Hello, Howunusual, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was a bit off-topic at the review page, I've moved your question to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jimi Hendrix/archive2 Again, you've only made 12 edits to Wikipedia article space, so I really think that you had better hold off on any FAC reviews until you've established yourself as a skilled editor. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the Help sections, I read many messages exhorting me to jump right in and get my feet wet. Howunusual (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with things as they currently stands - remember, the section is meant to be only a summary of the Criticism of Jesus article, so we don't need lots of quotes. I can see how the Nietzsche quote might expand on his criticism, but the criticism is merely implicit (it is more a criticism of people who follow, or try to follow, Jesus.) But needless to say, we can't jump to conclusions about what constitutes criticism, and there was no criticism of Jesus explicit there. (And was Avery Robert Dulles really being critical? I can't imagine Kevin Giles was.) StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I do think if we are going to mention Nietzche's criticism, it is more helpful to the reader to explain the reasoning behind the criticism. However, I'm going to wait until after Christmas to make any more critical edits to this article....:-). Howunusual (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you intended for your comments to be another outside view. If so, you should change the heading to match the others and add "Users who endorse this summary:" to the bottom of your post. If you are trying to start a threaded discussion, you should move your comments to the talk page. There are instructions at the bottom of the RFC/U page that explain this and here is the participation guide: WP:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance2. 18:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC) unsigned comment by User:MrX

User:MrX is right that Howunusual's comments should either be labeled as another view or should be on the talk page. To answer the question, a user conduct RFC is a discussion of issues about an editor's conduct. So it is an opportunity for other editors to "bash" the subject, or to defend the subject. In the past, it was often a step prior to requesting the ArbCom to ban a disruptive editor. More recently, trolls, flamers, and other editors who are not here to build the encyclopedia are typically "community banned" at the noticeboards, and an RFC/U, while nominally a request for the editor to become more collaborative, is typically a step prior to a site ban, or possibly less drastic remedies such as topic bans or interaction bans. Yes, the RFC is a request for input, good and bad, about Arzel as an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified my view and added an "I agree" part. Howunusual (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joni Mitchell 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:

• explored jazz, melding it with influences of [[rock and roll]], [[R&B]], classical music, and [[world music|non-western beats]. In the late 1970s, she began working closely with noted jazz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Georgism concerning scope of the article. This is a neutral notification. Collect (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this comment supposed to mean? If you're trying to summarize the discussion then you of course realize that the discussion is not a vote. The comment doesn't even make sense, and if read a certain way, it's 100% inappropriate the panda ₯’ 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people supporting a ban are talking about his views. Howunusual (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your comment at AN/I had nothing to do with the content of the thread.

However, just so you know, we have dozens of such articles, as you can see here. The general subject is generally accepted, for many years now, as an appropriate wp article subject. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaryfor your edit on this article was inappropriate and untrue. There has been no discussion about these changes, so there is no "consensus". What you did was simply blindly revert my edits, without regard to their value to the article. Please don't do this again. BMK (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavy-handed" is obviously a matter of opinion, but "hypocritical" goes to my motives ands integrity, and I would seriously like to know what you mean by it.[1][2] Please explain, or — if you were merely reaching for an offensive epithet at random — withdraw it. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]