User talk:Lipsquid

Hello, Lipsquid and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! zzz (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Boko Haram

I suggest we enlist an article editor with an understanding of Islam. The section is poorly written and does not accurately portray the statements in the cited reference. I proposed a more neutral solution that in my view is still far from ideal and you seem to have some insistence that the 1979 Iranian revolution was the start of radical Islam, it was not; therefore we are at an impasse. Lipsquid (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this with you, and you're welcome to request other opinions. In the meantime, you are not entitled to make unilateral changes to the text of the article, which has been stable for several months in its present state, so as to agree more closely with your POV. zzz (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supply side economics

Perhaps it would be more helpful if you would focus on resolving the disagreements on the talk page, rather than accusing people of breaking rules. Bonewah (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonewah I agree, but first people need to stop breaking the rules. I didn't make any threats or complain to anyone. I am a sane guy and just want good articles. Lipsquid (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting

Sorry about my problematic hatting. Must've made a mistake there. Thanks for letting me know, anyhow. GAB^Hello! 22:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAB no problem at all, just wanted you to understand why I deleted it... Lipsquid (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Painter of Sunflowers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theo Van Gogh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great work on terrorism topics Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Marijuana (cannabis)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis#Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) ---Moxy (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)-[reply]

I want to assume the best but it looks to me like this is the second time you have engaged in Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Potguru (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop and chill out. If I add this threat to the ANI thread you will only be digging a deeper hole. I told you before I am reasonable. You should say you understand and will collaborate with other users and understand how to be a productive editor. Then maybe we all move along and you get to make the case for your arguments. If you put another threat on my talk page, I will just post it on the ANI thread. My positions is clear, but I will state it again. I don't care about the article names, I care about WP being a great encyclopedia. I think you are a SME and working hard as an editor. If you can work with people, you would be welcome and productive, but if you stay on the current path, you should be topic banned. The choice is yours. Lipsquid (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

The topics such as ESP, precognition, telepathy etc are obviously pseudoscience but you appear to be adding original research by linking that claim to cited sources that do not mention this. For example [1], none of those four sources say "precognition is widely considered pseudoscience". They say there is no evidence for precognition. You have done the same on the telepathy article. Would you actually read the sources? Adding statements that are not reflected in the cited sources is not a good thing to do. Once again I have no problem with these topics being described as pseudoscience (there are sources that describe them as such) but sourcing must me done correctly. TreeTrailer (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been volunteering at WP:FTN for a number of years so those articles have ended up on my watchlist. I saw the edits in question and agree with the above comment. Adding statements to an article that are not reflected in cited sources is a bad thing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change in the lede and all of the articles, except precognition, have comments about pseudoscience in the body. Generally, items sourced in the body do not need to be cited in the lede unless it is controversial. Do you find labeling any of these items pseudoscience controversial?

For instance Telepathy has "Wynn, Charles M; Wiggins, Arthur W. (2001). Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins. Joseph Henry Press. p. 165. ISBN 978-0309073097 "Extrasensory perception and psychokinesis fail to fulfill the requirements of the scientific method. They therefore must remain pseudoscientific concepts until methodological flaws in their study are eliminated, and repeatable data supporting their existence are obtained."

I fail to see the concern with the edit and if you would like me to add the source to the lede. Then that is certainly something I can do, but it seems silly to have an oversourced lede from items already found in the body. Lipsquid (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TreeTrailer Also ESP has the exact same source in the article

"Wynn, Charles M; Wiggins, Arthur W. (2001). Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins. Joseph Henry Press. p. 165. ISBN 978-0309073097 "Extrasensory perception and psychokinesis fail to fulfill the requirements of the scientific method. They therefore must remain pseudoscientific concepts until methodological flaws in their study are eliminated, and repeatable data supporting their existence are obtained." Lipsquid (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITELEAD

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Since your comments are repeated on the article Talk pages I'll answer here for convenience. I agree the sources in the body support the statement that "X is a psuedoscientific concept". These articles have a history of constant drive-by edit warring, and so over time, an informal decision was made to cite sources in the lead. The problem is that the sources already cited in the lead did not apply to the statement you added. I think this can be resolved if you add a citation supporting the statement you want to add. It's not strictly required by WP:CITELEAD, but since it falls under "challengable material", citing the source can help cut down on maintenance of the article. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pleasant feedback. I thought it already had too many sources, but I was one of those drive-by that you mentioned except I won't be edit warring. :) Best! Lipsquid (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for re-organized "Religious Views of Adolf Hitler"

Hello Lipsquid,

In light of the discussion at the "Religious Views of Adolf Hitler" talk page, recognizing that the existing article contains many repeats, I've prepared a draft of a re-organized version of the article. It's based around a chronological outline. I believe the vast majority of repeats have been cleaned up, while preserving every last bit of the information in the original article. The size is reduced from 168K to 155K.

In order to get a page in draft space, I gave the article a new title, but I hope to revert to the original title on approval. This was a lot of work -- it's easy to complain, but not so easy to fix things.

I'm looking forward to your review, I hope you'll like the result.

Draft:Evolution_of_religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Regards, JerryRussell (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC) JerryRussell (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Your recent editing history at Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a comment to the talk page about the removal of the word for the time being. I suggest you stop reverting on this page. It looks like Geoffrey Simmons is similar, but unlike Wells, he might be notable apart from ID advocacy, which was one of the arguments presented in the RfC. St Anselm (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difference and as far as edit warring, you brought the disagreement from another page and the page was stable during the RfC, i suggests you watch your step as boomerang is in order since your first edit on the paging is to bring an argument from another page. Lipsquid (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lipsquid reported by User:StAnselm (Result: ). Thank you. St Anselm (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:John Why no block for [[User:StAnselm? He had more revert violations than me. Lipsquid (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT3RR. --John (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:John It is questionable if that falls under BLP, in fact it has an RfC right now on that specific question, which I mentioned to the other editor several times. I don't believe I have been treated equally. What is my recourse? I have no interest in making an unblock request until I understand. Lipsquid (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recourse is to solemnly state that you realise why you were blocked (edit-warring), and that you undertake never to do it again. BLP is an exemption, but thinking you are right or there being an RfC about it are not. --John (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:John You did not read what I wrote, I think you have treated this situation unfairly. What is my recourse to have your decision reviewed? I strongly believe [[User:StAnselm| should have been blocked and you either did not read my points or you did not fairly review the edits. Lipsquid (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote. Reread the section below. --John (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:John Are you trying to be difficult? I have read the section below and it obviously does not answer my question. I think I have been treated unequally. I ask again, what is my recourse to have your decision reviewed? Lipsquid (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last reply to you. You have not been treated equally, you have been treated fairly. You were edit-warring after a warning. You have previously been blocked for edit-warring. Your opponent was claiming BLP immunity for reverting you. You were claiming that the fact there was an RfC open allowed you to edit-war. It does not, and you should internalise this. Your options now are to sit out your block, perhaps using the time to muse on where you went wrong and how you will avoid repeating this, or else post an unblock request as detailed below. If you plan to take the latter route, you should read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:John I see User:StAnselm was blocked a few days later for breaking revert rules while claiming BLP violations, which is the same thing that happened in my case. Nice work, next time I hope you listen to both sides concerns before blocking one party. Oh yeah, I forgot to add they have been blocked multiple times for the same issue https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:StAnselm Lipsquid (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Book of Leviticus 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:

space, but sin generates impurity, as do everyday events such as childbirth and [[menstruation]]]; impurity pollutes the holy dwelling place. Failure to ritually purify the sacred space could

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Museum

Thanks for your help with the Creation (Whatever it is it's not a Museum). You like Squids and Cephalopods. Are you a Pharyngulite? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Encounter looks as sensible as that Creation Whatever or worse. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously love cephalopods, especially as nigiri. I have never seen the topic Pharyngulite before, thank you for sending. Though I am not yet an adherent, it describes me well. I am not against people believing in creationism, I just think they would be better off without it. Dealing with their irrational arguments is a difficult job, but someone has to do it. I really strive to let them state their POV, but make sure that it is offset by the fact that it is irrational and when it comes to science, the views are incredibly fringe. If anything, these articles do not have enough critical review, which is widespread from reliable sources and overwhelmingly negative. Lipsquid (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki has an article about the Creation Museum that may interest you. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with locking up the page, and for a whole week? I thought we had good discussions going. I normally edit World War II topics, but turns out that fringe theory articles are pretty similar: dubious claims, POV language, "earth is flat" alternate reality, etc. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tend to edit touchy subjects and I feel I am actually pretty reasonable, I was swayed on several edits on the AiG/Ark pages in the past few days. I think WP admins would often rather just lock a page and walk away than listen to arguments about religion. The only pages worse are politics. Lipsquid (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Creation Museum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish That was silly. Lipsquid (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to avoid trouble when an edit war breaks our at Wikipedia. Try to err on the side of caution. Also you may like RationalWiki, that has a naturalist point of view rather than a neutral point of view. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't win against Administrators. The computer does things for them that ordinary users can't do. It's best not to push things too far. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You feel like editing while the Wikipedia article is locked? The RationalWiki article on the Creation Museum is showing readers that YEC is unreasonable and Christians can't cause trouble there. It's currently on page 4 of Google. At least that's where I find it. It would be great to get it higher up Google so more people read how unreasonable YEC is and I think you know enough to improve the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Wayne (biologist)

If by chance you are also "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.38.255.229" Perhaps you would like to list the reasons why you described the theory of light as pseudoscientific. Without any reasons the remark could be taken as name calling. If you are not, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.38.255.229, I am sorry for bothering you with this message. ThanksBinaryPhoton (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC),[reply]

That is not me. Similar article to what I would edit, but i have no issue with scientific dissent. I have looked at the article before and maybe commented, I think dissent is healthy and part of the scientific process as long as it contains real science that can be tested and/or falsified. In regards to pseudoscience, I usually only edit completely quack topics like intelligent design, flat earth, Laffer Curve, telepathy and ESP, the ones that bring out the zealot nut jobs. Good luck though. Lipsquid (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick and kind response. If you like. I will let you know if I hear back from 73.38.255.229.

BinaryPhoton (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

The relevant discussion is at Talk:Jesus#please leave historical views in the historical views section. I said there "I agree with Future Trillionaire that we don't need to double up on material." User:Isambard Kingdom said "I basically agree with FutureTrillionaire. The content in question is based on the gospels, though analyzed by historians. We don't need to have the material appear twice." There certainly isn't a consensus to include the addition. St Anselm (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with ignoring the 3RR or the requirement to assume good faith and use the talk page. I would stop if I were you. Lipsquid (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note of thanks

Hey Lipsquid, I just wanted to thank you for your civility in responding to my admittedly charged reply on the God Is Not Great talk page. I do want you to know that the "thinly-veiled condescension" remark was not in reference to anything you said there, but rather another user who has been needlessly curt about my edits before. I wish you the best, and happy editing. Jg2904 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jg2904 it is no problem, I just want to make sure I have not offended you. I am interested to learn what is the proper grammar in this situation. We take it as second nature by how it sounds, but is it any wonder why people find it so complicated with hundreds of "rules" and exceptions to every rule? Best to you~ Lipsquid (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hundreds" is putting it lightly! Jg2904 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop picking fights

As I have requested you before, please stop going through my edit history and reverting my edits. Particularly for articles you have never edited before, this qualifies as WP:HOUNDING. I have already asked you not to do this; the next time I will take it to WP:ANI. St Anselm (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not hounding you, we have similar editing interests and the claims of hounding have gone both ways. You are free to go to ANI at any time, if you feel it is a concern, we have mostly avoided each other recently. I make very few comments in threads where you are active to ensure I am not being an annoyance. On this particular issue, I feel my concern is valid and WP:BRD says it should be discussed on the talk page. I really don't think she belongs in that category. Maybe you can sway my opinion. Lipsquid (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I am glad you are trying not to be an annoyance, and I understand your concern about this category. I posted this note here, however, because of similar edits you have made in the last few days. I am happy to let the Freedom of religion edits slide, but I cannot possibly see the justification for this (unexplained) reversion you made. Care to explain? Anyway, the "similar editing interests" doesn't really work for Wife of Jeroboam, since it's a new article. Are you saying you didn't find it through my list of contributions? St Anselm (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how I found it. The SPS revert was a mistake, if that is what you linked above. Maybe I should have apologized, I reviewed them both and they are self-published. If it was something else, I don't know and don't feel like chasing edits. Of course I have looked at your contributions as you have looked at mine, that has been established at ANI in the past. I really don't think it is appropriate to include Wife of Jeroboam‎ in the category spouses of national leaders. It is kind of like including Guinevere because she was King Arthur's wife. The only similar example is David and his wives probably shouldn't be there either, but history is much more definitive that he existed and his wives are named and fairly well-known. This is a dead end article about a really fringe person even in the purely Christian context. 00:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

denying..

>This is all garbage. Africans, Slavs and Arabs were Untermensch in Nazism.

Not absolutly not, Slavs, Jews, Tziganes were meant to be Untermensch, not Arabs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch read that

Untermensch (German pronunciation: [ˈʔʊntɐˌmɛnʃ], underman, sub-man, subhuman; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazis used it to describe "inferior people" often referred to as "the masses from the East", that is Jews, Roma, and Slavs (mainly ethnic Poles, Serbs, and later also Russians)

NOT ARABS AND AFRICANS SO SHUT UP ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany#Other_.22non-Aryans.22

Outside of Europe in North Africa, according to Alfred Rosenberg's racial theories (The Myth of the Twentieth Century), some of the Berbers, particularly the Kabyles, were to be classified as Aryans

thats wrote in all the nazis book, even chamberlain

About the Arabs :

The second subrace of the Fifth or Aryan root race, the Arabian, is regarded by Theosophists as one of the Aryan subraces. It is believed by Theosophists that the Arabians, although asserted in traditional Theosophy to be of Aryan (i.e., Indo-European) ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So yet, when you do know something, shut the fuck up, thats not because your idol adolf was loving in Islam that you should falsify Nazism

Untermensch is quite clear on who is a subrace "The term was also applied to most Blacks, and persons of color". These are not my policies, these are the policies of Nazi Germany, which is the topic of the article. Also, here is a nice quote from Hitler himself with sources:

"We shall continue to make disturbances in the Far East and in Arabia. Let us think as men and let us see in these peoples at best lacquered half-apes who are anxious to experience the lash."^[1]^[2]

Lipsquid (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you're denying

The term was not applied to Arabs, it's wrote "person of color with particul exception" that a reference to the mulaatos, who are person of color and which were considered as untermunsch and even CASTRATED, not Arabs and Indian peoples which are person of color, those are the exceptions.

Thats wrote here : http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/deruntermensch.html

"Mulattos and Finn-Asian barbarians, Gipsy’s and black skin savages all make up this modern underworld of subhuman’s that is always headed by the appearance of the eternal Jew."

NOT ARABS.

Hitler did actually collaborate with the Arab amin al husseini, amin al husseini was actually a friend of himmler...how could Hitler salute and collaborate with the untermunsch ? inferior race maybe, but untermunsch he would never.

https://www.google.fr/search?q=himmler amin al husseini&newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMlrKilcTPAhVD1hQKHa7XDOUQ_AUICCgB

Also, for this quote about Hitler saying Arabs are half-ape, thats propaganda, 1939 hitler speech and all other Hitler quotes are not similiar to what he really said, britannic have makes a lot of propaganda during the WWII : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4RFdSNK7Q0

As i said he didn't considered Arabs has untermensch, thats all, is it wrote Arabs ? no. that not because Hitler was in love with the Arabs and theire civilization that you should deny that.

When it said most person of color, it simply means Mulatto, not Arabs, yet stop with that.

Also about the north african, i rode all the alfred rosenberg books and look :

The Berbers, among whom even today one finds light skins and blue eyes, do not go back to the Vandal invasions of the fifth century A.D., but to the prehistoric Atlantic Nordic human wave.

Among the Berbers, particularly the Kabyles in the Riff and in the Aures range, a Nordic strain shows itself clearly", Hans F.K. Günther, The racial elements of European History,

Alfred Rosenberg - The Myth of the Twentieth Century

Althoug read that :

In the Spanish people there is a mixture of Gothic, Frankish and Moorish blood. One can speak of the Spaniard as one would speak of a brave anarchist. The Arabian epoch—the Arabs look down on the Turks as they do on dogs—was the most cultured, the most intellectual and in every way best and happiest epoch in Spanish history. It was followed by the period of the persecutions with its unceasing atrocities.

- Adolf Hitler - Hitler's Table Talks - 1 August 1942.

Never, at any price, should we have put our money on France and against the peoples subjected to her yoke. On the contrary, we should have helped them to achieve their liberty and, if necessary, should have goaded them into doing so. There was nothing to stop us in 1940 from making a gesture of this sort in the Near East and in North Africa. In actual fact our diplomats instead set about the task of consolidating French power, not only in Syria, but in Tunis, in Algeria and Morocco as well. Our 'gentlemen' obviously preferred to maintain cordial relations with distinguished Frenchmen, rather than with a lot of hirsute revolutionaries, with a chorus of musical comedy officers, whose one idea was to cheat us, rather than with the Arabs, who would have been loyal partners for us.

Hitler - Political Testament (althoug your guys said he is falsified)

"L'époque arabe fut l'âge d'or de l'Espagne la plus civilisée. Puis vint l'époque des persécutions toujours recommencées."

-Libres propos sur la guerre et la paix recueillis sur l’ordre de Martin Bormann, Adolf Hitler, éd. Flammarion, 1954, 1er août 1942, p. 227

Translation (by me) :

The Arab era was the golden age of Spain's most civilized. Then came the era of persecution always recommenced.

"La civilisation a été l’un des éléments constitutifs de la puissance de l’Empire romain. Ce fut aussi le cas en Espagne, sous la domination des Arabes. La civilisation atteignit là un degré qu’elle a rarement atteint. Vraiment une époque d’humanisme intégral, où régna le plus pur esprit chevaleresque. L’intrusion du christianisme a amené le triomphe de la barbarie. L’esprit chevaleresque des Castillans est en réalité un héritage des Arabes."

-Libres propos sur la guerre et la paix recueillis sur l’ordre de Martin Bormann, Adolf Hitler, éd. Flammarion, 1954, 28 août 1942, p. 297

Translation (by me) :

The civilization was one of the components of the power of the Roman Empire. This was also the case in Spain, under the domination of the Arabs. Civilization reached a level where it has rarely achieved. Truly an integral humanism era, where reigned the purest chivalry. The intrusion of Christianity has brought the triumph of barbarism. The chivalrous spirit of the Castilians is actually a legacy of the Arabs.

The noble Moor of Spain is nothing less than a pure Arab of the desert, it is up to half the Berber race (belonging to the Aryan family) and it permeates so abundantly Gothic blood that even today part of the aristocracy of Morocco can trace its genealogy to the Germanic ancestors. ")

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (1899), F. Bruckmann, 1909, 10th edition, P.450, v.1

(Houston Starward Chamberlain is with Alfred Rosenberg, the one that has inspired Hitler a lot)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler and https://fr.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

PS : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fo99fIsMOI

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating Islam with Arabs, they are two topics and yes, Hitler had an affinity for Islam, but he also said Arabs, Slavs and people of color were inferior races. Lipsquid (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NO, you are conflating Untermunsch, and inferior race

Untermunsch, were mean to be exterminate, they were even called animals

French, Japanese etc were called inferior race by Hitler, but they were not called untermunsch, thats not the same thing

Yet Islam is a religion that has been revelate by Arabs (Momahed sws) no, than even if they were considered as inferior race, he had a bit of respect with Arabs

Inferior race dosnt mean "untermunsch" untermunsch litteraly means "youre are shit and i will exterminate you and your race", thats even harder than inferior race, that mean your an animal ! Russians were called Animals by Hitler, they were untermunsch

Arabs were considered as inferior race for sure, but yet, that dosnt mean hitler hate them, he actually liked the arabs and theyre civilisation, they conquest (for example in france or in spania) etc.

As Also, many thing in wikipedia are not in wikipedia, hitler actually saluted him : https://lcmedia-assets.ushmm.org/film/dfm00001.mp4

As also, he eat with many S.S in his "house" : http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0128773faa73970c-500wi&imgrefurl=http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/auschwitz-blueprints/page/2/&h=355&w=500&tbnid=8m-V6uDDu9w9mM:&docid=l7I6vjedTCjXuM&ei=PVv2V7-RLceVaMqpgsAE&tbm=isch&client=firefox-b-ab&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1577&page=0&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=0ahUKEwj_o-vNrcbPAhXHChoKHcqUAEgQMwgcKAAwAA&bih=913&biw=1280

Untermunsch /=/ inferior race

French were considered as inferior race, just like portuguese peoples, or south italians, even JAPANESE but yet, Hitler had not hate against them, Hitler used the world untermunsch only against Slavs, Jews, Romanie Peoples, mulatoos, but not Arabs, Hitler called them untermunsch to legitimate many of his operation, like the lebensraum

The people that were called untermunsch like the Slavs were lower lower lower in his the race pyramid and meant to be exterminate, but actually, there had no plant of exterminate Arabs.

I understand your position now between "untermunsch" and just plain "inferior". Arabs and people of color were inferior, but not untermunsch. I am not sure how this changes much in the article, but I appreciate the lesson in Nazism. Lipsquid (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improving chart at Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction

This article is the most-viewed page for cannabis issues in the US (~1,500 views/day). I think we can streamline it to make it less clunky and more intuitive for readers, especially now that we have state-specific articles for all US states. Your feedback is invited: Talk:Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction#Changes_to_chart.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lipsquid. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R. C. Sproul Jr.

OK, this is the third time I'm asking you to stop following my edits. You only edited this article for the first time a few days ago, and it was directly after my edit. That edit was fine, but why on earth did you restore that blog post reference? Please stop. St Anselm (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not follow you. We obviously edit the same topics. Your revert on R. C. Sproul when a google search would easily show the DUI charge was true is bad faith and typical of your subject bias. Move along and try to be neutral if it is not too much to ask. Lipsquid (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have just broken 3RR by making a fourth revert in a 24-hour period. I suggest you self-revert without delay. And the sources say the resignation was received "last Friday", not submitted then. (For all we know, he might have submitted the resignation the day after the incident, but the Board did not meet until the following week.) St Anselm (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording to match the press release. Not sure what we are arguing about.. I guess submitted and received could be different days. Now it is fixed. Lipsquid (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. St Anselm (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, glad we worked it out. Lipsquid (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Well, it looks like you decided to follow my edits around [2] and jump into disputes which you weren't part of. You might want to note that the other user who was doing that, KMIlos was just blocked for doing just that. I don't know what kind of nonsense you heard or chose to believe from your buddies at AE. Putting aside that it's just that, nonsense, it doesn't give you a right to start going around Wikipedia reverting my edits. You were right before - we have edited collaboratively in the past. Perhaps you should consider that that is a better guide than what some battleground warrior said.

I'd also like to note in making those reverts you haven't even bothered to engage on talk. Which makes them blind reverts and edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like threats and I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I don't have any buddies on WP. I don't even know anyone else on WP and I have never been accused of colluding with anyone, which only makes one of us, but that is from a different time I think and hopefully a different story, unless you are projecting.

We have collaborated, I would like to continue to do so. You are a bit on tilt. I mean this in the very kindest way, maybe you should step away for a day. You have battle grounds going on several different fronts. That is not healthy for you as a person or for Wikipedia. I am not here to tilt at the windmills of my own POV, I am making a great encyclopedia. That is what we are all here for.. right? Lipsquid (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard for me to take what you say about working together at face value, when your very next edit [3] is to revert me on an article that you've never edited before, and where you have not even bothered to participate in the discussion. Moreover, you're reverting what is an attempt at a compromise (even though it's with a user who got blocked for stalking). You could show good faith here by self-reverting, restoring the compromise version and joining the discussion on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you're at 3 reverts in < 24 hrs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a comment on the talk page and I can't be at 3rr because it is a new attempt at a compromise edit that did not have consensus... Why would you call a news aggregator fringe? They have all kinds of articles, mostly from very credible sources like AP, UP and BBC. Most sources call them conservative. I have no battle with you, when there is consensus on the talk page for a compromise, I won't revert it regardless of the outcome. Lipsquid (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re

to this. Dude, I simply watch WP:AE and comment about each contributor I know or whose comments I found interesting and worth my comment. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One's edit history speaks for itself. Lipsquid (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, one of complainers mentioned me in this request. If you disagree with my comments, that's fine. Please explain what exactly you disagree about and why instead of casting WP:Aspersions. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely commenting on the number of occasions where you two coincidentally cross path. 21:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Lipsquid, check this out: User:EtienneDolet/Evidence. It's not updated though. It was part of an AE report I filed against both VM and Mvbw a couple of months ago. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You collect a large number of completely legitimate edits over a long period of time (all or most of these edits actually improve content or represent legitimate discussions) and bring them to AE to smear other contributors. That is what you did in your previous requests and AE comments. That is what you do in your current AE request. In my opinion, you already deserved a "boomerang", but this is just my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN notice: Jesus

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lipsquid. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Stefan Wild (1985). "National Socialism in the Arab near East between 1933 and 1939". Die Welt des Islams, New Series. 25: 126–173. doi:10.2307/1571079. Wir werden weiterhin die Unruhe in Fernost und in Arabien schüren. Denken wir als Herren und sehen in diesen Völkern bestenfalls lackierte Halbaffen, die die Knute spüren wollen.
^ Wolfgang Schwanitz (2008). "The Bellicose Birth of Euro-Islam in Berlin". In Ala Al-Hamarneh and Jörn Thielmann (ed.). Islam and Muslims in Germany. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 203.

[1] Stefan Wild (1985). "National Socialism in the Arab near East between 1933 and 1939". Die Welt des Islams, New Series. 25: 126–173. doi:10.2307/1571079. Wir werden weiterhin die Unruhe in Fernost und in Arabien schüren. Denken wir als Herren und sehen in diesen Völkern bestenfalls lackierte Halbaffen, die die Knute spüren wollen.

[2] Wolfgang Schwanitz (2008). "The Bellicose Birth of Euro-Islam in Berlin". In Ala Al-Hamarneh and Jörn Thielmann (ed.). Islam and Muslims in Germany. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 203.

[1]

[2]