This user may have left Wikipedia. FT in Leeds has not edited Wikipedia since 5 September 2005. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
FT, you keep on adding this article about the Panchen Lama to completely unrelated articles like Himalaya. What do the mountains have to do with the Panchen Lama? Did you write the article or something? If that is true, what you're doing is considered self-promotion. -- Hottentot
Not taking sides, but this is a content dispute. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 01:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not add links unless they are relevant to the specific content of the article to which you are adding them. Adding meaningless external links is considered vandalism and is frowned upon. Please stop. Thank you. — chris.lawson ( talk) 01:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.— chris.lawson ( talk) 03:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Adding a link is indeed not vandalism.
Adding the link you keep adding to articles in which it is out of place, in a POV manner, is vandalism. Stop it. — chris.lawson ( talk) 03:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It is only one perspective not both sides and to maintain NPOV both sides should be shown. Secondly, Hottentot is no vandal look at his edits he simply reverted yours, thats not uncommon although he should of explained his reasoning. Finally, the link does not belong there now because it is unrelated to anything in the article or in the external links. When that information is added then it is relevant. Cheers! Falphin 02:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It is official Wikipedia policy to take a neutral point of view. Whether or not the link is relevant -- and it is not relevant to every single lama article, as you seem to think it is -- it is of the utmost importance that you conform to neutral point of view when editing articles.
The manner in which you continue to add this link is in violation of this policy. Please desist from editing Wikipedia until you have read and understand neutral point of view. Thank you. — chris.lawson ( talk) 03:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.— chris.lawson ( talk) 03:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Uhm...
Where?— chris.lawson ( talk) 03:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Looking at some of your edits I think you may have misunderstood the NPOV policy. Including one sides POV does not violate the policy if we state that this is a certain groups POV. Also I do not think that including the Chinese word of Tibet violates the policy. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 06:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. FT in Leeds has not edited Wikipedia since 5 September 2005. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
FT, you keep on adding this article about the Panchen Lama to completely unrelated articles like Himalaya. What do the mountains have to do with the Panchen Lama? Did you write the article or something? If that is true, what you're doing is considered self-promotion. -- Hottentot
Not taking sides, but this is a content dispute. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 01:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not add links unless they are relevant to the specific content of the article to which you are adding them. Adding meaningless external links is considered vandalism and is frowned upon. Please stop. Thank you. — chris.lawson ( talk) 01:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.— chris.lawson ( talk) 03:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Adding a link is indeed not vandalism.
Adding the link you keep adding to articles in which it is out of place, in a POV manner, is vandalism. Stop it. — chris.lawson ( talk) 03:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It is only one perspective not both sides and to maintain NPOV both sides should be shown. Secondly, Hottentot is no vandal look at his edits he simply reverted yours, thats not uncommon although he should of explained his reasoning. Finally, the link does not belong there now because it is unrelated to anything in the article or in the external links. When that information is added then it is relevant. Cheers! Falphin 02:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It is official Wikipedia policy to take a neutral point of view. Whether or not the link is relevant -- and it is not relevant to every single lama article, as you seem to think it is -- it is of the utmost importance that you conform to neutral point of view when editing articles.
The manner in which you continue to add this link is in violation of this policy. Please desist from editing Wikipedia until you have read and understand neutral point of view. Thank you. — chris.lawson ( talk) 03:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.— chris.lawson ( talk) 03:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Uhm...
Where?— chris.lawson ( talk) 03:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Looking at some of your edits I think you may have misunderstood the NPOV policy. Including one sides POV does not violate the policy if we state that this is a certain groups POV. Also I do not think that including the Chinese word of Tibet violates the policy. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 06:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)