Hi JJJ999! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Alai 05:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination looks "in order" to me -- aside from that you didn't sign your rationale. I've no idea about the merits of the particular case. Alai 05:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or nearly, at least: you transcluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Erskine (which I've deleted), when it should have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Erskine. Alai 06:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 07:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to list a second deletion nomination for Erik Eastaugh, you'll need to create a page called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Eastaugh (2nd nomination). If you do, I'm sure I'll enjoy that debate as much as I'm enjoying the one about Christopher Erskine. I'm about to log off for today, but will be happy to continue these debates with you over the coming days. 'Til then, best wishes. Purple Watermelon 13:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Click here for instructions on nominating an article for deletion in three steps. The process is the same for how Chris Erskine went up for deletion. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're trying to AfD this article. Please read the AfD instructions (also provided by Mailer diablo above); if you can't figure it out, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll help you out. GlassCobra 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've had similar issues with the AfDs for Nathan McDonald‎ and Yugo Deb Nat‎. Do you need a hand with this? GlassCobra 15:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'll take care of it. GlassCobra 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all done. The AfDs for Nathan MacDonald and Yugo Deb Nat are properly formatted, and I tagged the one for Nathan McDonald for deletion as a copy of the one at Nathan MacDonald. Happy editing! GlassCobra 15:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I almost forgot. When you post on talk pages, make sure to sign them by putting four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. Happy editing! GlassCobra 15:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! There may be an issue with your username. According to WP:USERNAME the following policy may apply

• Usernames that imply an automated account, such as names containing "robot", "bot", or a variation thereof. Such usernames are reserved for bot accounts.

This is no reflection on you or your contributions, it's simply a rule to stop confusion between users and automatic 'bots' that run on Wikipedia doing repetitive tasks.

I suggest you either create a new account, or if you want to keep your contribution history go to Wikipedia:Changing username to request a new name. Exxolon 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct has been reported. Please respond as you feel appropriate. Thank you.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Mandsford 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aurum sulfide, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 06:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following another editor around for the purposes of annoying them [1] is considered Wikistalking and is forbidden. Please stop that. If it continues, I will block you.--Chaser - T 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia deletes roughly 5000 images, articles, and other material every day. This is all accomplished through volunteer efforts. If every editor who thought a page ought to be deleted renominated it every two weeks, it simply wouldn't be possible to run the place. A preemptive statement of intention to do that before a first discussion even closes is not a good thing. If you make good on this, then you could incur a WP:POINT block. Durova^Charge! 04:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's another warning. You were subject to a previous ANI thread in which, among other things, two people brought up assume good faith. Since then, you've indicating you're not bothering to assume good faith: "because I am assuming bad faith from you" and said that someone's AFD participation is related to people "who he probably knows, so when I see him in favour, I know it's probably bumpkis". Making wild guesses about people's motivations is not the way to engage in a civil discussion and repeated assumptions of bad faith won't be tolerated. I suggest you radically change the way you approach deletion discussions. This project was founded on the premises of civil discussion and mutual respect. If you continue to assume the worst from people like this, your time here will be short-lived indeed.--Chaser - T 06:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is either a third warning or support of a prior warning. Had I saw your first few posts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Public Speaking Championship, I would have had no problem blocking you until that AfD closed to prevent you from further disrupting that AfD. That is not how things are done at Wikipedia. In that AfD, you put content (the deletion of that content) above behavior. Wikipedia puts civil behavior above content because content can always be deleted (kept, restored, whatever) at the press of a few buttons. Uncivil behavior, on the other hand, leaves lasting impressions on others who may pass on that negativity so that it keep growing. Just make your arguments, respect the right of others to have a differing opinion, and be kind. Follow that, and everything should work out. -- Jreferee T/C 08:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the question you recently posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard... I do have to say that you are not helping matters at the AfD. In some ways your comments are inviting the responses being given. A word of advice: When commenting at an article for AfD, resist the temptation to argue or constently reply to other people's comments. You are not going to convince them to change their expressed opinion and, more importantly, it does not impress the closing Admins at all. It ends up looking like you are the one who is out of touch with reality. Instead, make the best argument you can with your first comment (in this case the nom), and from then on limit additional comments to answering questions or clarifying a remark you made in the nom (and only if it is clear that someone has really misunderstood something you said). Then... shut up. If your argument is sound, other editors will support you... if not... well, accept the difference of opinion and move on. Good luck. Blueboar 13:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Aurum sulphuricum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. DGG (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Looking again, the chemical part seems reasonably clear. You might want to rewrite the part about what I suppose are the psychiatric uses (I think that's the meaning?) a little more clearly--that's what seemed a little confused and poorly translated. Good luck with it. DGG (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm not arguing but there is a word missing from the article. "Pharmacutical product in Russia produced using granules of homeopathic(word missing- chicken (for instance) with strong aspirin like effects. [1]"

Homeopathic is an adjective, I would add a word saying what it is derived from. Ie sulphur or what? The article says what people use to make it if they can't get the proper substance, but not what it is ideally supposed to be derived from.Merkinsmum 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JJJ999! Please read my argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists. Please remember that the word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. Look what happened to List of Christians. It was deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians. There is no point in keeping unencyclopedic articles or lists on Wikipedia. RS1900 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hugh Gallagher's 'College Essay', requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Domthedude001 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the tag: Please see WP:NFT. -Domthedude001 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Winner 1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Most Phallic building, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pete.Hurd 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Winner_1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pete.Hurd 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources trump claims of non-notability. The secondary arguments made by the deletion commentators were also generally week. Zondervan for instance is a major publisher. Basically it boiled down to a claim of non-notability based on lack of sources. This was adequately refuted and so I closed as Keep. The backlog in closing AfD's is frustrating to many people, myself not the least, but I can only do so much about it. Remember that on Wikipedia product is more important than process so that parliamentary shortcomings based on a late (or early) closure are generally not considered a big problem. If you wish to further contest the closure, you can seek a consensus to overturn and delete at WP:DRV. Eluchil404 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JJJ999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Um, Alkivar claims the following violations- Repeated violations of Wikimedia copyright policy: copyvio, recreation of deleted content, reupload of copyvio- now, I have uploaded exactly one image, and I certainly didn't/don't think it's copyvio, and I certainly didn't "reload it", I just used it in another page while it was still undergoing deletion, while noting this on the deletion discussion page. As for recreation of deleted content, that is assumedly in reference the the previous sentence, and since it hadn't been deleted yet, how could it be a violation? Very silly block, recommend unblocking now

Decline reason:

Well, you uploaded an image, claiming it was public domain, when it's clearly not. You also created Hugh Gallagher's 'College Essay', which is a textual copyright violation. I don't see the "recreation" going on here, but the fact that you don't seem to understand what was wrong with the image you uploaded, or the text, does not incline me to unblock. — Haemo 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{unblock |With all due respect, I am going to wait for someone else to review that decision, because it makes little sense to me. The "copyrighted" picture is locatable on a number of blogs, so I think I could be excused from my first and only misunderstanding, and indeed my only image upload, and as for the other eg, Wikipedia's own page links to evidence that Hugh Gallagher was happy for this info to be shared, see here:18 June 1998, update. Hugh Gallagher emailed me(!), and said: "I was happy to see my college essay on your site (by the the way, I did send it to colleges)". So that's that Urban Legend laid to rest, then? He also said "... and my first novel, Teeth, was published by Pocket Books this Spring. ... It's a coming of age tale about a guy with really messed up teeth, who goes travelling around the world instead of fixing his mouth." If it's told with anything like the style and wit of what follows, it should be great!- So how on earth could it be a copyright violation, when he gives permission for its reproduction? At any rate, the one mistake listed, if indeed it is a mistake, hardly seems worthy of a block}

It's still a copyright violation. We would need a specific statement releasing the content under GFDL.

You seem like a good person... I would be willing to unblock you are willing to read our copyright policy and pledge to not repeat the mistakes that lead to this block. You can find our copyvio policy here: Wikipedia:Copyrights. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable misunderstanding for which I'd also be inclined to unblock. I want to ask Haemo, first, tho.--Chaser - T 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, I will read it later this morning. CheersJJJ999 00:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have read it, and it appears to have been over a day. I would hope the block could be lifted shortly, because one of my articles is conveniently being attacked for lack of references and notability at the moment (ACTDU), and I would like to go polish it up soon. -- JJJ999 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll post a request with Haemo. -- Jreferee t/c 15:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. JJJ999 -- I'm assuming you see now why these contributions were an issue. Future copyright violations will be met with further blocks. Mangojuice^talk 01:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Does not appear to have been listed yet, however it says today it expires, so assumedly there is simply some delay time. cheers, but tell me if something is up with that.JJJ999 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were autoblocked [2] It should be clear now.--Chaser - T 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that in the book. Don't know why you feel the need to be so rude, either. Quotes from the book: McGonagall says "...he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master." "With a tingle of horror, Harry saw in the distance a huge, batlike shape..." If he was an animagus, why would he have learned to fly from Voldemort, who can fly on his own? Batlike shape ≠ bat. Last time I checked, there are no "huge" bats to animagus into. V-train 05:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now, you have been recerted by two different editors. When this occurs, you need to realize that your revert isn't going to win the day based solely upon reverting. You need to go to the Discussion page and build a consensus that your edit is in fact the correct one. However, you should also be willing to consider that your edit doesn't accurately reflect the events presented in the novel. Though my first revert was playful, I will honestly listen to your reasoning. :) -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to explain why I reverted an addition you made to Dumbledore. I don't want you to get the wrong idea; your edits are well-written and it's clear you're making good-faith contributions. It just seems that you don't quite understand what should be included and what shouldn't. As a general rule, we are really only concerned with what goes on in the books; the movies often contradict the books in many small ways, and after all are created by someone other than Rowling. For instance, in the first movie Quirrell flies, something we only see from Voldemort and Snape in the books (as we've been talking about). I was also confused by the term "non-wand magic" which you used. If memory serves, I don't remember this term being used in the books. When writing these articles, we have to remember that we can't possibly include every single piece of information that is in the novels, and sometimes there are things in the books we're not qualified to write about, as they're not explained adequately (such as the scene at the cave in HBP). Again, I don't want you to take this personally or get disheartened; you seem to be a good editor who is only trying to contribute, you just need a bit more experience is all. I'm sure any of us regulars on the HP-related pages would be glad to help you out if you need it. :) Cheers, faithless (^speak) 07:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For edit warring and violations of WP:CIVIL at Severus Snape. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here are supporting diffs:[3][4][5][6][7] Durova^Charge! 04:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replyJJJ999 04:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just had to rewrite this because you keep changing it... anyway, the fact you've had to post so many new reasons to back this up speaks volumes (none of which btw were mentioned in the initial block, which is always a bad sign. I will respond to each in turn.
• 1st link- Refering to someone as "buddy" in response to them repeatedly deleting my edits without providing a reason is hardly an offence. We since resolved this and are discussing it on the talk page, where a good many people appear much ruder than myself. A handful of edits were made, then we went to the talk page as requested...
• 2nd link- An observation that DGG is an inclusionist, a claim he makes, expression of severe doubts about the article (along with 90% of voters it seems), nothing out of line here, and certainly not beyond standard practice.
• 3rd link- An observation that DGG has, yet again, voted the opposite way to me. This is both true, and not offensive.
• 4th link- Notes that RS1900 seems to be taking it personally after he lobbied me to change my vote, and has posted repeatedly. Nothing unusual here, especially as RS1900 appears to have just been found guilty of sock puppeteering, backing up my observation.
• 5th link- Is merely an observation that this AfD should have been long closed, because it has been opened for weeks. I stand by this, it seems farcical that marginal votes get closed so quickly, yet this is kept open for weeks. Other posting here appear to share this sentiment ("Just delete it already", etc).

JJJ999 04:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the first link, surely you can understand that the issue is not that you called someone "buddy". It's that you said "how the f**k else would he fly?", and told an editor who was trying to work constructively on the article but whose opinion you disgreed with "Don't edit that again. Period." That's unacceptably rude langauge and an unacceptably rude tone to use on Wikipedia, and if you make such comments again after your block expires, you're likely to be blocked again. Dorange 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and with respect to the second, you said "I know guys like DGG vote to keep everything (as near as I can tell), but this really has no place.." I've gone back, and I generally !vote keep 2/3, delete 1/3 -- which is very different from "everything". My ratio at Deletion review is similar. Or check my log, and see the dozen or more articles I speedy-delete each day. Junk does exist, and the numbers show I do my share in getting rid of it, wherever it is found. I at least try not to be indiscriminate. Being a rational deletionist is perfectly in order as well. I don't generally feel a need to defend myself, but your specific allegation was not correct. DGG (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JJJ999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While I suspect the block will expie before I get a resolution here, I am appealing this nonetheless. I don't think the "edit war" is at all accurate. I am still relatively new to wikipedia, and I think the chronology was both constructive and fair. After a few edits back and forth from each of us, I was advised to go to the talk page, which I did, and we continued from there to try and reach consensus. The subsequent edit was because I thought we had reached consensus, which apparently we haven't. I don't think my comments are less civil than others posting there, so I feel this should be unblocked... in fact, on rereading this I am astonished at the block... I don't see any incivility on this page either in edit history or talk, yet someone else for eg says one of my arguments is "Absolute nonsense"

Decline reason:

Please take the time to review WP:CIVIL and learn to communicate with other editors, instead of requesting for an unblock. You have plenty of time to learn the meaning of edit warring and 3RR. Despite all your relative newness, you have been blocked thrice for this. These diffs ([8][9][10][11][12]) are not helpful and only seek to inflame editors and disrupt Wikipedia.— D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have learned this lesson at personal cost, J - 3RR is meant to prevent the article from edit-warring. ANY three successive reverts (or reinerting/removing) can get you blocked. The only defenses fromt his are if you are removing blatant vandalism or redacting personal attacks - and this last one has just negated as a defense in the last few weeks. If you come across edits that aren't working for you, post your thoughts on the Discussion page, or take the concerns to the editor reverting you. Continuing to battle back and forth isn't going to get you anywhere: you aren't going to convince them by reverting them or via edit summary alone, and you risk pissing them and yourself off. Nothing gets done at that point. If the person continues to act like a dick, involve an admins to help you sort things out.

Lastly, learn that Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. If someone is acting like a toad, and harshing your editing buzz, go somewhere else for a while, to charge up your fun quotient. Take my advice as you will. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I trouble you to use the colon to preface your edits instead of the asterisk? You might think it differentiates your edits from others, but it gives the appearance of a bullet point to an argument presented by the person posting before you. If you look at the edit screen before you post, you will note that successive editors use an increasing colon scheme to differentiate between posts (:, ::, :::, etc.). However you do sign your posts, which has you doing a bit better than roughly half of the new folk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havenoticed that you apparently refuse to address you indenting practice of using asterisks instead of the proper usage of the colon(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ). While I can hazard a guess as to why you feel the egoistic need to do this (and clearly, it is not because you are unaware or unable to use the colon properly, as evidenced by this edit), I need to inform you that this is disruptive - if other editors have to correct your edits before replying so as to avoid your appearance of providing a bulleted list, it's disruptive. I am asking you to please assert your individuality through your skills at editing, and not presenting them in a way that is non-conducive to community editing. If you think I am picking on you, or mis-stating policy and guidelines, please ask an admin. Perhaps you can even seek the opinion of the one who blocked you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or controversial information about living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to C. Peter Wagner. In particular, the allegation that C. Peter Wagner was somehow, as you put it, advocating the "de-jewification of Germay" is apparently an erroneous reference to German composer Richard Wagner, and this factual error has previously been removed from this article. Please do not reinsert it. Mike Doughney 08:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR, as you are in violation of it. Please also read WP:BLP. Information posted about living people must be supported by reliable, third-party sources. The minutes you keep using do not meet those requirements. Please also read WP:CON, which states when there is a dispute consensus should be reached before making changes. V-train 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]