![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 23 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Essence of Time (movement) to Essence of Time. The result of the discussion was moved. |
кургинянцы, вы хоть иглиш шпрахе выучите. совсем больные на голову совки.
для дебилов и либероидов - текст писали люди из европейской ячейки клуба, которые от рождения на "инглише" говорят. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.255.68.78 ( talk) 18:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Read this post on Louis Proyects blog - [1] - I'm concerned the article may be biased. Sayerslle ( talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The principles section lacks a neutral point of view. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more information. Reads as if it were trying to gain support of the movement. If the original author was quoting something for the more biased passages, they should cite the source. Wwmadi ( talk) 3:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 06:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Essence of Time (movement) → Essence of Time – I do not think "movement" is needed in parentheses to disambiguate the article as it appears that no other topic on Wikipedia uses the name "Essence of Time". Essence of Time itself is a redirect to this article. I think one could make a weak case for Time is of the essence sharing use of "Essence of Time", although I personally would not make this argument because I have never seen the latter be used to refer to the former (this is the only counterargument I can think of). Regardless, a hatnote would suffice if this argument was made successfully and received widespread support. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 23 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Essence of Time (movement) to Essence of Time. The result of the discussion was moved. |
кургинянцы, вы хоть иглиш шпрахе выучите. совсем больные на голову совки.
для дебилов и либероидов - текст писали люди из европейской ячейки клуба, которые от рождения на "инглише" говорят. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.255.68.78 ( talk) 18:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Read this post on Louis Proyects blog - [1] - I'm concerned the article may be biased. Sayerslle ( talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The principles section lacks a neutral point of view. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more information. Reads as if it were trying to gain support of the movement. If the original author was quoting something for the more biased passages, they should cite the source. Wwmadi ( talk) 3:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 06:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Essence of Time (movement) → Essence of Time – I do not think "movement" is needed in parentheses to disambiguate the article as it appears that no other topic on Wikipedia uses the name "Essence of Time". Essence of Time itself is a redirect to this article. I think one could make a weak case for Time is of the essence sharing use of "Essence of Time", although I personally would not make this argument because I have never seen the latter be used to refer to the former (this is the only counterargument I can think of). Regardless, a hatnote would suffice if this argument was made successfully and received widespread support. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)