits are ethnic Dravidians though in the North, they may now speak Indo-Aryan languages".

This is also wrong because majority Dravidians are in south India and not in the north. There is no proof that before so called Aryans there was Dravidians because Dravidian is not race but related to language and it doesnt go beyond c.500 BCE. But Aryan migration is said to have happenned around c.1500 BCE.

3)"Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) organizations, especially, mostly remain opposed to the concept."

Why does one use Hindutva here. This is a political term and not acceptable to all because it is used in wrong sense in India.

Do you think that anyone can include absurd info into any article and simply tag it as unreferenced. Simply tagging wrong information doesnt make it right. So before you revert see what you are doing. If you dont know let others do it. Please change it. Sorry for long comment. Thanks. 223.190.88.8 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

No idea what this first-time editor is talking about. I never reverted, only tagged unreferenced material. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, add this reference about his ancestry: [1]. Thank you. GMA7 Powers 2008 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Hal Block WhatsMyLine.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD tags can be restored if no sources can be found, and because we don't have a confirmed death date I will do so now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BashBrannigan, I couldn't help noticing two bizarre grammatical errors in your recent addition to Talk:Natalie Tran. You said:

Personal editor's opinion's do not decide what is included in Wikipedia.

The apostrophe should have gone after the S in editors in order to make it plural rather than singular and there shouldn't have been an apostrophe at all in opinion. I hope you haven't included apostrophes to mark plurals elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. See here. One would expect the highest standard of spelling and grammar in an encyclopaedia. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia ain't got none rules abut grammer on talk pages.BashBrannigan (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- my comment on the Steve Jobs page is not a joke. 'Steve Jobs' is a business celebrity figure-- he is also now dead. I have never meet Steve Jobs and to be honest his name sounds a little 'made-up'-- I am lead to consider the possibility that his death may be the conclusion of an experiment on the part of Apple's Board of Directors. Business celebrities are not enshrined in the same way in which famous historical figures are-- just as we are unlikely to honor every 19th century double-A ball-player with his own 400k page, there is no real reason to preserve 'business celebrity' pages, unless we are interested in creating accounts for every executive-manager at Home Depot and Subway as well. There must be a 'moratorium' on such page-- there is no formal policy and a formal policy must be developed. Why does it seem like I am joking? Rasko99 (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste time and computer space with this crap. Stick to the blogs. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is a shred of evidence that American Chinese food was designed to appeal to American tastes, other than that it is sold to Americans? I am aware that it's common to say it, and it said in many books and articles, but people saying it and believing it does not make it true, even distinguished people. Perhaps it started out as an attempt to taste completely authentic (much more likely) and the proper ingredients were not available, then over time the makers lost their own taste memory of Chinese food, or even the Chinese makers of the food developed Americanized tastes. Innovation in new dishes takes place all over the world, as does the copying of inventions, saying that some chinese origin people living in the US created General Tso's Chicken and American people like the way it tastes is not at all saying that American Chinese food is designed to appeal to American taste except in a tautological sense. As another example, taste a home cooked or specialty hamburger cooked nicely to a McDonald's hamburger. You're going to claim that the McDonald's hamburger was designed for American tastes? The McDonald's hamburger is more roughly equivalent to dumbed down taste of American Chinese food, but it's lazy original research to claim that it was designed to appeal to Amercian tastes. Not picking a fight, but you get my point? I don't think the encylopedia should just repeat common wisdom that has no basis. 96.224.32.111 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can only use content from published sources. Ultimate truth is secondary and even irrelevant when not supported by reliable sources. You admit yourself "said in many books and articles" which is justification for it being in Wikipedia. If you can find your viewpoint expressed in published sources, it may be used, otherwise it's personal opinion and cannot. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if "the world is flat" appeared in many books, would you just put it in wikipedia? Because many books do say that "a wife is the property of her husband." I'm not advocating changing the rules of wikipedia, or breaking them, I'm not advocating putting a novel theory into wikipedia. I'm arguing to take a novel theory out of wikipedia, it is not necessary for wikipedia to repeat an old wives tale no matter how widespread it is. If you don't want to take it out, the assertion could be weakened with "many sources suggest that American Chinese food was made to American tastes" 71.190.75.107 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it simple, I agree with what is currently in the article and it is supported by sources. Your assertion that American Cinese Food wasn't designed to cater to American tastes is wrong. 22:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's make it simpler, all food that sells in America is catering to American tastes. Restauranteurs drop items that don't sell, and keep those that do. All food in America caters to American tastes by definition. I don't doubt you agree with it, it's a tautology. If it's supported by sources, add the citation because there isn't one and it needs it. Restauranteurs who make authentic Chinese food are catering to American tastes if it sells well, please go add that to every single wikipedia article. Also, link the term American tastes because obviously it exists, right? 71.190.75.107 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you don't understand that you're simply expressing opinion and right or wrong it's irrelevant. The entire article is weak on sources, not just that statement, but if necessary I could add a multitude of sources supporting the current content. I can assure you, unless you provide some very compelling sourced material, it wont be removed. I can't continue this debate, because it's not relevant to Wikipedia.. 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bash, I noticed you took the FideID= i.d. no. off from Judit's article, I thought this was the direction ProjChess wanted to go (automated rating updates), can u help me understand? Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem was that the automation was giving an incorrect rating. If you clicked the link, the link it took you to her profile which said 2705, but the automation was drawing 2698. However now that I look at it I see that there's a conflict between FIDEs Top 100 Players [2] and Top 100 Women [3]. Which is correct? BashBrannigan (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your contribution to the discussion, but I'm unsure whether you have made a substantive statement within it about your own opinion. Forgive me if I have simply missed it. I am not seeking to influence what you say, just seeking to ensure that you say it explicitly as part of the RFC itself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the editor was misrepresenting fact of the RFC and needed to clarify. It wasn't done lightly. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I meant. Please don't think I'm being critical of you. I understand your comment completely. I think, simply, that an explicit comment as a direct answer to the RFC from you is a useful thing to have as well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will do that. I'm afraid I've found this dispute rather frustrating. Thanks for clarifying. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When things become frustrating it is the determined and correct who prevail. I find the dispute not only frustrating but in very poor taste. So I am maintaining a quiet, determined, and professional presence. I will not get drawn in to discussions on it and am simply insisting in citations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for commenting there. That we disagree is unimportant. That you commented is important. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your accusations of racism to yourself, and get a consensus before you remove long-standing material from an article when the removal is disputed. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started the RFC, so it's you who is editing without consensus. I have a right to ask if its racism and will not keep it to myself BashBrannigan (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet elsewhere you're trying to shut down discussion. You're coming across as detestable and immature. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm detestable and immature? OMG, my therapist has been saying the same thing! I hope it's not true!!
However, my comment on the Steve Jobs page was to "shut down" editors from getting into an exchange of personal opinions. Editors opinions on whether Jobs is an inventor are irrelevant. My opinion on the Genovese article was that it broke Wikipedia policy (by being racist). Editors opinions are valid on whether an article breaks Wikipedia policy. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I normally consider psychotherapy to be bs, but sounds like you got a good one (therapist). No interest in the Genovese case ATM, but whether or not Jobs invented anything is a flat fact, not an opinion. An example of an opinon, for contrast, would be whether or not he died because he was an idiot and failed to take appropriate action early in his illness. That's an opinion. Whether or not he invented anything is an objective fact, like his being dead. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hello, from a DR/N volunteer This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be request for comment. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Edited Consciousness - Consciousness Types by Hiiqit made 2013, March 25 Hi BashBrannigan, Would you please explain why my contribution is removed, so I can correct the problems? Thanks, Hiiqit (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I removed it because I was unable to verify the notability of the author of the book. Just having written does not establish your importance. anyone can write a book. I googled the author and could find nothing to indicate his being significant or his credentials. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hi BashBrannigan, Thanks for the explanation. Hiiqit (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] By the way, would you please state what are your criteria for notability? Google search? Did you check in the book and see the references there? Thanks, Hiiqit (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] An article such as consciousness that covers a very broad topic in very limited space should try to stick to sources that are very well known -- books that are known to every expert on the topic. A book that was published this week and is only available in a Kindle version doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that criterion. Looie496 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thou furious Don't be so mad, mang. Racist is a Communist buzzword coined by Marxist Jew Leon Trotsky to silence, arrest and torture his political opponents. These days it's used in the same way, to silence opposition to the left. Only you're a pusscake, so you cry waa waa racism is disgusting - well you know what, if racism is so horrible why don't you support the idea of different races having different nations, as is natural? End the hate, separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.173.194 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] This is drivel. You will be blocked if you post racist comments again. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] March 2014 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vokkaliga may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on . List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) and others propose a derivation from the Sanskrit - ''go'' (cow) and ''govala'' (cowherd) (Govala->Goula->Gowda).<ref name="Namadhari" /><ref name="Grama">{{cite book|author=Dr. Ganapati Gowda|title=Grama vested power in the ''Ooru Gauda'',''Nadu Gauda'', ''Pergade'' (archaic for ''Hegde''.Pergade->Peggade->Heggade) and so on, at various levels of administration and apart from administrative duties the '' Famous Film Actress, [[Nagathihalli Chandrashekar]], [[Kannada film]] Director, [[Jaggesh]] Actor, [[[Devaraj]] Actor,![[Prajwal Devaraj]] Actor, [[K. C. N. Gowda]], famous [[Kannada film]] producer, It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] John R. Huizenga Thanks for creating the WP article on John, who was my Ph.D. thesis advisor. I was unaware that he'd died recently, and now that he's gone, I'll see what I can do to add significantly to his article. He certainly met all reasonable standards for notability in his field. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] DYK for John R. Huizenga v/r - TP 18:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 18:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Disambiguation link notification for May 23 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Son Dam-bi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kahi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Umm... Regarding your edits to Gary Roberts (ice hockey) - you got the wrong Roberts. It was Jim Roberts who died. I've reverted back. Thanks, Resolute 23:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, BashBrannigan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Polgar Some misogynist fascist has added Polgar's record against Kasparov to her article. Please remove that factual information ASAP, otherwise civilization as we know it may end. Nevadaone (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply] Namesake of the Toronto Maple Leafs I noticed that, way back in 2011, you rightly objected to an edit to Toronto Maple Leafs that said, with no citation, that there was no "Maple Leaf Regiment" in World War I. Until today, though, the page claimed (falsely) that there was such a regiment. I removed that, and started a talk-page discussion. Would you like to weigh in? TypoBoy (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, BashBrannigan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, BashBrannigan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] ArbCom 2019 election voter message Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Hiya, Bash! Just wanted to leave my appreciation for your entry about Joe Weber, who is my third great uncle. I've done some research into Weber over the past few years and I thought you did a nice job. I say this not just as a relative, but as a journalist and professor who appreciates good history and good writing. If you're interested in some more information (and citations) about him, I'm happy to pass them along. LATGinLA (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Catherine Catherine 2001:4430:D176:6C64:2586:7182:7FF4:17AE (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Young In Ahn April 27 2001 Fri He is meanass like emma watson. 2001:4430:D176:6C64:2586:7182:7FF4:17AE (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]