User talk:J S Ayer

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, J S Ayer! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan 00:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work expanding this unmarked chess bio stub. If you are interested in writing chess bio articles, we have lots to work on in Category:Chess biographical stubs and the red links in List of notable chess players. Quale 04:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got your reply and I understand. Still a very nice job especially if chess isn't your interest. I was hoping we could get someone who reads German to translate the Deutsch wikipedia article on the German Chess Championship to an English wikipedia article. I looked at it some time ago using google translate and they did a very nice job on it. It's much better than any of the articles we have in Category:Chess competitions. Quale 04:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you would do that it would be great. I'm certainly not assigning work to you or anybody, so do whatever you find fun. If you would find that enjoyable, the chess enthusiasts who use and contribute to wikipedia would certainly appreciate your efforts. We only have articles on a few national chess championships and haven't ever had an article on the German championship so there's certainly no rush. Some day I'd love to have articles on all national chess championships around the world, but my pathetic language skills (a small amount of high school French, but I'm not good enough to make much use of it) limit me to researching English language sources. Quale 04:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I read with interest the comment on the Maltese nobility deletion. Do you really believe there should be an article for each and every noble with no importance other than having the title in Wikipedia or just the list? Maltesedog 09:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There isnt an article on each of the Maltese nobility. Luckily there isnt as I dont have the time to work on them nor fight to support them against the Dog. Can you imagine an article on all the current title holders, those extinct and those feudal titles long gone!!! Tancarville, 1421, 21 September 2005.

Hi. Thanks for your help with Pursuivant. I see you blanked your question out of its talk page. I reverted it back into existence so I could say "fixed"; but if you want to blank it out again go ahead. Doops | talk 04:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your message, and thank you for trying to polish the article. I got it from the German-language Wikipedia. I looked at it again, indeed it talks of ".. Rechine, Zirkone und einfache Perlen." hm, i really don't know, i left a message at the de. Wikipedia and the creator of the article, i hope he responds, i will let you know then obviously. Also are you familiar how to translate "Karkasse" into english? thanks for your help.... Gryffindor 21:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J S Ayer, I got a response in the German-language Wikipedia from the user who wrote the article. Apparently the correct German word would be "Spinellen", not "Rechinen", does that help? Chemical formula MgAl2O4 spinels. Gryffindor 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am just wanting to know why you deleted this part in the article Origins of Chess. I did not find your reasons in the talk page or your own.

Personally, I do not like deleting stuff because I believe that Wikipedia is not an essay to be butchered, but a collage of information. Although some information that may not seem like much to many, it can be quite valuable to some. Many a school project I've found information here that I couldn't find anywhere else. Please don't take this note offensively, I just want to know why you deleted those two paragraphs.

JDitto 02:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did post my reasons on the talk page. The paragraph claiming a mention in the Maha-Bharata is unsound. The linked article merely repeats material already in the article, and then adds a charming string of chess-themed political cartoons through the centuries. J S Ayer 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<lol> I must've been typing still on your talk page by the time you posted on the article's talk page. The history says that I finished the above comment 12 min after you posted on the talk page. Thanks and have a good and godly day . --JDitto 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Servetus's correspondence with Calvin: Roland Bainton, Hunted Heretic, pages 144-145. Calvin broke it off after thirty of Servetus's letters, as unprofitable, and on the same day wrote to Farel, (p. 145) "If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word, for should he come, if my authority is of any avail I will not suffer him to get out alive."

The reformed cities and ministers of Zurich, Berne, Basel, and Schaffhausen were asked for their opinions. They replied condemning Servetus's doctrine (although Zurich did not mention infant baptism, locally a touchy subject) and urging its suppression, though not specifying how that should be done. pages 202-204. J S Ayer 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, JDitto, present you The Editor's Barnstar for for being the persistent stickler in the article Origins of Chess. Many thanks for the great use of your chess references and keeping it undisputed. You don't know how much I owe you for helping me in my chess obsession research. Thanks again! --JDitto 06:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the lighthouse keepers, their articles are full of dead links! By the way, thanks for pointing out Quale's contributions, I've mostly been watching the article's history through my watchlist. After looking at the discussion page, I see that he's been helpful in Origins of Chess as well. --JDitto 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read an essay by a Mr. John Ayer once, a well written article on chess history. Are you him ? Nice work on the Origins of Chess article, kindly stay involved and point out if there is any particular edit you would like me to make, or anything that needs to be added etc.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am the author of a carefully wrought essay on chess history at [[1]]. I will continue to work on Origins of Chess as occasion permits, striving for accuracy and verifiability. "Do thou devoutly do the like," as the poet said. We have some way to go. J S Ayer 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that the article has you looking after it; I'll try to do my best for the article and will keep asking you to take a look into my work on the article as my edits progress. Hope you're there for some feedback,
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 22:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi im sorry for not putting the reference which i have done so about also about imam muslim which later i found out that even though his surname is close to the baqsheer family in yemen its totally different clan so i have has it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagusheria (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May this season bring you success, good times and happiness. Looking forward to working with you in the future.
Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the chess project. I noticed your improvements to the history of pieces. You can't spell "chess player" without "AYER". Bubba73 (talk), 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Please note what it says on Template:Catholic (which appears on several thousand pages): this work, the old Catholic Encyclopedia from 1913, is in the public domain. Notices appearing elsewhere do not change this and may constitute copyfraud. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the name of Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr in the article on the Battle of Karbala. I have moved the article on Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr from Abdulrehman_ibn_Abu_Bakr to the corrected name you provided. Unfortunately 161 articles have links to different spellings of his name. This is very confusing to most readers of Wikipedia. This link allows you see what pages link to Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr. Please would you go through these articles giving them a consistent spelling of Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am past thinking that consistent Romanization of Arabic is possible in Wikipedia; it grows too fast for us. I will accept thanks only for turning a red link blue. I don't know why you moved that article; I pipe-linked to it. All we can do is use redirects to get people to the article, wherever it is. J S Ayer (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw the article on the Battle of Karbala there was no consistency of spelling of names within the article. This made it very confusing. I have fixed this. This also had the effect of stopping the edit warring that was going on over the article.

Consistent spelling across articles would improve the quality of Wikipedia, by making it easier to follow.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you edited Amasya to indicate that the bishopric lapsed with the Turkish conquest. How do you know this? There were Orthodox Christians in Amaseia until 1923; how do you know that they did not have a bishop? The existence of a Catholic titular bishop tells us that there was no Catholic bishop, but that was presumably true since the schism. --38.112.210.2 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comment on the Michael Servetus talk page. You are right when you say the constant references to proofs of his identity can difficult the reading. I removed some that are secondary. The problem is it is a very important issue shared in all the universities where the International Society for the History of Medicine has delegations in, 53 countries. It is normal users refer it because it was also published in Russia, Costa Rica, Spain, France.. ( that aside the Vesalius Magazine, that reaches not just the and 12 national societies and 52 delegations but much more research centers, and archives. This has changed completely in few years the understanding of the life of Michael in the scientific world, historians dedicated to the understanding of History of Medicine, Theologians from the Univeristy of Barcelona, the Order of Jesus experts, and many others, some masons too) I understand the topic is complex, basically the fact of the true name of Michael, forces his life to be very different. You are right in pointing " if his name was this , what does it matter" It does not. The problem is many historians thought Villanueva de Sijena, and Michael de Villaneuva, to be linked. And it is not. " De Villanueva" is a last name appearing in the documents, which means it was a true last name. So the main point is there is no relation between those two subjects. When we write the whole name one must write Michael de Villanueva, and means his first name was Michael, and the second " De Villanueva" the capital is omitted. That can be confusing. But it is the correct way, sometimes it is more clear to say Michael De Villanueva, so people can understand better it is a last name, not an information. So the whole picture is more complex than we historians had though for many centuries. It does not however change the nature of the work of Michael, but it changes and explains many issues of his life that were unknown. His Jewish heritage is double, because " De Villanueva" family is very possibly a converso one. It explains why he does not care of publishing his two first works, with all possible data about his origin, for the inquisition to track him. Some say it was ignorance. It can be ignorance once. The inquisition goes to molest his family twice. One per each work signed as " Servetus de Villanueva". It also explains why the retinue does not know who he is by that name , even before writing any work. So nothing matches. There are no appearances of " Servetus de Villanueva " but in his dangerous works, or when confronting Calvin, in a judgement where it is explicitly said " Servetus" did not present any document for proving who he was. So we have a person that affirms again to be from Villanueva de sijena, the village, for some reason. THe reason is Anton servetus was his step father, and apparently they did not get along, for some reason. I thank you the interest for balancing the article. But again, what documents demonstrate is Michael de Villanueva ( De Villanueva last name) and Michael Servetus de Villanueva ( from villanueva, the village) are two separated things. That is why it was very confusing for historians to research on this.

So the main importance is Michael uses intentionally data of his step father for publishing any dangerous work( and it is the one detail in the cover of this works, not the mark of printer, city of printing, nothing), and for expressing his theology, when he is with all those protestant experts at Basel,and all of them use also pseudonyms, same than Erasmus It also changes the " arrogance" that many thought Michael had, for publishing his work that were polemic with his true name, it shows he was using, as everyone in those times, a pseudonym for it. So I hope I have helped you to get this more clear. Again you are right it does not affect to the works of Michael, it affects to how we understand his life. Please let me know if you have some doubts. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also any reference you need. It has been published recently in the prestigios " Vesalius" magazine. of the International Society for the History of Medicine.

Ok, I think you are right , Calvin could have knwon him, it is possible. I checked the article, I think now it is not said " where nobody knew him". I think what that user ment was " where nobody knew his true identity" cause Calvin did not know it either. Anyway I will not add that cause it is confusing. I think now the article is pretty clear.--Alice Alaster (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I would like to add some data I have checked, I think it is better to write it here. Calvin and Michael de Villanueva, studied in different schools, at Paris. Paris had 40 schools. What Michael says in Vienne Isére Judgemente is this " I heard of a wise man( Calvin), I had never met him but I was interested, and we fixed a meeting," he later says he does not go to meet him. Anyway I am going to study this subject more ok? It seems it is disconnected from the later letter exchange thanks to the common friend Jean Frellon, cause Calvin uses a pseudonym, and Michael does not sign them. Give me 2 days and I will check the documents from Vienne Isère and the new documentation, cause it is interesting and I think we both want to know the truth on this..--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly normal you did not know about the historical procedure. Historians and experts that are part of peer reviews systems, from the systems where experts communicate finds and discoveries in International Congresses that are peer reviewed are usually more interested in giving communications in peer reviewed systems than in publishing books for the rest of mankind. How could people imagine many of the secondary sources they use in their beloved biographies of " Servetus" are not relying on any real document? They do not, if they are not researchers. And believe me many historians are not researchers. They copy each other on an issue and they never go to check any archive. It seems most users have thought it is correct to attach the primary sources that proof Michael's true name was Michael de Villanueva, because if just the secondary new sources on the proofs and articles were show people who are not part of the advanced scientific could logically question this big changes, I think you can feel more secure on this issue after you yourself can read the name of Michael from the original manuscripts from 1500. By the way, I really appreciate your dedication to the article. Many people who have a determined idea on a certain issue are stubborn on accepting changes, even if there are proofs what they believed was false, and what they denied is proved. Sometimes by interest. It is very refreshing to check there are consistent people in this world, that are dedicated to know the truth on the figures they love, in our case " Servetus". By the way I am gathering information on Calvin and Michael possible but not proved contact in Paris, and how this is very possibly unrelated to the letters they exchanged later. In two days I will contact with you again, so we can decided what to write down on this.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the documents of Calvin and Michael. Things are not exactly as I said. What it is known by documents is that anonymously Calvin and Michael interchange letters , Calvin using a pseudonym, and Michael does not write any name. And then, some time later Calvin gets angry and accuses Michael of being Michael Servetus, the same man that had written those 2 previous works. Michael de Villanueva gets arrested and then it is when he says , " I heard of a wise man.. and I accepted to exchange letters , but I never met him" This is what he affirms. in Vienne Isère Judgement . It seems Calvin figured out who Michael was, the doctor Michael de Villanueva by spying the common friend Jean Frellon. He then either believed he was Servetus, cause of the native village of his stepfather, or either he knew he was not his actual name but, decided to say that , in order to accuse him more easily of the previous work. If you want my personal opinion , it is that Calvin did not lie, he actually though his real name was " Servetus". Anyway that is another stuff. When it comes to them meeting each other, there is just one source that assures it , Calvin himself. Could it be? yes, but it could be he is making it up. He said it after Michael was dead, and he clearly says he risked his life , but Michael did not go etc. No way to figure out, but Michael denies this , and how could it be they interchange letters anonymously if they had met? What is for sure is that this stuff is nor proved, and if you want my opinion again, I think Calvin made it up. This way it would sound like he had done a brave thing, and at same time tries to show he knew that person better , for assuring his accusations. So well, I promised I would check it. Simply there are no proofs, cause the one that assures is Calvin, after Michael's death, and it does not match with the rest of the events. Could it be? All is possible.----Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the works of Servetus, I actually do not know the proper English translation for them. I thought old gospel would be more accurate (it works in Russian). But I am not a native English, nor American. The original title of those two works were printed in Spanish by Jean Frellon and Steelsius as; "...del Viejo Testamento," so I think your correction is good. Both of those are translations and poetry based on the part of the Gospel that is before Jesus Christ. Apparently in English the whole writing is called "Gospel," but when we refer to the old part of it (Genesis,Leviticus,..) we say "Old Testament"? I am not sure on this so just choose what you think it is correct. Thanks for your help.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just inform you I detected a strong conflict of interest in the article, the director of the Villanueva Sijenense studies, and a member of the board of advisors of this institute in the same village they claim to be Servetus from. I warned them and I reported it. If this goes one we should consider semiprotection. ( not yet though). http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/board.htm --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you reverted a change to history of chess. It looks like the same edit was made to chess - will you check it out? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my research the Austro-Hungarian order presented to Jan Puzyna de Kosielsko was the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Stephen of Hungary. It was presented in 1904, so I am betting that this is what we are looking for. I changed the articles for Mariano Rampolla and Puzyna de Kosielsko to reflect this information, with a reference. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume de Marcos is a high member of the Michael Servetus institute, MSI, it is located in Villanueva de Sijena, servetus birthplace. The same researcher who proved the Jewish converso heritage of Michael in 1999, and found 10 new works,Gonzalez Echeverria, is the person who defendes " Servetus" is a pseudonym, and so, that Michael De Villanueva, is actuallya real name and born in Tudela.. So, now all the MSI tries to remove any reference to Gonzalez, of the article. De Marcos is one. I already provided a link to the michael servetus institute. Though he was in a conflict of interest most users accepted gonzalez theory was not preeminent and shoule be changed in the biography. Ok with that, all of em made clear the new works section was ok. He did not, before he had tried to diminish the references to gonzalez 4, 5, 6, to the jewish converso origin of Michael, In the comments of my editions can be chekced, how i told himn to name a work before 1999 which would say " Michael was converso cause of the zaporta family" . It does not exist, he said it was known, in order to remove him fro there, cause he cannot tolerate that the birthplace of Servetus could be altered, and if he is not " Servetus" then he was born in Tudela, another location. So that is why a member of a Servetus organization is fighting so strongly for getting works removed from the article, it does have no sense, nobody would make that and insistent. That user has showed us all what he clearly pretends, remove all references to gonzalez. In a dispute He got some users to accept that Gonzalez was alone in the defense of his ideas. Well alone with Servetus scholas, but with peer reviewed communications in a huge organization peer reviewed called International Society for the History of Medicine and the Spanish Society for the History of Medicine. There are the referenbces there. cause of the dispute I decided to make a way smaller section of the new works section and now it says what it says, he has few support in scholars by servetus, and against consensus, but passed by the ISHM. And I also mention his theory on " Servetus" name which was preeminent some weeks back. But that is not enough. He wanted from the beigining to change all. Everything, and nothing is enough. So I ask you some advice. This person has tried from the beining to destroy any reference to gozalez as he was accusing him of " being a pediatrician" the first time he wrote, ( servetus himself was officially educated as a physician, not a theologian. By the way) Anyway, one can see the clear destructive intention of De Marcos. We have been to kind with him. The arctile was very scholary and extended, thanks to many users, and with many references. And he did not care at all, not he contributed to anything, since he saw it , he just adecuated the biography and now wants those works removed. My opinion, cause of that dispute I modified the new works section and now it clearly says what it has to say. But for that person is not enough, cause there is no good faith, there is a destructive try against Gonzalez.The section says , it is against consensus of most Servetus Scholars, but passed by the ISHM, and the SSHM, which is to name facts. I should mention this contribution has to be mentioned, for me and for many users it is the biggest in Servets history,10 additional works, more than half of the total!. So ok, I can accept to keep it as I wrote it last time, ( and it really hurt me), but it is the biggest " possible according to wikipedia" contribution to Servetism, more than half of the forgotten works by Michael. So what do you think? we should proceed with Conflict of interest?He does deserve it. His try is clear. He wil say no, just to reflect reality. But do check his commentaries in the talk page, from the beggining. Gonzalez found a work by Servetus, the first one the Materia Medica of 1543, accidentally, all the MSI supported him, you can read the news in the newspapers in a link I put on the talk page. that was 1997, i think after that he started seeing " servetus" was not the name of Michael, and so he could have been born in Tudela, the MSI(located in Aragon, Villanueva de Sijena, the small village of birth) expelled him in 2005 and rejects the previous works HE PUBLISHED WITH THEIR EDITOR in 1997, ( you can check in his website, the green book, " estudios sijenienses" and also the new in 24-9 and 7-10 of 1997, his lectures in MSI www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs?page=4 and, all the rest of works he found, thanks to Jean frellon and a work of 17 years of checking anonymous works. So what do you think? Well for me it is obnoxious. And De Marcos( by the way, you can see many of his editions are about Crown of Aragon characters, he feel a patriotic . something, on this character too, wikipedia is not for patriotisms, this user is from Barcelona ( was a part of the crown of Aragon), as he explains in the talk page, all these characters have a strong and explicit relation and members of the Crown of Aragon, in his editions:Ramon Berenger, Alfonso II, Crown of Aragon article,Beatrice of Provence, Servetus of course.. but also on Dynasty article he edited about Aragon, Count of Barcelona article, related and included in the Crown of Aragon as well.. and... it was HIM, who edited in the Servetus article the " crown of Aragon" in the template of Servetus, some 26th of July commenting "A constituent kingdom of the Empire, not to be confused with the colonies") is doing that, right here. I have to be on a long trip and I won't be able to edit, please, do not let this person destroy anymore thanks. here you have the website of Gonzalez,www.michaelservetusresearch.com , with links documents and more--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user just removed as many references as he could, even from the works section, anything that would refer to Gonzalez, just nothing. Well good luck I am done, wikipedia should have some tools for battling these patriotic users in conflict of interest.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for correcting me at Latrunculi. (I keep forgetting. I have a German Internet friend point the same thing out to me in Email some time ago. That's two strikes! There won't be a third.) Thx again, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	I award you the Minor Barnstar in recognition of the high quality "minor" edits you make to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the false etymology from History of chess. Quale (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John,

Thank you for your messages on my user talk pages. I am sorry to hear of your login troubles. I note that you have not yet been able to login and edit since writing those messages. I have just requested a password reset email be sent to you. I will be sending you email to further notify you shortly. Good luck!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) |} (You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis Chevrolet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

• dedicated to the accomplishments of Louis Chevrolet. The memorial, designed by Fred Wellman] and sculpted by [[Adolph Wolter]], was created during 1968–1970 and installed in the spring of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:04, 29 January 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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (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, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copy-editing on Max Spiers, I appreciate it. After so long editing an article like that its quite easy to make mistakes and its good to have someone over the shoulder checking :D →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to revert another insertion of File:Flag of Mississippi (1861-1894).svg into Mississippi in the American Civil War. Is it possible we could change File:Flag of Mississippi (1861-1894).svg to be the "correct" flag? There is a good analysis here and here and the description as "A Flag of white ground, a Magnolia tree in the centre, a blue field in the upper left hand corner with a white star in the centre, the Flag to be finished with a red border and a red fringe at the extremity of the Flag" is corroborated here and here. Note that he says of the flag that is the current version on Commons: "I can now say with confidence that this particular version of the Magnolia flag never existed...at least not from 1861 to 1865. And, it was never the state flag." Do you think it's worthwhile to change the image on Commons to [2]? If so, I could probably do so. Looking for your input since you seem better informed on this topic than I am. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...did you see this? Mojoworker (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond. Since there seems to have been a variety of flags in actual use I think it would be better not to create another "authoritative" pattern. Thanks! J S Ayer (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Do you think Flag of Mississippi#1861 flag is a problem? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a problem! The flag buffs, in the Flags of the World website, lay out convincing evidence that this flag never existed until after 1865. I hadn't been aware of this article. Thank you! J S Ayer (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that page to my watchlist. I'll defer to you to bring up the issue at the article talk page – the topic is a bit out of my wheelhouse. There are also more than 25 other uses of that flag on enWP – see the bottom of the page at: File:Flag of Mississippi (1861-1894).svg. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you'd might like to see how I fixed the link to Glen Allen, Virginia at Caboose for you. The image had a set of ]] at the end and the link to Glen Allen, Virginia also required another set of ]] .  Stepho  talk  01:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I had in mind! Thank you! J S Ayer (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.  Stepho  talk  08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clairvaux Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shambles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has complained at WP:ANI about this article. See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Slow moving edit war at Order of the Golden Fleece.

Since you have recently edited there, it is possible you may be interested. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of a "Citation needed" template in Marguerite Churchill. Your edit summary said, "Her son's date of death is given in his own article." However, the date of death in the article about her son is unsourced, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Even if the son's date of death had a reliable, published citation, that information would need to be added to the mother's article, and the rest of that paragraph would still need a citation. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You recently changed the word "Turkey" to "Türkiye". However, Wikipedia policy is to use the WP:COMMONNAME of a country name, unless it's in a specific technical context that requires the official name to be used. The common name of this country in the English language remains "Turkey", so I've reverted your edit. Please don't make any similar changes without first establishing consensus with other editors that common English usage has changed (for example, as "Mumbai" has replaced "Bombay" in common usage). — The Anome (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William L. Marcy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court uniform and dress.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marja.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Manners, 3rd Duke of Rutland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abraham Janssen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your question in Talk:Name_of_Jersey. Wisdood (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Order of the Three Golden Fleeces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Chancellor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, I have provided references wherever possible and the content discusses studies and connections between topics. If you have sufficient information about it, you can find accuracy, for example, in Surah Qaf of the Quran and the letter Qaf in Tarot. Over several years of studying and synchronizing across different religions, I have been able to publish on Wikipedia, and it is indeed accurate. Thank you, and please refrain from editing.There is another question, I am at your service. Mahdix33 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I missed the date discrepancy somehow. Good catch. Elinruby (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to Siddiqui appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. C F A 💬 15:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]