Denis MacEoin

Hello,

I reverted some of your edits. Try to avoid vanity words such as "glamorous" in your editing. Also, try providing references when adding or deleting information. If you need help with formatting or other wikipedia syntax, you can see the Manual of Style or leave me a message on my talkpage and I'll try to help. Cuñado - Talk 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Criticism of the Qur'an, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. NotedGrant Talk 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Membership

I removed your comment on Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo that related to statistics. The page to discuss membership would be Bahá'í statistics. I'm pasting below the comment you made for reference, and feel free to make it over there.

The 5-7 million figure for Baha'is worldwide almost certainly started with the first publication of the World Christian Encyclopedia. Before that appeared, no figures were available. In the late sixties, we were told never to reveal our numbers to the press because the public would be amazed to see how few followers this 'world religion' actually had. The World Christian Encyclopedia gave figures for Baha'is in most countries, and the figure for the UK was at least double the figure we knew. Clearly, the authors were guessing wildly. That almost certsainly means that the 5 million figure was at least double, and Baha'is have been adding to it since then. Given that the figures for non-active and former Baha'is are high, the real figure may be only one or two million.

That page also provides a discussion of the difficulties in placing a number on the Baha'i community, some of which you raised, but it gets more nuanced than that. Any Baha'i familiar with the membership process knows that the only quantitative figure is registration, but as far as active participation, it's about half of registration on average. It would be impossible to quantify who is active, and an NSA can't willy nilly remove people from membership. There are also tons of people that would call themselves Baha'is if asked, are registered, but don't participate in any way. The same can be said for Christians on a much larger scale, so as long as the same standard is used to count a given religious community, comparing them side by side is valid. For the administration's part, the House of Justice and many NSAs avoid making claims to numbers of adherents, partly because it doesn't reflect quality or community life. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ghost story

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Ghost story. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.--BSTemple (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

April 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Denis MacEoin. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --John (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ernest Bevin

Israel was left in control of territory which would have been assigned to to the Arab state under the November 29th, 1947 plan (see the pinkish area on map File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png), so I'm not sure what the point of your edit was... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda

We know that Middle East Quatterly is a paper of poor standing. You have to increase your standards to edit wikipedia. Please, avoid such comments. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We do not know anything of the sort. I am an academic in Islamic/Middle East Studies. The journal is not of academic standard, but it regularly publishes excellent and informative articles. Its drawback is to be right-wing in orientation, but most general magazines of this kind have either right or left orientation, and I don't see why that should necessarily make it of 'poor standing'. I'd like to know who regards it as that. I don't like everything in it, but many of the articles are by academics of high standing. That should be the basis for criticism, not some unsubstantiated accusation. It serves a purpose, is for the most part reliable, and makes an adequate source of reference.Denis MacEoin (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Two comments on your editing

1. Please read the policy WP:REALNAME. Your recent edits have been rather biased and inaccurate, and in my opinion would reflect poorly on Denis MacEoin if that is not you. Such a situation could not be allowed. On the other hand, if it is your real identity you are welcome to announce it.

2. On multiply occasions you have marked edits as "minor" when they are not. Examples are: [1] [2] [3] [4]. This is regarded as bad behavior as it discourages other editors from reviewing your changes. The working definition of "minor edit" is here. Zero^talk 02:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think my edit to [1] is more than minor. I simply clarify the positions when the war ended. Israel occupied little of the area set aside for the Arab state, and did so as a defensive measure. Egypt and Jordan took Gaza and the West Bank. But I don't go into any detail, I just state the basic facts. I'm sure it can be improved, but that would make it longer.

2. is minor (just a sentence), but is more by way of an explanation and should perhaps go somewhere else. But where? And how?

3. is probably a spot longer than minor. But (ignoring my typos) it seems to me essential for any understanding of what happened. Whether it is minor or not, it is an accurate statement of historical fact. Or would you dispute that?

[4] is, I agree, not minor, and I apologize for labelling it as such.

But I still want to know where I have been particularly biased. I have never been accused of it over any of the major academic entries I have written for the Encyclopedia of Islam, the Encyclopedia Iranica, or the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World, all of which are written to a much higher standard than Wikipedia. And I want to know where my many 'inaccuracies' are. Better to show me and have them corrected than to chastise me while keeping them secret.

I am going to report you if you don't attend to these two matters. Zero^talk 12:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a distinct feeling of being got at, but from where I can't tell. I make efforts to avoid direct bias, and have been trained as an academic to do so. I can't think where this supposed bias lies (and I can think of hundreds of biased Wikipedia articles, notably about Islam). Nobody is really telling me, and I don't know how to find anyone to discuss this with. (DM).

I have just been reading an article entitled 'Water Memory' and found it seriously deficient. It takes a strongly hostile approach to the subject, all aspects of which it dismisses. There is no input from scientists who support the idea, no mention of the many experiments (including in vitro experiments) that have provided strong evidence for the effect in homeopathic medicine and beyond. The article is badly out of date, dwelling on a debate from the 1980s and ignoring later work from the 1990s and beyond. It is proper that the orthodox scientific stand in this debate be advanced, but it is highly misleading to ignore all research that contradicts that view, and it is flatly wrong to take such a simplistic approach to matters like the easy reproductibility of experiments. I am not qualified to write a fuller article myself, but I can bring on someone who is. What should I do?Denis MacEoin (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You are not being got at. None of these edits are minor at all. A minor edit corrects a typo, adds a space, or at most rearranges a sentence without changing the meaning at all. There is no need to mark any edit as minor, and I strongly suggest you just don't tick the minor box at all. As a trained academic, you will know all about references - you should start using them if you change meanings or add information. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits redux

You added new material here[5]. You really need to stop this. As Help:Minor edit says, "Because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes, the distinction between major and minor edits is significant." Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research

Please read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. I've just reverted you at Fundamentalism for making a large unsourced edit (does that come from MEQ by the way?). And another editor reverted you at Flight into Egypt for the same reason. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak as it is unsourced and appears to be original research. Please review the Wikipedia policy for reliable sources and original research. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pioneering (Bahá'í) 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:

• what Baha'i teaching and pioneering work is. The distinction between proselytization and teaching (Persian: ''tabligh'' is not really tenable in terms of plain English. The Baha'is are correct,
• | accessdate = 2008-04-16 }}]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag 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:

• authorities have overlooked is that their ruling introduces a racist interpretation of Islam (you are a Muslim because your father was a Muslim. It also ignores a similarly racist
• |The way she is being treated is barbaric and has no place in today's world.|||[[David Cameron]]<.<ref name=dc>{{cite web|url= http://news.sky.com/story/1272505/cameron-meriam-death-sentence-is-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...how I can add comments on a talk page. There are lots of existing comments, but mine is additional, not a response to any one of those. But there is no box or link where I can write my comment in. What do I do? And why is working with Wikipedia so damnedly complicated? I am an academic and writer, not a hi-tech person.

Denis MacEoin (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to create a new discussion, click on the "New section" tab found at the top of every Talk page. This will create a new section (make sure you input a title for your section). If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Denis MacEoin. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Denis MacEoin. 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)