you go away and attempt to make an in depth study of logic and falalcies before trying to play with the big boyz on the H-H Hoppe article again. the ability to study the nuances of logic is not something which can be taught and is dependent on your Iq so i'm not sure how successful you'll be.

thaaaaaanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.116.110 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

following your travails on the feminazi article and have been debating, as you seem to be doing now, whether or not it is worth my time to get involved. My compromise was to let you know that there are folks out here glad to see you fighting the good fight for us. I have on several occasions discovered what you are now learning (or likely already knew) that the True Believer (see Eric Hoffer ) will never back off because to do so is to let the side down, and those “sides” are often very unforgiving since they are driven by pre-ordained dogma rather than . . . … something else. Often (opinion) backing off for a breather is a good thing to do because the fight will still be there when you get back. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is a really funky message, but I am being interviewed by the BBC and they want me typing something on wikipedia so I decided to write to you. they will let me know when to stop doing this. Until then, I'm typing onward. i will take some time later and explain exactly what it afoot. Thanks for being a good sport. The are now dealing with "reflections" - I can only imagine what that might be. So I have a daughter who is getting a PhD in History and Women's Studies and I am thinking of asking her to take a look at the feminazi thing. She is not above saying, "Dad, I'm trying to write my theses, (Gender and Punk Rock - I'm so proud of her) I don't have time for assholes like this" but who knows. I think that they are figuring out what to do about the "reflection" They are deciding, I think, that the reflection is sort artsy, so is okay. Have you ever had a camera rolling at you, with a boom mike hanging overhead/ It is a bit discomforting and not really conducive to goo thought, writing and certainly not spelling. Now everything is going nuts, Sorry about this, but I had to do something and you wee the last person to post at my user page. Now they want me to look bust again and then I promise to go away. ow they want a close up on m fingers, typing away. I am a sight typist, so can't do anything fast, Perhaps slow ois okay?? Who knows, Perhaps I won't actually sent this, but It is real, Well sort of. We can discuss the exact meaning of "reality" some other time. Is this enough? I am not allowed to talk to them or even look at them, 'cause,, that's not cool, so I just keep in doing this sort of James Joyce stream of consciousness, or is it unconsciousness? Who knows. More??  !! Meanwhile I feel sorry for the guy holding the mike because he's working but the only sound is my keyboard clicking away. Might be music to some ears, but . . . ..... not mine. How long can this go on for, I can't believe that I am that fascinating. But I can't look up because then we'd have to do the whole thing again. I have a project that I am working on. Sort of a half wikipedia and half not. It involves. a sculpture exhibit that took place Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. I feel like I'm seeing Wikipedia through Babel Fish.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Babel Fish translated cultures then that might have been exactly what was going on. I am a bit sorry (and a bit not) for writing the above to you, but it just happened. Living Life live, with no "Take Two" or instant replays to fall back on. So it just happened. The BBC are doing a series on the WWW and somehow I was picked as being a sort of Everyday Manin the world. So there they were. I did discuss feminazis with my daughter earlier today and she was mildly interested. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit anyway that you want. But I wonder how these folks [1] editing will turn out? Carptrash (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Pro-life movement. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. mjwilson (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page before making such drastic changes. HokieRNB 01:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing habits strike me as rather odd. While I recognize that you might want to organize your edits into separate edits, dozens and dozens of consecutive edits strikes me as excessive. I wonder if you are operating under the belief that each edit can only change one thing in an article.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just cleaning up lots of mess.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michael Flood. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 121.222.114.232 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Conservative protestant evangelicalism and fundamentalism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Content fork of Evangelicalism, and implausible misnomer

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HokieRNB 16:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Luv-it, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated edits to Christianity

Please let's stop before we get into an edit war. What you are calling POV is an actual survey conducted by professional researchers for Christianity Today magazine. Perhaps you missed reading the citation that explains how far it is from POV. You can't get any more "well sourced" and NPOV than that study. As far a global goes, we can only report what we can find. We can't make it up. You are welcome to search for global data on this point, but very likely it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean we should omit what's been in the article for over two years without complain. PLEASE! Stop being disruptive. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[| please see talk page]--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page does not adequately explain what are your real objections to this survey. From looking at your Wiki Contribution list, I sense we are close to being "on the same page." (1) The survey article is from a credible source. (2) It helps explain that "Christian" means different things to different people, and that different people act out their faith quite differently. That doesn't mean everyone is correct in the way they live out or don't live out their faith in Christ. It just shows that one size doesn't fit all. (3) There is no slam of any denomination or quasi-denomination. None is even mentioned by name. But "if the shoe fits...," it's up to the reader to determine where they may fit. (4) I feel very strongly about leaving the survey, unless you can find something to replace it that we can agree is even better. I'm personally invested in it because (a) of the above reasons, and (b) I spent literally hours searching, studying, comparing, and cutting down the article into bite-sized pieces. To have you appear on the scene and rip it out for no reason considered valid by Wiki is offensive. If I'm missing something important, please correct me, but please stop erasing it! Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Christian. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Thank you. HokieRNB 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to History of Christianity and homosexuality, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. HokieRNB 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage the talk page before leaving a message here. I did give specific reasons for the removal in the talk pages and the edit summaries. Please do not spam my talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Christian, you will be blocked from editing. HokieRNB 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming my talk page and threatening me. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to create an article entitled Protestant views on abortion, because most of the material on the entry Christianity and abortion currently focuses on Protestant views. There is nothing wrong with getting into specifics when there is already a sufficient amount of sources available. ADM (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you added the abortion sidebar to the top of a number of articles. While I have no position on whether or not the sidebar belongs in the article, I'm pretty sure that our MOS would suggest that it shouldn't be at the top of the page. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 04:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in discussion at the template's talk page, instead of a pattern of disruption. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, you did not when you made massive changes. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing this, again, at Abortion and mental health. You keep reverting with no explanation whatsoever. Please engage in a discussion at the template's talk page. Please take a break from your reverting spree, until we have had a chance to discuss this. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain on the talk page of one or more of these articles what POV problems you perceive in the recent version that you're reverting away from? I'm sympathetic to your statement that this version is biased, but it is impossible for us to work together to correct the bias unless specific problems are identified. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the 1RR/day restriction on all abortion-related articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IronAngelAlice. Your recent edit removed sourced content from Feminazi. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits on the article's talk page, especially when the content is sourced and the removal is controversial. Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pet tattoo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet tattoo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Feminazi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion removed sourced information while introducing unsupported generalizations and unduly weighted opinions. All material on Wikipedia must be directly supported by published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IronAngelAlice. 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]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Feminazi, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not remove valid references without an explanation on the talk page or in an edit summary. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]