User talk:Art and Muscle

Let's talk...

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Art and Muscle! I am Danielklotz and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

-- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 06:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! LOL Art and Muscle (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions

Excellent edits. Just be careful that some anonymous editor doesn't make another edit inbetween yours and you innocently trip the W:3RR, the page should warn you "Edit Conflict", stop and check history to see whether you have 2 interrupts in 24 hours:

ie.

(cur | prev) 05:35, 26 March 2011 Art and Muscle (talk | contribs) = W:3RR

# (cur | prev) 05:25, 26 March 2011 Fred Bloggs (talk | contribs)

(cur | prev) 05:15, 26 March 2011 Art and Muscle (talk | contribs) counts as 2
(cur | prev) 05:11, 26 March 2011 Art and Muscle (talk | contribs)
(cur | prev) 04:47, 26 March 2011 Art and Muscle (talk | contribs)
(cur | prev) 04:46, 26 March 2011 Art and Muscle (talk | contribs)

# (cur | prev) 04:00, 26 March 2011 190.251.83.147 (talk) (49,900 bytes)

(cur | prev) 02:42, 26 March 2011 Art and Muscle (talk | contribs) counts as 1
(cur | prev) 02:41, 26 March 2011 Art and Muscle (talk | contribs)

You may know this, I didn't, and nearly broke the rule. Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate your concern, and communicating your points to me. By the way, I think your intro for the Holy Spirit article was very good. There obviously was too much POV in the lead, and the article in general, to be honest. The POV pushers need to be careful.

But I'm a little confused. Because my edits were NOT "reverts" at all. But just simple modifications and just general edits and fixes of punctuation mostly. And I'm not sure about the "interrupts" thing. I simply saw unwarranted upper case letterings, etc, and fixed them. Also I elaborated on the Judaism Hebrew Scripture reference matter.Art and Muscle (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. In reality I'd expect admins to follow common sense not the letter of the law, but in theory even a comma could be counted as a "revert" since the definitions on "revert" in the W Guidelines are badly written and misleading. The fact that it goes against common sense is just why I'm warning, as I say, I was nearly caught be it when I started. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let it stop you!In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost!

Hi - it is necessary to put the dab link there, because Holy Ghost redirects to Holy Spirit. Actually there seem to be other pages beginning "Holy Ghost.." that might need disambiguating too, so it probably needs Holy Ghost (disambiguation) to be created as well, but either way there needs to be a hatnote. Cheers 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the point is that it's not necessary, and you have at least two editors right now who think it's superfluous and even silly to put a dab link like that on a serious article. It looks a bit weird. It doesn't matter that there's some barely known "pop group" with the name "Holy Ghost" or whatever. The Holy Spirit article should not have corny junk on it, especially on the top. People will NOT confuse the serious "Holy Spirit" with some "pop group". People will find the pop group somehow if they want. And not many people will be even looking for the pop group anyway... Art and Muscle (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God the Father

Hi, You have been making some insightful, but minor improvements to this article. They are improvements, but I am very unhappy with the article as a whole. It starts by discussing gender, which is not the key topic, then verges off to a fragmented discussion, then starts art at the end. It does NOT address what might at first come to mind when one hears the term God. How about some non-minor changes? If you would like to suggest a new structure for teh article, that may provide a fresh look and a fresh set of ideas, then I can cooperate in rewriting it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anna...stop being a Nazi"

How is removing unsourced information about Kim Jong-Il being a Nazi? Comparisons like that are not exactly constructive. I did not remove the information you added back in regarding the "forty-minute" firefight, so perhaps you should stop and look carefully before invoking Godwin's Law. – anna 05:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the "40 minute" thing. That was TOTALLY uncalled for to remove. Not necessarily referring to other things you may have reverted (that MIGHT have been warranted, though I don't know, since I did not look into that.) You went against WP policy and recommendation to only revert vandalism, opinion, or truly inaccurate things...NOT things that may not have a ref citation... But to maybe FIND one and put it in yourself, or a "citation needed" tag. Etc. I believe you removed the "forty minute" edit...if you didn't, then my apologies. peace.Art and Muscle (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove that -- if I did, it was because of an edit conflict and not intentional. I removed a primary sources tag and unsourced information about Kim Jong-Il, nothing else. Please don't be so quick to attack. – anna 05:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my mistake. Though understandable on my part. If what you did intend to remove was stuff that arguably needed that, then ok. If you (or whoever) removed the "forty-minute" edit, by mistake, or etc., then yes, things happen. I didn't know. Anyway, happy editing. Cheers. Art and Muscle (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked my contribs and I can't see where I removed that at all; I've intentionally been careful to avoid overriding any intermediate edits. No problem. – anna 05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Death of Osama bin Laden. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please review Godwin's Law and stop calling other editors "nazis". A repeat will lead to blocking. If one thing you don't do is bringing up the NSDAP in editing discussion. Just sayin' Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi. It's already a settled matter. Also, don't exaggerate please. Don't overly focus on the "Nazi" remark, to the exclusion of the majority of what I said in the edit comment. Most of what is in my comment WAS dealing with the "content" and "edit" and issue itself... Let's not get too thin-skinned either about passing hyperbole, said in half-jest. Anyway, it was a misunderstanding anyway. Anna and I are cool now. But thanks for your concern. Cheers. Art and Muscle (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Godwin's law mentioned no less than five times in the last 24-hours, haha. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, also wanted to mention about this: [1] Please try to tone it down a bit and use friendlier language in your edit summaries. Thanks. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's NOT really what you saw. There's no real "Godwin's law" nonsense that you saw with me. I used the term "Nazi" loosely for simply overbearing or controlling type. People maybe acting a bit fascistic and tyrannical. (It was a misunderstanding with the person that got cleared up soon after, by the way.) NOT speaking to ideology or beliefs, in that sense. So if you thought I wrongly used the term "Nazi", you're WRONG, in WRONGLY using uh "Godwin's law" sloppily, as it does NOT really apply here. When people compare Obama's policies to Hitler THEN you can appeal to or quote or cite "Godwin's law". Not in this case. (And even so, it can be argued that Godwin himself was an uptight over-sensitive idiot in many regards.) In this case, you're just being uptight AGAINST the term "Nazi."

I mean, will you say that Seinfeld was doing "Godwin's law" by calling that rude obnoxious overly controlling soup jerk the "Soup Nazi"? Remember that? Was Seinfeld violating anything? (On or off "line"?) Did he mean it in the sense of Hitler or ideology per se? Methinks not. Case made. Bye.(talk) 02:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that was a nice little diatribe for Cere, but could you please limit your use of the term Nazi to actual national socialists and fascist to actual fascists? Some of us from groups affected by their policies find it somewhat offensive in this context. Trust me, Nazis are a lot worse than just controlling editors, far far worse. ;) If you keep it up, you're probably going to get banned rather soon, just letting you know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. Jerry Seinfeld is Jewish, we're allowed to make such jokes on TV, you on the other hand are not allowed to call the practices of other editors on Wikipedia Nazi-esque or w/e unless they are posting NatSoc things. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor. Don't whine on my talk page again, and don't threaten me. "Banned"? For what exactly? What I said and did does not even COME CLOSE to anything worth "banning" for. And it's NOT like I say that as a habit. (sighs...) And also, I said it in half-jest. And no harm was meant. Do me a favor (seriously). Stay the hell away from me. Or there'll be problems. You're harassing me with your silliness, now. I merely responded to your whines and crows. I have that right.Your nonsense will be soon removed from my page. I don't need garbage on my talk. Again, stay away, and don't stalk me, and don't whine at me. Cuz THAT is a clear violation of WP policy. Not the petty stuff I did.Art and Muscle (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of courier on OBL page

Hi there. I don't think it is a good idea to have two contradictory references to the name of the OBL courier in the article. If you want to expand on the contradiction in sources, please don't put a reference in the middle of the sentence, as there are less confusing places to put the information. Thanks, --Mujokan (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Please keep the WP:3rr in mind in the death of OBL page. By my count, you have currently reverted the nom de guerre stuff three times in the last 24 hours - reverting it once more would be cause for someone to block you. Also, the comments you have been leaving in edit summaries sound an awful lot like personal attacks and violations of WP:AGF - please tone down the rhetoric you use in them a bit. Kevin (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your point of view regarding nom de guerre. I think readability is better without the definition.Brmull (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

You wouldn't happen to have any relation or affiliation with Sweetpoet, ResearchRave, Archiver of Records, 68.237.240.68, 68.237.215.48, or 68.237.216.187, would you? Novaseminary (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]