User talk:Harizotoh9

Equestria Daily

A new deletion review has been created regarding an article you've recently discussed. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Person vs. event

I'd argue that Salvi is more notable than the shootings. This is anecdotal evidence, of course, but I know that before I did any in-depth research on the subject, I'd have been more able to name Salvi among a list of anti-abortion terrorists than to identify a 1994 PP shooting as a notable incident (as opposed to things like the murder of David Gunn). I suggest moving the page back and doing a Requested Move. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudzu

Hi, I think it is reasonable for OntarioInvasivePlants to add a link to their fact sheet. It is a government agency, so there wouldn't be personal gain involved. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Death Valley Driver Video Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Death Valley Driver Video Review. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Goodvac (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics in the United States

Curious why you changed "it was considered a method of preserving and improving the fitness of the then dominant groups in American society" to "it was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population". Do you say there's no difference between the dominant groups then and now or that biological fitness wasn't the Eugenicists goal? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted it to the old one. I am not crazy about how the old version was phrased myself. However, I have a problem linking to the article on fitness. Eugenicists did not have the same conception as modern biologists. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Right of course not, the Eugenics discussed in the article died out more than a decade before the discovery of DNA. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNA was identified and isolated in the late 19th century. The structure of DNA was not figured out until 1953. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually it's its role in Mendelian genetics that was figured out. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Parenthood 1RR

You might want to self-revert your last edit, as Planned Parenthood is under a 1RR restriction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing Revisions

I don't understand why you undid my revision. The sentence in question is attempting to list six things that Nation of Islam adherents do and don't do. They do not consume two things, they do not use two things, and they do stress two things.

Prior to my revision, and as the sentence currently stands, the listing is not parallel:

"NOI adherents do not consume pork, alcohol, use drugs, tobacco, and stress a healthy diet and physical fitness."

What that sentence says, among other things, is that NOI adherents "do not alcohol" that they "do not tobacco" and that they "do not stress a healthy diet and physical fitness". I proposed the following revision:

"NOI adherents do not consume pork or alcohol or use drugs or tobacco, and stress a healthy diet and physical fitness."

My revision may not be perfect, but it is logically correct. If you don't like it, then you can fix it. Add a comma, turn it into three sentences, but don't simply revert it like it's a piece of vandalism.

BillyPreset (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert for no good reason

[1]

You left no valid reason for this edit. Why did you make it? 190.46.108.149 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

And you left no justification for this one but you did manage to leave a personal attack. What was your reason for the edit, and why did you make the attack? 190.46.108.149 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in touch with Jimmy wales through e - mail

I have been in touch with Jimmy wales through e - mail. It was his suggestion that we discuss this issue on his talk page!

Re: Blatant misinformation and vandalism of "India"(n) articles on Wikipedia

FROM: Jimmy Wales

TO: Frankly Idontcare CC: jwales@wikia.com

Message flagged Wednesday, November 23, 2011 3:40 PM

What is your user account? The best place for a discussion about this would be on my user talk page - I would welcome that discussion. I'm going to be very busy until early next week so I won't have time right away to look into the specifics you outline below until then. But if you can post to my user talk page (NOT under a new account - don't get yourself in trouble!!!) earlier than that, a discussion can start there.

As you have been accused of sock puppetry is it really important that you stay 100% clean on that issue. If you did it, own up to it, apologize for it, and move on.

--Jimbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.64.115 (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Show - Oliva Munn

Hi,

I added that tag in good faith and included an explanation on the talk page. Please don't revert it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

You've got to start a discussion on the talk page; mergers don't happen on their own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart infobox

I have posted a response to the response to your query about an infobox at the Mozart article. Could you revisit the article's talk page and give some more input. I, for one, believe the article (and others like it) need infoboxes and would like to start with the Mozart article. It may take joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers to get more input and make a difference through consensus as well. If interested, please take part in the continued discussion, add your own thoughts, and it may be possible to come up with new consensus. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David

I've left a message on the talk page of David. PiCo (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

I would appreciate it Harizotoh9 if you would stop stalking my edits! You have no right to follow behind me and revert me. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD repeat

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (6th nomination) An AFD you participated in last month is at AFD again. Dream Focus 23:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters‎

The length of leads for lists of characters depends on the size of the article, as do leads for other articles. As the size of the article is around 30,000 characters, it does merit at least two paragraphs in the lead. I'd like to work with you to figure out something that works for the article: would you agree to compromising? I suggest we add one (short) paragraph to what is currently there that briefly explains explains the characters and how they're connected, as the lead should. Thanks. Murmuration (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of concerned that you think that one line is ever okay as the lead for an article: I take it you didn't read WP:LEAD? What other articles have for their leads isn't at all an accurate way to asses how long a lead should be, especially since 3 out of 4 of the article you referenced don't meet Wikipedia's standards. Leads for lists of characters should do exactly the same thing as leads for other articles: accurately summarize the article's contents in proportion to the article's size. For the size of List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters, the lead isn't at all the right length. Murmuration (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

What was your reason for this revert? Simply undoing an edit without giving any reason, in the hopes that the other editor won't notice, is edit warring and is unacceptable. If you disagree, explain your reason here and we will discuss it. Edit warring is not an appropriate way to resolve a dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: Help:Minor edit. The "minor edit" checkbox is not meant to be used for edits that are clearly not minor. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PZ Myers controversy section

I propose an alternative at talk page. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported ?????

Hey, do you have a personal grudge against me ? I just want to help. Why do you discourage new users ? This is not the friendly Wikipedia I was expecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoverPony (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just so you know, in the future, Berserk (anime) will be re-merged into Berserk (manga). Its just that no one really cares about it right now; but the justification would be that their separation violates WP:MOS-AM. To see an example of this situation, you can see the consensus here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just so you know, your edits do not comply to the Manual of Style for wiki. I'm not going to revert your edits, but if an editor takes an interest in the Berserk article, they would be justified to do so. I suggest you find a article that is GA rank and base your work off of that. Currently the way you set up berserk is a "by fan for fan" basis; a style you need to change. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Someone has started a thread about you on ANI: see WP:ANI#Problem with User:Harizotoh9. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Historical reliability of the Gospels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesus and history (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) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing article importance

I've reverted edits to Zork and The Black Onyx that changed the importance from High to Mid, based on the enormous influence these games had on the industry. Though some of you edits of this nature seem justified, others seem less so, and still others seem very strange. I'm assuming that you have a good reason for the edits that you are making, but due to the number and nature of the edits, I've brought it to the attention of the VG WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Editor changing importance of large number of articles. Please feel free to comment there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! HairyWombat 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split Park51 to Ground Zero controversy

Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest and User:Maynardox

I haven't had much time for Wikipedia over the last couple of days, so it's taken me a while to get round to answering your post on my talk page. However, I have answered at last, and you can see my response in this edit. I have also responded to your report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, as you can see here, and posted a message about this at User talk:Maynardox. Please feel welcome to contact me again if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum vs santorum

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony

Please stop adding the My Little Pony section to the 4chan meme section. They are not a meme because most the internet hates them, if you keep restoring it, I will have to report you for posting false information, and your account may be banned. Kusaga (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]