Hi there, I see you're wrangling with a couple of editors over at Paul Atreides. It's my experience that there's a tag-team of two editors who work across Dune articles; while I tend to agree with their anti-prequel views I would never let those interfere with the creation of comprehensive or holistic articles (see my work on Anirul Corrino), and I've also experienced problems in the past with their issues of ownership. You may want to check out WP policies on civility, no personal attacks and the templating page over at WP:WARN for ways to arm yourself with Wikipedia policies which aim to tackle this sort of behaviour. You can always use WP:WQA as a venue for exploring your options too. Best of luck, and welcome to Wikipedia. Coldmachine^Talk 07:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. That was my conclusion and why I decided not to bother with the page after my last post there. I see how with your Anirul article you specifically listed the info for each book with an obvious intent to list the specifics. I think a part of what I found from those editors is that they are probably on the side of BH/KJA taking the books way apart from what FH would have done. It seems to be a motive for the vehemence in "making sure" the two sets of authors are differentiated. However in the context I was discussing it did not really apply other than in the essence of "This book provides this and not that" which to me doesn't matter since the article is about Paul, not the specific books. I personally think the point is moot since BH/KJA can do what they want. That is neither here nor there though. I was looking at the article as a whole and don't think including or excluding Jessica would hurt the project. But as I had said I don't care enough to deal with those types. I have recently been looking through those again. I did years ago when I first started reading Wiki, though I have only recently gotten an account to edit. This kind of stuff is one of the main reasons I waited so long to sign up. Again thanks for the word.MephYazata (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question: "Do you have a source for your edit in the Witchcraft article?", I will quote wikipedia's article named "Jewish Views of Religious Pluralism" under the section called "Views on dialogue with non-monotheists":

"Their beliefs have far more theological depth than ancient pagans, and they are well aware that icons they worship are only symbols of a deeper level of reality (though the same can be said of modern day pagans, (b) they do not practice child sacrifice, (c) they are of high moral character, and (d) they are not anti-Jewish. Some Jews argue that not only does God have a relationship with all gentile monotheists, but that God also maintains a relationship with Hindus and other polytheists, as well as with members of other non-monotheistic religions such as Buddhism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.36.87 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Flowing DDT is a slight variation of the standard DDT in which he rapidly connects the move after another move, if you can't remember Triple H using the move then rely it on the source, he have possibly used it during his early career in the 90's or used occasionally at present. (TrueLicense909) (talk) 2:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The source OWOW may have inaccuracies with it. As long as the source says DDT, and based on my own observation in Triple H's matches, I named it Flowing DDT because a standard/normal DDT can be called a Flowing DDT depending on how the wrestler executed the move (Like Triple H, he rapidly connects the DDT after another move) TrueLicense909 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied both to your e-mail and to your question on my talk page. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 21:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am replying in the wrong spot. The problem I am having is there has been a tag for a photo on the Pelican Bay Prison article, and there is now a phote there and has been for quite some time. A user had raised the question of the need for the tag and I wanted to remove it as they are right in the tag be needless now. I simply cannot find "how" to remove the tag. I am not recognizing where on the edit page it is located. I was wondering what I am missing or if there is another avenue to removing tags I am not seeing. Thanks for the reply BTWMephYazata (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the article, I have removed the tag — I hope it was the one you were referring to? Also, I have replied to your e-mails. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 13:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Although I apologize if my edit was abrupt and not given proper discussion, I'd appreciate it if you'd assume good faith rather than immediately launching POV accusations. I have to take issue with the characterization of Ted Kacynski as a "serial killer," and I believe that he can more aptly be described as a "terrorist".

From the wikipedia page on serial killers: "A serial killer is a person who murders usually three or more people[note 1][1][2] over a period of more than 30 days with a "cooling off" period between each murder, whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification."

On terrorism: "Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror.[1] It is more commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants."

The latter seems far more appropriate in Kacynski's case, as his motivation was obviously political and not obviously for the purpose of gratification. I understand that there's been a discussion about his status as a "serial killer" in the past, with no consensus, but the title is tenuous at best.--209.89.155.96 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tnank'you for objection. I rectified. By.--Athex50 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MephYazata,

You were involved in editing Theodore Kaczynski before it was fully protected. Your thoughts and comments would be welcome on the talk page, as nothing much seems to be happening but the page is still locked. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Seems like I was a few hours late in posting on your talk page! Bigger digger (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meph, please don't disappear from wp over this, it's not worth it. You are a great asset to the encyclopedia and I for one would be sorry to see you go. If you're fed up of Kaczynski there must be other things you can edit?

Moreover, I've just re-read Talk:Theodore Kaczynski and I'd hate for it to go to waste! Bigger digger (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]