user talk:Sheeana

If you arnt going to offer any help besides sticking these tags on this page leave me alone please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the promotion... the article talks about a man who decicated his life towards the promotion of Gospel Music... I suggest you read before you mark for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

{{tb|Gnowor|Responding to message on my talk page}}

Responded both on my page, and on what I believe is your old account's talk page. Again, sincere apologies. Welcome to Wikipedia!--Gnowor^T_C 02:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

:No worries, I can see how the name was causing a problem! And thanks very much! It certainly seems like a friendly place so far. :-) Sheeana (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

i changed it from economics columnist to liberal columnist. i dont think any sensible person considers bob herbert an economics columnist. all he does is talk about race and he has no credentials in economics or finance

{{talkback|Dylan620|Hello!|ts=17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)}}

Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a question at your request for rollback if you have a moment. Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for the reply. I've added +rollback to your account. Any questions please ask. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

::You are most welcome. Thank you for the kind note. Happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw your quick and early edits of the above article. I have a really nice picture of Woodbridge, but I could not figure out how to get it to Wikipedia. If there is an easy way to do this, let me know. Just remember I come from a pre-computer generation.

The Picture of Woodbridge in his room on St. Croix, which is mentioned in the final paragraph, is available online with the full text of Modern School Geography. I had thought about cutting and pasting, but was uncertain if this was acceptable under Wikipedia rules.

I had seen the isotherm map before. It looks great, thanks for adding it.

I will fix footnote "5".

Thanks for your improvements.

Elkmilok (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the William Channing Woodbridge item tody and note that the last two and a half paragraphs are not up on the main part of the edit screen yet. If this is because the edits are not yet done fine. I have to do something else please let me know. The finished product should go through his death and have a brief paragraph about Abbott' 1958 memoir.

I tried to attach a picture of Woodbridge. In fact, I paid way to much to have a nice young woman "scan" the picture. I thought the picture would look like the original, only be in a form which could be sent electronically. The result was the rather crude version in ugly black dots. Should it be uncceptable, I will understand, the original is really quite nice.

I know this should somehow go under the Woodbridge subheading, but I can't find it.

Elkmilok (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to start off with on our adoption lessons? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

:Sure! I've been exploring and learning on my own a lot, but I'm happy to try something more structured. :) Sheeana ^Talk 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, what would you like to learn about? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Hmm, I'll have to think about that. It all seems pretty easy so far. Sheeana ^Talk 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

:Congrats, Sheeana! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 03:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sheeana,

My Article about the band Mirro's Curse was selected for speedy deletion...I believe it shouldn't be deleted. Well, I created it for copyright reasons not for advertising this band. Some other bands are stealing names, and this one has the copyrights for the name. I believe you shouldn't delete the article. :-) Mirrorscurse (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We both edited that article to add back the CSD at the same time, if you look at the {{plainlink | url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moj_Mahdara&action=historysubmit&diff=358959599&oldid=358959580 | name=diff}} you'll notice that they're the same. I'm surprised I didn't get an edit conflict.... I'm not sure if huggle will show one though, perhaps it just runs over other editors.. Good editing! I can't stand people who cant READ the CSD where it clearly says, add {{Hangon}} below the CSD tag, however I suppose I shouldn't expect everyone to understand wiki markup. Hmm.. Cheers! -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

:Hey you gotta start somewhere! I know when I started using wikipedia it 5 years (or so) ago, it was a lot different and hardly any articles. Everyone blossoms, if they care, at some point. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 01:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion declined: Prosecutor Princess ==

Hello Sheeana, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Prosecutor Princess - a page you tagged - because: Not blatantly an attack page or negative BLP. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

:I'm well aware of the speedy deletion criteria, but read negative statements on the article in question and didn't realize at first they were about a fictional character. Thanks. Sheeana ^Talk 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

::Okay, I see. decltype (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work patrolling recent changes, but Bbag (which isn't much) attempts to be an article about a drink, and as such the A7 template is not applicable. I have PRODded it instead. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

:While it's not technically a club, it's so clearly unnotable that I don't feel PROD is necessary. I sometimes use {{db-reason|reason}} for those. Sheeana ^Talk 04:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

::That redirects to Template:Db, and that doesn't seem to be what you mean. Either way, it's not just technically not a club, it's not a club at all, and A7 does not apply. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

:::What I mean is that you can give a freeform reason using the db template. As long as it's a completely obvious reason (like "not notable dog" rather than A7 "not notable person") most admins don't seem to mind. Sheeana ^Talk 04:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Actually, the example you mention has been added to A7 because people felt that articles on unremarkable individual animals should be speedy deletable under that criterion. While it is often proposed that a speedy deletion criterion be made for articles such as this, consensus has never been reached to add such a criterion. It is true that some admins will choose to honor such deletion requests, but the correct way to go about it would be to start a discussion at WT:CSD if they feel the criteria are too restrictive, rather than performing those deletions. decltype (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hirondelles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dear Sheeana, sorry about our English, we try our best. We are students, engineer examiness, urban planners and have a lot of better skills as English. All text about Hirondelles are writen by Germans and Vietnamese students. We don´t understand why Hirondelles should be deleted, as all involved students in Vietnam and Germany are happy about this basic information as many of us are on the way to attend the workshops. Wikipedia is for us students something of neutral information, sometime future orientated. We are studying for future urban developments, where probably you like to live. Florian Langlotz - Bachelor of science and student of Bauhaus University Weimar Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florian Langlotz (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Florian Langlotz (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

~~

For the fix on my redirect. Here, have a cookie:

Greetings! I hope you're having a good day, and it keeps up! Cheers. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

25px Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. You tagged {{#if:Stiff peaks|"Stiff peaks"|a page}} for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

:I was in the process of doing this - manual tags don't automatically add warnings via Huggle - but thanks. Sheeana ^Talk 15:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule is not for an ongoing score-line but for final scores. Please don't add scores to games that are ongoing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that you have removed some links. I have seen this website helping others to give knowledge on CIBIL and other financial topics. I saw the experts replying to people within no times on knowledge based items. I felt that the purpose of given website and Wikipedia is matching so I added few links. You can keep removing links as if wikipedia is your property and none other can do anything except you. I again got feeling that lack of knowledge about India and Indian matter is hampering wikipedia's growth in India. You people keep removing links about Indian matter. Bluedaimond (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Muhammad's wives#New material you can see that there was consensus to remove that material. It looks like a sockpuppet added it back in. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:{{User5|Kushsinghmd}} originally added that material and was blocked for edit warring over it. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#G2 clearly states that pages in user spaces, created by themselves, are NOT to be deleted.

I have created my own "monobook.js" for my own use, it is only accessible as a runnable javascript when I am logged on. There's absolutely no risks for others.

Reread the rule ! verdy_p (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:Your monobook should be located in user space, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Verdy_p/monobook.js here]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Verdy_p/monobook.js This] is not in your userspace. Sheeana ^Talk 01:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:: For such obvious and unintendd errors of namespace (I forgot I was on the English Wikipedia and used the standard namespace used on French Wikipedia), you should have just renamed it immediately and then speedy deleted the generated redirect. It's not cool of acting so fast without thinking, and without even explaining that there was a minor error.

:: I've renamed the page, you can drop the redirect that is leaving now.

:: verdy_p (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:: Anyway, I was wondering why the script did not load and why there was no Javascript notice displayed on top of the page. I initially thought that English Wikipedia had dropped the support of user's own javascript. verdy_p (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

::: No worries, I'll mark the redirecting page for deletion. Sheeana ^Talk 01:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

:::: It's already gone. Sheeana ^Talk 01:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very important article - so people should not be mislead about Krsna consciousness. Otherwise they would think it is just sentimentalism. So how to convince them? If they do not know Krsna consciousness from right source - they would have to suffer from blind "religious leaders" like this "Famous Mirabai" and finally would go to hell instead of spiritual world. So that is true to some advance. If you are related with Krsna consciousness - ok, then you would find out - "only me and Krsna, God" and everyone else is not recognized - that is not Krsna consciousness, right?

So this is a quote:

Devotee: Maharaj, I have heard, she is a gopi on Chandravali’s side.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: We did not hear it and we do not accept it. But in that case she will have to given recognition of Chandravali, the gopis, Nanda and Yashoda, and Vrndavan, so many things must come for her praise. Only Krsna is the object of her praise, admiration and all are diminished. She cannot see the greatness, the nobelness of the paraphernalia, only Krsna – this is artificial. “If you want to be My devotee, become devotee of the devotee. One who is the devotee of the devotee he is My real devotee.” And I cannot recognize the greatness, the nobelness of the devotee of Krsna and diminishing them “I am good and Krsna is good” and all are diminished. What is this! No better person than myself, only Krsna and myself, and all others are diminished. This is madness. Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna.

See full article:

http://bvml.org/SBRSM/fm.html

"Famous Mirabai"

by Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Maharaja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.99.30 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"

Manjari sadhana, a religious technique associated with Gaudiya-Vaisnava

devotees of Krishna, has its orthoprax and its heteroprax forms. The former involves

mental techniques of ‘visualisation’, with practitioners imagining themselves in their

originary spiritual bodies (siddha rupa) as manjaris- maidservants to the Divine Couple,

Radha and Krishna. The latter involves both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ imitations of this

divine role: male practitioners dress in female attire (saris, jewellery, etc), speak in soft

feminine voices, and in other ways strive to realise their ideal spiritual identities as

maidservants to Krishna and His milkmaid lover through embodied, ‘dramatic’

techniques of religious transgenderism (techniques Haberman (op.cit.) problematically

interprets, through Stanislavski, as religious ‘method acting’).

Western practitioners of Gaudiya-Vaisnavism- better known as “Hare Krishnas”, famed

for their exhuberant chanting and saffron-robed performances through the streets of

Western cities- reject both of these religious techniques as dangerous forms of

sahajiyism: ‘easy’ or ‘cheap’ techniques of imitation producing false symptoms of

‘premature realisation’. Hare Krishna theology in fact acknowledges that realisation of

the manjari-rupa represents the highest spiritual ideal and most intimate of relationships

with the Supreme, yet both mental and physical ‘imitations’ of this divine feminine role

are seen to lead inexorably to degraded, mundane misinterpretations in which spiritual

realisation is confused for a kind of erotic voyeurism. This danger is understood to be

magnified in the Western context, given the Western proclivity toward pornography and

sexual hedonism. Hare Krishna spiritual practice tends to conceal the more esoteric

dimensions of the tradition from which it claims its origin, focusing instead on the more

exoteric forms of chanting, rote-learning scripture, regulative diet, and sexual abstinence.

But, I argue, these bodily practices are not wholly removed from the logic of mimetic

transformation which underpins the less orthodox forms of imitative practice in Gaudiya-

Vaisnavism. This paper examines the physical techniques of Hare Krishna spiritual

transformation in their cultural and cosmological contexts. It also seeks to illuminate

something of the ontological struggle of Hare Krishna devotees to reconcile (I argue)

masculine ascetic practice with feminine spiritual ideal in pursuit of the ‘spiritual body’.

"

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0EOOPkLXu6sJ:www.ccs.mq.edu.au/oldbodmod/bodmod_abstracts.pdf%3Freferer%3Dwww.clickfind.com.au+suicidal+sahajiyism&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgPdZCFfPX6cCdynTyboHJ3wxWJ7jMqxnEZDowWK_9zsK77jAXl3e73pYfs6bTRHpuUQ-RpB6aN0zztumhfQ2bJ83-P5A4a52cX8mwc9K0VIWrqqwOqD9ZlK4Kf4gaQlBk0BCmS&sig=AHIEtbQA-AjTz4mRySfiFmNFIO_QZjl4LA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.99.30 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:Er, ok. Sheeana ^Talk 21:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see this website as well and you'ld understand - poisoning, murder:

Prabhupada Anti Defamation Association

http://www.harekrsna.org/

Prabhupada

Poisoned to death

by a coterie of his leading secretaries, plotting to take over the movement for the exploitation of societies members and assets.

Sulocana das

Murdered by fanatic cult members of the Hare Krishna sect May 22nd, 1986, 1:00 a.m., Los Angeles, two days after publishing his book: "The Guru Business" exposing the false ISKCON successer gurus.

And so many other links can be found. We shouyldn't criticise. But that criticism against MiraBai is bonafide - indeed - what kind of religion is this - only me and Krsna (God). That is nonsense. Not realistic at all. So let it be - at least some criticism against Mira, from "Famous Mirabai" by Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Maharaja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.99.30 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:Controversial information, especially about living persons, must be properly sourced. This article should describe how to source information. Thanks. Sheeana ^Talk 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for for constructive links like Manual of style

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.

Yes, ok, but one shouldn't tolerate when devotee is blasphamed. And on wikipedia now there are so many articles which make religion and spirituality (Krsna consciousness in particular - this Mira Bai etc claiming her to be a 'pure devotee' - how come?) - to be something fake and cheap religion. How can be this tolerated? Well, maybe she is not atheist. Ok. But that wouldn't make words that 'sahajiyism is suicidal' by bona-fide vaisnavas to be wrong. As wikipedia is one of first places to look in internet - people should see something bona-fide not fashionable 'cheap Krsna devotion by Mira Bai'. Then whole wikipedia is useless.. As for quoting yes - this is still a problem. Maybe this can be solved somehow. But this is always idea about past culture, philosophy, religion (and present) that it remains only because people sacrifice their time and money to make something valuable available. And others on internet, and in wikipedia simply delete this. So for this reason many just leave wikipedia because their additions are removed - by different envious materialists, atheists etc etc.

Disciple: If they don’t have regard for vaidhi bhakti (regulated devotion )and go directly to raga-nuga,(spontaneous devotion) isn’t this something like sahajiyism?

Srila Sridhara Maharaj: Worse than sahajiyism. Sahajiyism formerly accepts everything, but they want easy entrance to do only what comes naturally without work, and they don’t admit the necessity for formal devotion. They are lazy in their practice, preferring the enjoying mood to the serving mood, but service means sacrifice. So the atmosphere is dangerous and any theistic awakening we should mark with all attention and care so that we may not go down again to the depths of nescience. Very carefully we shall try to collect our wealth. Real progress towards the Infinite gives the idea, “That I am nothing, I am in great danger.” Progress towards the Infinite is like that. “Thinking I have it, I am above.” This is a foolish feeling , foolish statement. The very nature of advancement is that, “I am low, I am undone, I am the most helpless.” The closer we are the further away we will feel, whereas the further away we actually are from divinity, we may complacently feel we are close. As much as we come into the relativity of the Infinite, we cannot but conceive ourselves to be the lowest of the low. That is the criteria.

The very sign of real progress will show I am nothing, I am the most needy, the most wretched and the most helpless. The negative aspect must be improved to attract the positive. If one point of the negative will say, “I am positive” then immediately it will be rejected, you are under the false control of maya. Rather to think, “I am the meanest of the mean,” that will attract the attention of the high. This is the science of devotion proper.

When I first came here to Nabadwip, one boy used to dress as a woman. He would tell, “Oh, I have seen Krishna and I have shown so many.” When he came to me, I said, “No, no, no. We know a little of what is Krishna and how to see Him, also who can see Him. Some knowledge we have gathered from different scriptures and saints.” So I related some of it. Then he persisted, “I have shown Krishna on the branch of this tamarind tree, so many have witnessed that.” I said, “In spite of your statement that you have shown Krishna to so many, I disregard that.” Summarily this is all bogus. “Why are you cheating yourself”? I asked. “You are cheating the public and yourself, so be careful of that.” Then after some months that man came back to me and said, “What you say is all true.” SSM

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28049-mirabai-gaudiya-tradition.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.99.30 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:I appreciate that you have a deep knowledge of Hinduism, but posting this on my talk page won't accomplish much. Please let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia. Sheeana ^Talk 21:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

::No Krsna consciousness is not Hinduism: Can it Be That the Hare Krishnas Are Not Hindu?

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4499&keywords=ISKCON

And I don't claim to have deep knowledge in this. But sometimes action is needed to counteract dangerous misconceptions.

::As for not copying from other websites - it is also true: http://www.bbti.org/

The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International

Founder-Acharya: His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

Rights and Permissions

Here at the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust we have liberal policies for the use of our works. For many uses, we don't ask more than the courtesy of a simple copyright notice.

But we don't like infringements. And when the need arises, our legal department may deal with them sternly. We've taken infringers to court-and prevailed against them-in countries all over the world.

But most people play by the rules. And then we're glad to assist you.

Questions? Please get in touch with us. We'll be happy to help you.

Find out about

permission for using BBT works.

Find out about

using BBT works for an ISKCON center or project.

Seen a BBT work pirated?

Heard the rumor we lost our copyrights in a court case?

BBT? BBTI? Wondering who's who?

Like to visit Krishna.com, our expansive spiritual website?

T H A N K Y O U

Please feel free to use our copyrighted material in "fair use" quotations. We love to be quoted.

Are you a student or teacher? Want to make incidental use of a BBT work in the course of your studies or teaching? An image, perhaps. Or a page or so of text. By all means, just feel free.

Again if you're a student or teacher and you want to publish an occasional BBT image on your website in an academic context, be our guest. Just please add our copyright notice:

Artwork courtesy of The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. www.krishna.com.

And in your notice, please make www.krishna.com a link.

For other uses, we ask you to first get our permission.

Want to use BBT images outside an academic context?

Or in a book or periodical?

Want to publish passages that go beyond fair use?

Or use BBT sounds, images, or text for something you're going to sell?

Please get in touch with us.

Very often, all we'll ask is a simple copyright notice. If you're selling something, we may ask a very reasonable fee.

Our contact info is at the top of this page. Or you can fill in our online form.

Seen a BBT work pirated?

Please let us know. If it's on a website, please tell us the address. If it's elsewhere, please send us whatever details you can.

::I am also against piracy, but biggest pirates are these sahajiyas, atheists and materialists who take something from scriptures and say - no God etc etc. And also, if to speak about of distribution of Krsna consciousness - it is indeed necessary to do so, and the more books - the better. But of course when some Kaballah/Jewdaism uses pictures of BBT in their printed articles and thus people go to Jewdaim and not Krsna consciousness - so they are mislead. Well, not no atheism or materialism, but they do not take to Krnsa consciousness and get lower conception which appreciates some compromises like meat-eating, which is excluded from Krsna consciousness completely. So if wikipedia supports such articles like that about MiraBai without any criticism to her, then it is actually very destructive for future. What happens is that later those wikipedia articles are translated to other languages and if something wrong is translated then purity is lost. So that is the danger. ;-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.114.166 (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Maybe I can try to briefly sum this up. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia. It is meant to give neutral, factual, broad, and accurate information about a topic. It is not for promoting a viewpoint, a religious perspective, or any subject beyond giving the plain facts. The above sections of text, and what you were previously adding to articles, are religious viewpoints that belong on your own websites, but not on Wikipedia. Copying and pasting, even from sources which are factual rather than opinion, is never permitted here. Furthermore, attack on various other viewpoints, such as atheists and "materialists" (as you mention above) is not permitted. This is meant to be a collaborative, open, and welcoming environment, and adding negative opinions about others will not be seeing in a positive light. Honestly, I think you need to read a lot more about Wikipedia before trying to contribute again here. Your edits have been religious, opinion, copyright violations, and at times outright attacks. If you want help on positive contributions, people will be happy to assist you. If you continue to promote your own religious viewpoint and violate our policies, you will find that your edits will be reverted and you will be blocked again. Thank you for your understanding. Sheeana ^Talk 06:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping cleanup Wikipedia by tagging Utente:TomzySLO for deletion as G6 (uncontroversial housekeeping). However, I'd request that next time you add a reason (like this: {{db-g6|rationale=The reason for deletion}}, as instructed in the template page), since otherwise the reason for deletion may not be immediately clear to the admin that offers to perform the deletion (inconvenient for the admin), and your request can linger unanswered for longer than intended (inconvenient for you). Cheers, --Waldir ^talk 09:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with teaching people how to make pizza? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Green the pizza-making machine (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:Hello Mr Green. The issue with your page is not that there's anything wrong with teaching people to make pizza, but that Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic rather than instructional in nature. You can read more about this policy here. Sheeana ^Talk 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pronounced encylaPAYdea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebiskits (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article. I understand a lot of people don't necessarily quite get what's appropriate and what's not for the site, so your job is a tough one. BTW, I found several files on Wikimedia that were appropriate for the article and spiffed it up a bit with some graphics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmills1493 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sheeana. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :Abu Yedda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my changes in the "Erotic lactation", were not with an intent of vandalism. I was correcting the info and that's why I provided a reference to prove my point. The information under the "Islamic Law" entry is completely misleading. In Islam, any woman who breastfeed a child who is less than two years old, then the child becomes her son (under quite a lot of conditions and regulations available in the reference I cited). This is a known Islamic law that all Muslims agree on without any doubt. The current entry is written in a very misleading way. It shows as if that the condition of "two-year-age" is marginal or disputed among the Muslim scholars, while in fact it is agreed upon among all Muslims. Also, the opinion mentioned about "adult" men who can breastfeed from women is adopted by very very few people who are not scholars or respected researchers, and thus you can't include this as an Islamic view. Yet the entry shows that as if it is welcomed in the Muslim community. Further more, the idea that if a man is breastfed by his wife then becomes her son is also not an islamic view, and having one or two people say that does not mean that it became an Islamic view!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.93.204 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::OK. Can you please include the changes I asked for. Please note that these are not "my own opinions", it is an islamic fact that is well known among all muslims that a child who is 2 years (or less) old once he/she is breasfed by a woman who is not his mother, then that woman is treated as his mother too. This is a fact stated in the Holy Quran and all the muslims agree on. The debate provided by some un-experienced people who claimed that this fact is also applicable for adult men, this debate is provided by few people whose expertise in understanding the Quran concepts is disputed. That's why, as you know, Al-Azhar fired that sheikh from its institution as his opinion was completely contradicting with the Quran. The available entry states the opposite!!! it shows that the idea of the age "two-years" is supported by only one scholar, which is completely wrong and misleading. I already provided an authentic source before that takes you to the website of a highly-praised scholar in islamic studies who states clearly the age constraint. Please update the entry to include this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.93.204 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sheeana. I apologize if this sounds like I'm second-guessing your recent reversion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rev&diff=375093773&oldid=375081793 this edit] by {{User|205.176.28.10}}, but I happened to notice that this isn't the first time that they have made reference to seeking "legal action". In fact, {{User|69.181.249.92}} warned them about WP:NLT on their talk page back on 1 July 2010, and it looks like they posted variations on this "threatening" language at least a couple of times since then. I haven't been involved in very many of these kinds of incidents, so I don't want to over-react, but I'm just wondering if maybe this should be reported to WP:ANI? -- Bgpaulus (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice tagging [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ola_Belle_Reed&diff=378294380&oldid=378294059], but a long string of un-wikified text like that is usually a copyvio. Google result of a piece of the text brings up this [http://www.fieldrecorder.com/docs/notes.htm]. Then a quick look in the history shows that the article was recently overwritten with this. I restored it back to the last good version. Hope this helps in the future. Thanks.

--CutOffTies (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

:I did actually do a Google search for a few sentences and didn't find the article. Guess I picked the wrong ones. :) Sheeana ^Talk 04:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sheeana. I have rejected your speedy deletion request regarding Eric D. Clark because the article mentions that he provided the vocals for "From: Disco To: Disco", which was a big hit in Italy: it was number 1 for three weeks and in the top 10 for nine weeks in 1997. As such it appears to meet the second criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the song has not been released "Worldwide" and was not released in Australia on August 5, 2010. Also, in the reference.. it was not stated at all that it was released on August 5, or a Autralian release was planned at all. It has once again been removed, due to the information being false. --Alexshunn (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely a brief description about an upcoming episode ('Blitzgiving') is far more useful to someone that has clicked on the link of an episode than re-directing it to the main article on the show. What is wrong you?

Ps. It's pronounced EncycloPAYdea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebiskits (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, I see the error that was made.

RedSoxFan274 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)