User talk:Damotclese/Archive 1

July 2013

Cleaned up the talk page, stuff going way back that I'm no longer interested in. The Scientology crime syndicate nonsense is well known these days, and I've been working in the effort to expose and indict as many of those crooks as possible since 1994. Likewise the "Seven Laws of Noah" dispute was long-since resolved. If anybody wants input on any of the issues I'm still involved with, please let me know! Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crystal Lake Recreation Area may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the Visitor Center<ref>[http://crystallake.name/center.htm Visitor Center] – Accessed 2013-July-24]</ref> parking lot.
• [http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/curvegallery.html Curve Fire Photographs] – Accessed 2013-July-24]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

How dare I?! :) In fact I think my text is correct and the 'bot made a mistake here, I think maybe. I responded to the 'bot's talk page, maybe I'll see what's up. What fun.

Yep,. my text was fine, the 'bot was mistaken.

Wikipedia Meetup

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Will there be caek!? Chocolate marble caek?! :) I may try to get to this. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Alas I was exercising in the mountains, as I recall sweating my way up a ravine and wondering why I was doing it. Damotclese (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

There is a right wing conspiracy believer editing pages which appears to be utterly uninformed about the locomotive transportation infrastructure, so perhaps I should note that I subscribe to the core policy directives for Remaining Polite and No Personal Attacks so if you're an editor that violates these policies, you can expect that I shall ignore you, and ignore your comments entirely. Yeah, your notions may be highly amusing :) however your comments belong in a blog, not on Wikipedia. Thanks.

Please comment on Talk:Davison Design & Development

(talk) 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Davison_Design_&_Development#RFC_Responses Did so. Damotclese (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the latest updates have resolved the issues I brought up. Looks good! Damotclese (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the warring factions has returned. Someone notified the IP address he/she is using. Damotclese (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Grammarly

RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Look a look and saw that Ronz (talk) had offered a good summary of the issue and suggested resolution, so I suggested that Ronz's input be adopted. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto

RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yikes! I have to laugh. I hate Monsanto! and everything that right wing corporate criminal multinational conglomerate stands for to the point where I could not offer an unbiased opinion on the subject, so I will refrain. Damotclese (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Could. Not. Stop. Myself! I suggested that the article be deleted since it is not encyclopedic. Damotclese (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, bloat is excessive, suggested the templates be removed Damotclese (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's rather amusing to suggest that Think Progress is reliable in the sense that it should be used as a "Reliable Source" ijn the context of Wikipedia references. Fact is that no news source, no news aggregator is reliable insofar as they are without bias. Think Progress, I suggested in the RFC, is not reliable but should still be used however it should be used sparingly as a source. Damotclese (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prince George of Cambridge. RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This RFC request wins the current award for the dumbest RFC request ever. Damotclese (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Welspun Energy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Welspun Energy. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor who created the page and is trying to use it for advertising should be banned. Damotclese (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Damotclese, if you want to comment on the RfC, you need to actually go to the article's talk page and comment there. You should, though, take care not to cross into incivility, as the section above especially starts to get a bit inappropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Woops! Qwyrxian failed to notice that I did comment on Welspun Energy. LOL. Well, not everyone is absorbant. Damotclese (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to smile. BiologistBabe also failed to see my RFC comment. :) She's working for the USAMRIID which is reason enough to not be able to sleep at night, she says is her excuse. :)

The Welspun Energy page fails for three reasons:

1) The article is advertising

2) The company employee posting the advertising employes a user name that is a violation of Wikipedia policy

3) The company employee posting the advertising employs a WP:SPA account specifically to post advertising.

Any one of these problems is worthy of account banning. Damotclese (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Damotclese (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering). RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't play idiot games. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm on a bicycle, too far to pedal. :) Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved your post

Hi, Damotclese. I moved your ANI post here. I'm pretty sure that was where you wanted it, but please check. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

Thanks! Here, I'll also note on your Talk: page as well. Yep, it was in the wrong area. 'Doh! Damotclese (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's fascinating seeing the race-motivated discussion ensue. For some people the facts of the issue don't matter, their sexualized fascination with firearms and their defense of the jury's verdict predicated upon the Stand Your Ground law makes for abject refusal to abide by WP:NPOV to the point some wish to exclude skin color from the extant article. Interesting aspect of human primate behavior from a sociological point of view. Damotclese (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

From a biological arena as well. It is interesting to observe the stark bifurcation of that issue. The opposed faction are using Wikipedia article policy to remove RFC comments which are not subject to such policy. It is rather interesting to see, yes. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy

please note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Asserting that an individual committed a crime for which he has been found not guilty in a court of law is a clear violation of policy. I have redacted your recent comments to this effect, and would advise you not to repeat them. We have to take such matters seriously, regardless of the circumstances of a particular case, and regardless of our own personal feelings on the issue in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Well, it was undeniably murder however sure, once he gets charged, tried, and convicted by the Federal effort (always assuming that the DOJ decides to proceed) I'll revisit the page. :) Thanks! Oh, I see that my support was removed, guess I'd better respond again. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What you (or I) think is 'undeniable' isn't relevant. Wikipedia has policies, and we have to work within them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions on the issue of the murder are irrelevant, the facts of the issue is what matters, and Wikipedia policy only concerns itself with testable, verifiable facts. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, might I suggest you start your own somewhere else. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is what he is trying to explain to you. You seem confused. Zimmerman was not found guilty of murder, therefore you can't call him a murderer or state what he did was murder. Nor are you allowed to call someone a racist, unless you have proven facts. Nor can you add irrelevant information into an article for no reason other than to lead people into that assumption. Dream Focus 17:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Damotclese, your RFC on the Martin page was removed which was a violation of policy. RFC comments are not Wikipedia articles, the editor that removed your comment was in violation of policy. If you would, post your RFC again, if you still wish to volunteer your opinion. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, I see that the offending editor is spewing his mistaken notions on your Talk: page. Well that's to be expected with such a contentious issue, the guy is obviously mistaken, obviously in violation of policy but is too ideology-driven to admit it. Still, please post your RFC response again to the article. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of that BB, but some of Wikipedia's policies do apply to talk pages and RFC comments, the OP was correct about that. Obviously it was murder and equally obviously to note that in the extant article would violate WP:NPOV since the jury -- constrained by the Stand Your Ground law -- found otherwise. And yeah, I also find it rather amusing, people pick and choose which WP policy they want to claim was violated even as they violate policy. It makes for a rather robust, dynamic encyclopedic effort, I would argue. Primate behavior; one does not need to be a sociologist to observe the phenomena. Thanks for the heads-up but I already noticed. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Davison Design & Development RFC Decision and IP Editor

In the Davison Design & Development RFC, one of the warring factions returned and ignored the RFC decisions, ergo I reversed his/her edit. One thing that I found was that even editors who use unsigned IP addresses and not user accounts must be notified of violations of RFC decisions despite dynamically-assigned IP addresses not pointing well to specific editors.

The individual making the changes in the aftermath of the RFC decision is notified, any way, the first phase of IP blocking for a month to avoid a re-emergence between the warrings factions. Damotclese (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

MMR Vaccination page

I know you commented previously but there is still problems with the MMR Vaccination page. If you're not too busy... Well the article is probably fine as it is. Still, revisit, let me know if the civil lawsuit information is relevant and accurate. BiologistBabe (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the cultists in that argument are unable to reason, I won't go back in to there. Damotclese (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox Swiss town

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox Swiss town. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That one is best left to others to discuss. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So tired of conspiracy nuts

Ha! I thought I had retired from the general law enforcement arena and from the conspiracy pool of lunacy. Looks like I. Just. Keep. Getting. Dragged. In! LOL. Gods, I need a vacation. Damotclese (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Wikipedians

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Wikipedians. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That was rather a no-brainer also, there are some minor traditions in WIkipedia that should not be abolished. Damotclese (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WinCo Foods

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:WinCo Foods. — Legobot (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I ain't got no more time for this stuff just now, I won't respond. Damotclese (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mars and Venus (Botticelli)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mars and Venus (Botticelli). — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Ah darn, astronomy, one of my best subjects. Alas I don't have much time these days for Wikipedia. :( Damotclese (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberty University

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC) It was something of a surprise to see that the cult was still operating, still taking money from victims, however I responded to the RFC and noted that the question being asked should be affirmative, the two segments of information about the cult should be retained. Damotclese (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sonic Colors

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sonic Colors. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC) This was kind of interesting, but I noted that the RFC should not have been opened in the first place. When there is a trivial contention on a proposed edit, the original author of the page is usually the one who gets to decide the resolution of the contention. There is usually the need for a significant reason to overrule the original author, usually due to a trivial mistake that is obviously a mistake. Damotclese (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Archive.rs RFC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Archive.rs RFC. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Yikes! Someone implemented an "alternative" to The Wayback Machine without discussing it among the community, and now Wiki articles are being linked to it for references. That should be disallowed for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the need to have legitimacy. The Archive.is server(s) is something that is unknown, totally out-of-the-blue. I commented, strongly opposed and recommended removal of the bogus server. Damotclese (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC) This one is a no-brainer. So much so I will not comment, other Editors have done a good job already commenting. Damotclese (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Longest Journey

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Longest Journey. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) I commented on this. The proposed link is broken anyway which kind of nullifies the editor contention anyway, however the proposed link goes to a Pay For Access server which violates one of the many Wikipedia guidelines and as such a link to the server should not be allowed. I commented as such. Damotclese (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PrankvsPrank

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PrankvsPrank. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Good grief. Wasting people's time. Damotclese (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC) This one is not so amusing. I looked at the editors dispute and decided that the low information voters along one ideological side was potentially mentally disturbed enough to warrant constituting a danger to any other editor who might suggest reason via an RFC comment. :) So no comment was offered. Damotclese (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mario Kart

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mario Kart. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC) This was another issue where information that is already developed by editors is suggested to be either hidden, reduced, or eliminated due to concerns that the information is long or dense or distracts from the meat of the Wiki entry. "More information is better" is how I see the resolution to such discussions better keeps with the charter of Wikipedia. Damotclese (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I commented on this one. The proposed graph suggests a causual relationship that is not supported strongly enough by the offered citations. Damotclese (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC) I commented on this. More information is better, and the Tenebrae version of the proposed text offers better salient information than the other proposed version. Damotclese (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Not even. Damotclese (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Oh hell no. I'm not going to jump in to that. Damotclese (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Bullying

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Bullying. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I won't comment on that one either since the RFC is not formed properly. Damotclese (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows 8

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windows 8. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC) I dno't know anything about Windows 8, others have responded so I will not. Damotclese (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Female education and economic development

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Female education and economic development. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC) --meh-- No, I won't comment on this one either. Damotclese (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC) I commented on this. The issue appears to be something of a matter of opinion or possibly a statement that is being proposed to be added which is not testable and thus can notbe falsified. I recommended that the badly-proposed test not be added, certainly if it can not be verified as legitimate. Damotclese (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sustainability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sustainability. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC) I checked this over and there is already something of a majority opinion provided by others on the article so I won't bother. Damotclese (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC) I commented on this. I tend to feel that "more information is better" and the information that is being proposed as "too long" is something to oppose. People searching for information can't find it if it's not provided. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ninth Doctor

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ninth Doctor. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what the hell they're talking about. :) I don't watch television and this sounds like it's a television show or maybe a video game, something I have no interest in. Damotclese (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Job Safety Analysis

Hi Damotclese, just returning your message to talk. If feel a bit like a naughty schoolboy summoned the the Principal's office.  :) Was there a problem with control section I posted on the JSA page? Still getting my head around editing the page! Cheers, Ken. Kmsafety (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I posted a note on Ken's Talk: Page yet I'll copy it here in case Ken checks here first:

Greetings, KMSafety!

The "controls" bullet points you offered for the Situational Awareness page were actually fine and even interesting, yet the update lacked any kind of context which I had found to be confusing, they were just dropped in to the text as a new section without descriptions of what they were. I had mentioned in the article's talk page that maybe your update could be fleshed out some more, operhaps a description and explanation of what you added could be provided.

If you don't want to do that -- or if you would like to see another editor to do that -- either you or I could revert my revert to restore your update and we can flesh it out, add context and meaning to the bullet points, make it actually useful. :) Should I put the section back? Let me know either way. Thanks! Oh, and welcome to the mess that is Wikipedia! :) Damotclese (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Damotclese,

sorry for the delay!

Thanks for the note.

As I said I'm a Wiki newby and appreciate the feedback.

I agree and would like to add more info second time around as I also believe an explanation of each point would help. It's the ole balancing act between being succinct and informative.

I'll get something together for you to have a look at over the weekend.

Cheers,

Ken. Kmsafety (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:TheBus (Honolulu)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:TheBus (Honolulu). — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Enough people have commented on that so I will not do so. Damotclese (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Enough peolpe have commented on that RFC as well so I won't respond. What is interesting about this one is that the data is not "original research", it is valid information from a reliable source, however the article about an Oligarch, a person, and the economic graphs proposed to be added/kept aren't entirely relevant -- which others have pointed out. Damotclese (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC) I commented on this. There should be no disagreement when it comes to including factual, relevant information. "More is better" should be the general rule. Damotclese (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox album

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I will not comment on that one, when it comes to templates I don't know enough about the issue to comment. Damotclese (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BP

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) There is overwhelming opposition to the RFC request however I commented also. The British Petroleum corporation's core criminality is well documented and the wikipedia article covers some of the corporation's crimes accurately and it has falsifiable citations, ergo the information is not "anti-BS." It needs to stay in. Damotclese (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carol of the Bells

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Carol of the Bells. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not going to respond to that. I know nothing about the issue. Damotclese (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Falifiable

OK, I am going to have to fess up and admit that I have never encountered that word before. It is not in the Oxford English Dictionary online. Can you please enlighten the vocabulary-impaired? Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC) A typeo -- falsifiable Damotclese (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daily Mail

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Daily Mail. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC) I will not comment on that one since others have and I doubt that I could be unbiased. Damotclese (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Documentation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Documentation. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC) This is another one where enough people have commented that I doubt I could contribute anything useful so I won't. Damotclese (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)