This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I removed the caterogies so you would not get warning i was makigna page in my userpage before and becaus ei left the caterogies ti meant peopel could find it and i got a bit of a warning for it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk) 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
delink overlink ie if you have two wikilinks to say dummy and dummy delink the seocond one so it dummy and dummy might be good idea to remove the (1-01) however this would need ot be discussed in talk first ie house talk
Hay can you comment on the improvement section in talk i have listed things i think need done to clean the article up more and before it sent for a peer review so we know wether it can be nomaited for featured list candaite again.-- Andy Chat c 21:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of House (Season 6) episodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Durova Charge! 03:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In order to use igloo, you require the rollback user right. You can request this right here, but please read the instructions first. Thanks, Ale_Jrb talk 09:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.55.2 ( talk) 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
i am sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.103.84 ( talk) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought what i had edited was useful as just because the police received a report didn't mean that it was a hoax, as Derren is a smart person, he was able to know exactly how to play it safely and was sure no-one would get hurt hence it not being a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.87.84 ( talk) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work on the Atheism lead. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with the category now that it's sourced. You might want to have a look at WP:SURNAME though. Thanks for the source! Dismas| (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Jess: following your suggestion I moved the "integrate other articles" discussion to the new location: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism#Improve_relationships_between_anti.2Fnon-religion.2Fatheism_articles.3F. I removed the discussion from the original location at: Talk:Atheism#Improve_relationships_between_anti.2Fnon-religion.2Fatheism_articles.3F. That movement included moving your comment from one place to another which, of course, requires your permission. Your comment is unchanged, but it is in the new location now. If you want me to move it back, let me know. --18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Please ignore the content I just recently put on your main page. I've deleted that and subsequently pasted the material here now that I found the appropriate section.
Hi Mann jess,
You recently put the "Edit Warring" label on my talk page. I have absolutely no reason why you consider my editing behavior to be edit warring. It's not true. I make changes backed up with plenty of supporting arguments and counter arguments. All of this is done BEFORE I make the changes. I do not simply revert things back to its original content for no reason. All of my changes are consistent with what other users are repeatedly doing (and for that matter, are doing far more than what I'm doing). Moreover, if what I'm doing is truly edit warring, then you are engaged in it. Please do not threaten me with labels that are unjustified and no worse than what you are doing. Doing so is an abuse of wikipedia.-- Jeremy 414 ( talk) 01:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jess, I noticed a message of yours on my discussion page. I decided to take the liberty to ask you how I could change my username. I noticed that it can be found on the web and since it is my real name I would like to change is. Do you know how to go about this? Thanks in advance. -- Arjenvanslingerlandt ( talk) 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL, bureaucrats and their forms.... -- Arjenvanslingerlandt ( talk) 09:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
edit: but here it works???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjenvanslingerlandt ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jess, seeing as you offered to help out on more problems I think I would like to discuss the following: I am trying to improve on the maxim (philosophy) page. It is not hard to improve on it by the way, but I am having troubles with my references. I copied the idea from the Immanuel Kant page. However, when I left my idea to edit for the edit on the talk page I did not see the list of references appear. It might be that the script reading the reference code is not running on talk pages, but I don't know. Could you take a look? Thanks in advance. -- Faust ( talk) 07:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello helpdesk, I was thinking about using an image on my own page (of Faust), so I checked out the Help:Visual file markup. It explains how to displays images and such, which are drawn from a database of some sort. However, there does not seem to be a link to an explanation of how to upload images to said database. Do you know how and should we not place a link to such an explanation in the help article? Thanks again. -- Faust ( talk) 07:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way... are you watching my talk page? If so, I'll stop leaving those silly talkback templates you'll just have to clean up later :) If not, no big deal. I just don't want to be polluting your talk page if I don't have to! Jess talk cs 17:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again Jess, I will study the page and process you pointed out. I am watching your talk page btw, thanks for your concern. -- Faust ( talk) 23:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Would you look over the maxim page? Since I changed it I would like to know if everything is as it should be. Thanks for all you help Jess! -- Faust ( talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on William Lane Craig. I'd love to chat sometime. Good to contact someone who's not an immediate adversary! Theowarner2 ( talk) 02:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Before calling upon the Wikipedia rules and judging other people's behaviour, please, correct your own behaviour. Your 'replies' are cynical, false, ignorant, aimed to ridicule references' authors and Wikipedia users.
Also, fix you user page. Pretending to be a software professional (programmer, ingenieer, which you are obviously not) you should avoid giving a huge list of languages you are proficient with. Such a snotnose boasting just disqualifies you in the eyes of those who are true professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.103 ( talk) 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Always nice to get soms ANONYMOUS advice, don't you think Jess? -- Faust ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Do you want me to report this cowardly remark? It certainly does not improve on a productive editing atmosphere. -- Faust ( talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. -- Faust ( talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) By the way: how can I find out what IP is used by a user or what user uses which IP? -- Faust ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those numbers to be known because Vedas give more precise numbers than modern so-called science which says age of Earth is around this or that, but not sure. So Vedas give precise knowledge from perfect source (above man mistakes - it is from Supreme Person, Supersoul, Godhead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.243.223 ( talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
OMG.... wtf?
|
---|
Hostility Towards Krishna Consciousness Hi, I was just wondering if someone could clear something up for me. It seems to me as if Wikipedia does not want Krishna Conscious beliefs anywhere in Wikipedia articles. For some reason Wikipedia believes that Krishna Consciousness does not matter and that it is Vandalism to even include anything about them. For example in articles such as Rama, Wikipedia will not even let me say that according to ISKCON or Krishna Consciousness Rama appeared 20 million years ago or that he is believed by ISKCON to incarnate every 8.64 billion years (a day of Brahma). Since Wikipedia considers ISKCON to be Hindu I think this should at least be noted since I have supplied many accurate sources from ISCKON itself that represents ISKCON’s beliefs. These are not my own beliefs or original research but beliefs by what you consider a sect of Hinduism so I thought it would be appropriate to atleast acknowledge Krishna Conscious beliefs since you say it is apart of Hindusim. When I do include this you say ISKCON is not Hindu and it does not count in a Hindu article. So if I go on the ISKCON page and change the word Hindu to Vedic or Krishna Conscious, you then say that ISKCON is Hindu and stating it as another religion is wrong. So I think this a contradiction. You insist ISKCON is Hindu and that the word Hindu must be used but you fail to let anyone even acknowledge the beliefs of ISKCON in Hindu articles like Rama or this one “Hindu Cosmology”. It seems like this is a double standard. You insist that ISKCON is Hindu but when I include ISKCON’s beliefs in Hindu articles like this one or Rama you insist that it is not Hindu and cannot get any mention whatsoever. This is unfair because in many articles of Hinduism even non-hindu beliefs are given yet when I try to say if we can have just one sentence acknowledging ISKCON’s beliefs you do not allow it. It seems as if Wikipedia will deny that ISKCON is separate from Hinduism and at the same time insist it is not Hindu in order to completely censor its beliefs relating to Hindu topics such as Rama or Hindu Cosmology. For example you say I cannot even write any ISKCON-related beliefs about Hindu Cosmology, yet you insist that ISKCON is Hindu. This is hypocrisy because you will not acknowledge ISKCON to be its own religion so you call it Hindu, but even so then you will say it is not Hindu and that any view ISKCON has on anything Hindu cannot even be mentioned in one sentence anywhere. I even tried to make my own articles to give the Krishna Conscious belief of Krishna, Rama, and other but Wikipedia continually deletes these articles again and again even though I have many reliable sources. The articles I create are usually entitled as Rama in Krishna Consciousness, or Krishna in Krishna Consciousness so that I am not being biased and that it is not my point of view because I am saying in the title that this is the Krishna Conscious view. So people know that is why it is only talking about one view. And I cite many reliable sources from ISKCON to prove it. I made these articles because Wikipedia would not let me even include one sentence about ISKCON’s belief about Rama in his article, even though they insist ISKCON is Hindu and has a fit if anyone says otherwise. Sadly Wikipedia seems to want to censor all ISKCON related beliefs, all beliefs about how Krishna Consciousness views other things. For example there is an article entitled Jesus in Islam. This gives the Islamic View of Jesus. But when I created an Article entitled Jesus in Krishna Consciousness many times every time Wikipedia deleted it and blocked me from editing. I had cited many reliable sources of How ISKCON (Krishna Consciousness) views Jesus but they keep saying I am vandalilzing. I think it is religious intolerance that other beliefs are allowed to be expressed like Jesus in Islam but Jesus in Krishna Consciousness cannot be allowed to exist. Why is this? Why must Krishna Conscious views by censored and grouped in Hinduism like it doesn’t exist and then their views are not even mentioned so that people do not even know these views exist and assume that everything a Hindu believes in is the same as a Krishna Conscious person. It is like saying Jesus in Islam should not exist, so that everybody will think that the whole world thinks Jesus is the Son of God. Why is Wikipedia letting other religions express their beliefs in articles but censoring any Krishna Conscious belief that does not agree with Modern Hinduism. Even when I create articles explicitly stating that this the Krishna Conscious belief you have people saying it is biased and should be deleted. It is not biased. It is the Krishna Conscious belief. With that logic the article Jesus in Islam is also biased because it only talks about the Islamic beliefs about Jesus, but obviously nobody believes this because obviously if it says Jesus in Islam it is only supposed to be about Islamic beliefs concerning Jesus, in the same way if the articles says Jesus in Krishna Consciousness it is only supposed to be about Krishna Conscious beliefs concerning Jesus. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs on Wikipedia but Krishna Consciousness is persecuted. Why is this religion being persectuted? It doesn’t makes sense why is an article like Jesus in Islam okay but an article like Jesus in Krishna Consciousness is not? I have cited many good and reliable sources showing the Krishna Consciousness view of Jesus, just like the article Jesus in Islam shows the Islamic belief in Jesus, but because it is Krishna Conscious, Wikipedia does not like it so it destroys and erases the article and blocks me again and again everytime I try to represent the Krishna Conscious beliefs. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs but Krishna Conscious beliefs are not allowed on anything except the ISKCON page? Is Wikipedia Anti-Krishna Consciousness. All I know is I live in America and in this country we have Freedom of Religion and we not censor one religion but let other religions be expressed. If you have Jesus in Islam but not Jesus in Krishna Consciousness that is unfair and Un-American. I do not think Wikipedia should be allowed persecute Krishna Consciousness yet let other religions express their beliefs. Wikipedia does not want Krishna Consciousness views to be expressed so they call ISKCON Hindu but if you want to mention “Hindu” beliefs in Hindu Cosmology they through such a fit and block you, yet they insist it is Hindu and will not let you say otherwise. What is this hypocrisy. If I were to create a page entitled Krishna Consciouness Cosmology and provide good reliable sources showing how Krishna Consciousness views Cosmology it would be immediately erased because Wikipedia will not let Krishna Conscious views be expressed because they hate Krishna Consciousness but they will allow other religions to be expressed and will allow Mormon Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Buddhist Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology etc. I cannot include Krishna Conscious beliefs in the Hindu Cosmology article because even though they say it is Hindu then they say its not Hindu and if I try to create an article called Krishna Conscious Cosmology they will not allow it because Krishna Consciousness is the one religion that Wikipedia hates and will not allow to be expressed yet every other religion can have one Buddhist Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology, but no not Krishna Conscious cosmology. The only way that Wikpedia can censor Krishna Conscious beliefs is by first not allowing anyone to remove the word Hindu from the ISKCON article. They will not allow you to say change Hindu Scriptures to Vedic Scriptures and they will not allow you to change Hindu religion to Krishna Consciousness on the ISKCON article. The reason they do this is because they want to censor Krishna Consciousness beliefs by calling them Hindu so that nobody knows there is actually a religion called Krishna Consciousness who have belefis that differ from Krishna Consciousness. This is exactly who they censor Krishna Consciousness. First they deny it exists as a religion by claiming it Hinduism and then when we want to express Krishna Consciousness beliefs in Hindu articles they do not allow this and deny it so people are not aware of Krishna Consciousness beliefs. In this way Krishna Conscious belefis are never expressed and nobody knows about them. Since they are called Hindu everybody assumes that Krishna Conscious people are Hindu, believe the same things Hindus believe in and that there is no difference because Wikipedia will not allow us to call Krishna Consciousness different from Hindu and when we want to express are beliefs in Hindu articles they will not allow it so that people are unaware of them and think they are just all Hindu, and they will not allow creation of Krishna Conscious articles like Jesus in Islam, because then people would be aware of these beliefs, but they don’t want that because they want to persecute Krishna Consciousness by calling it Hindu and then not allowing inclusion of its beliefs in any Hindu article because then people will know it is different. This is the only way they can extinguish Krishna Consciousness, by denying it exists by merging into Hinduism and then denying what they call Hindu beliefs to be expressed in a Hindu article. They then say it is not Hindu, but if you change Hindu from Krishna Consciousness they will say it is Hindu, and if you create your article about Krishna Consciousess they delete it because they do not want people to know Krishna Consciousness exists as a unique belief system. Well this is America and I don’t care what Wikipedia does it can block me as many times as it wants but I will still keep editing every day of my life. Do you know why I can do this? Sure Wikipedia can block my computer, but it cannot IP ban every computer at my University, and every computer at the Public Libaray, and every computer I have access to because if you count all of the computers I have access to at my University and at the Public Library near my house it would come out to be like 100,000 computers. This means that even if you blocked the IP address of a computer I used every day it would take you 300 years to block every computer I have access to at my University and the Public Libarary which I go to everyday. For this reason I will continue to edit everyday and you can keep blocking but You will have to keep doing so for 300 years, and your kids will have to continue, doing so and then your grandkids will help to keep reverting my blocks because I have “FREE” access to so many computers at my UNIVERSITY and LIBRARY that you could block my IP Address on a different computer every day for 300 years and you still could not stop me from editing. Even if I die I have people who will continue editing every day and if they did they also have people so this could go on for thousands of years. Bottom line you cannot stop me from editing because I can edit every single day, which I WILL DO! And even if you block my IP everyday its not a big deal because I will just use a different computer in the library or a different computer at my University, or a different computer at my House, or a computer at my friends house, etc. Do you not understand I have free access to so many computers? If you block the IP of all the hundreds of thousands of computers at my University and the libraray, and my house and all my friends houses, I will just go to another library where there are thousands of more computers that you can block, if You block all the IP addresses of all computers in my city, then I will use computers in another city, its not a big deal. If you try to block all the computers in my state. I will go to another state. If you block all the computers in my country, I will use a computer in a different country. You cannot block all the IP addresses of every public computer in the world. There are millions and millions of computers that I have free access to and mark my words I will continue to edit all of these articles every single day of my life which might be another 70 years since I’m young, so probably much longer than most of you will be alive for and if I die no problem I will have people editing all the same articles every day just like I did and you cannot block every public computer in the world, so you can keep persecuting my religion and blocking my IP but when the next day comes I will just use another computer at my library and college and you can block that to. And you can do this every day for thousands of years. What’s the use? Just give up and stop persecuting my religion because you will never win and I will never give up. So please stop persecuting my religion, it doesn’t matter to me I will keep editing every day whether or not you agree with me or not and we have already established that I have enough access to convenient and free computers so it is in your best interest to stop, because what will you gain? I will keep editing every day whether you like it or not? You can’t kill me, so give up and stop persecuting my religion. Thank You. |
@95.133 There is no way I'm reading all of that. Look, scientific articles are about science. They're not about Hinduism. We don't allow Christianity in those articles either. If your new articles were deleted, there was probably good cause, but you would have to take that up with an editor involved in the AfD request. I am not one of those editors. If you really want to add in content which you think is lacking, your first step should be to find a boatload of reliable sources which explicitly talk about that content. Discuss those sources with other editors individually, and ask where they should be placed. I'll tell you right now: No one is persecuting your religion.
Furthermore, threatening to continually vandalize wikipedia for the next 300 years is only going to get you ridiculed and banned. I'd move on to another approach. Jess talk cs 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.--Gniniv ( talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What is your opinion on starting an ANI to block this user from his continued disruptive unhelpful edits? — raeky ( talk | edits) 03:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't make defamatory comments on my talk page. Follow your own advice. Thanks. Tavengen ( talk) 10:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ending discussion and editing of contentious topics until furthur notice...--Gniniv ( talk) 05:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You and your pals are being disruptive (per WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT) -- just like some of your "opponents" were being not that long ago. I'll not refrain from pointing this out just because you know how to dig up patronizing templates to place on my talk page. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by
MediationBot, an automated bot account
operated by the
Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
Charles Darwin theorized or came up with the theory of evolution. Changing it back to "established" is both biased and untrue. The reason I change it back is because it is incorrect. Only pure ignorance compels people to say that he "established" anything. The definition of "established" is an accomplished fact. You cannot say that the theory of evolution is a fact, because, after all, it is still a theory. You people please stop changing my editing back. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezob ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had a Wikipedia account for about 5 years. Why are you bothering me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezob ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The move was done per discussion. Arlen22 ( talk) 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I dropped by the atheism talk page after an absence of a few months and appreciate what you tried to do in June and July. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The Bleiburg massacre was an actual fact. The web has too much sources showing what I'm saying. But, yes, maybe I have to be less combative, but you gotta understand me what indignation causes it to me when I had a relative that escaped from there and was a witness and something that causes more indignation is that I can't change the statement on the article! -- 190.172.198.184 ( talk) 02:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(→Correlation with education levels: Undid comment from 210.56.81.96 - wiki-conspiracy jargon which doesn't improve article.) •Jim62sch• dissera! 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, wondering if anyone has discussed your signature with you before? It seems to span more than one row of text which might not be a good approach. Wikipedia:Signatures has more info on accepted practices regarding signatures. You may want to consider a change in your signature. ++ Lar: t/ c 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mann jess
I see that in this eries of edits you removed 49 articles from Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom on the grounds that "LGBT is more neutral". You have may have a good case to make about the neutrality of the category, but Category:Gay politicians is a long-established category and as far as I can see from the few I have checked, "gay" is an accurate categorisation of these people. If you want the category to be deleted or upmerged, please propose this at WP:CFD, but do not just depopulate because you think it is misconceived; please seek consensus first.
I will now repopulate the category, reverting your edits. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thx
(This is a friendly . . .)
Sturunner ( talk) 04:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You've left so many information on Dr. William Lane Craig out in your wiki page that you and Theo Warner have done of him. There is no mention that he was president of EPS. There is no mention of him being a current teacher at TED. There is dishonest information of him being a progressive creationist (even the cite you reference says he's not!). There is no mention of some of the issues that he has with Plantinga. You just want to ruin Dr. Craig's reputation like all the other crackpots out there. You're not fair and you're a liar. Your article is biased, sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaseMcAllister248 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jess, I just got your message about the irreducible complexity article. I'm not sure what you are referring to with regard to reliable sources. I provided two sources to support the revisions I made. I was making claims about what Intelligent Design proponents are arguing and cited some of the articles they've written on the subject. Please explain my error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopydaniels ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks, Mann jess, for watching my user page. Regards, Pinethicket ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
My edit of this article was rejected with the instruction to use a "reliable source". The source I used, Abdul Baha, is considered an inerrant source on all subjects. What more do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewlabonte ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There are currently 2,910 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today! |
The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! |
Thank you for reverting my overdone citation needed tags, I often forget that policy. I was curious if you want to join Wikipedia: WikiProject Bible? You seem like a editor who is faithful to keep Wikipedia policy enforced, and several Project related articles are suffering from lack of good authorship.--Gniniv ( talk) 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is your official invitation:
You are cordially invited to participate in
WikiProject Bible
The goal of WikiProject Bible is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Bible available on Wikipedia. WP:BIBLE as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or interpretation of the Bible, but prefers that all Biblical content is fairly and accurately represented. |
I disagree with your revert, the head sentence on that section is specifically describing Natural Selection, not Evolution. Is there a possible compromise solution?--Gniniv ( talk) 08:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For unwaveringly supporting and editing articles to WP:Content standards. Gniniv ( talk) 09:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
Hi, it looks like your signature partly overlaps text on lines above and below where it appears. Would you mind adjusting the vertical size of the box a tad? Tia and cheers - DVdm ( talk) 09:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What is a legitimate programming language? As far as I know, if you can compile and code in said language, then that is enough to verify it "legitimate". Also even so, I believe they should remain on the Linux page under "Available Languages:". Regardless of legitimacy, they are still programming languages that are available for use on those systems, therefore, why not allow people to know that their programming language is indeed supported on that system? Lioncash ( talk) 23:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah I see now, thanks for clearing that up :). Although it does depend on distribution whether or not it can be compiled out of the box. Lioncash ( talk) 03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I atttempted to put a compromise edit between the two warring points of view on Cryptozoology. Since you seem to find that it was not neutral enough, can you please suggest how I could improve that paragraph? I was not intentionally edit warring, just trying to compromise.--Gniniv ( talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! About that vandalism incident. I noticed that the article Duma had a template that was misplaced and I assumed it was vandalism. If I was mistaken in that assumption, I apologise for calling it such. Obviously it was a template accidently put on that article from Duma, Syria.--Gniniv ( talk) 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I think that a significant amount of effort has been expended trying to improve blanket statements of majority consensus on these articles ( Bigfoot and Cryptozoology) by myself, and due to the fact this is seen as violating WP:NPOV (though in my book I am merely trying to give coverage to a significant minority view) I am imposing a one month ban on myself for these articles. I hope my absence will inspire others to work towards removing rule of the majority problems and WP:Systematic bias without having me to blame as the scapegoat. I appreciate those editors who are of a similar mindset.--Gniniv ( talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I removed the caterogies so you would not get warning i was makigna page in my userpage before and becaus ei left the caterogies ti meant peopel could find it and i got a bit of a warning for it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk) 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
delink overlink ie if you have two wikilinks to say dummy and dummy delink the seocond one so it dummy and dummy might be good idea to remove the (1-01) however this would need ot be discussed in talk first ie house talk
Hay can you comment on the improvement section in talk i have listed things i think need done to clean the article up more and before it sent for a peer review so we know wether it can be nomaited for featured list candaite again.-- Andy Chat c 21:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of House (Season 6) episodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Durova Charge! 03:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In order to use igloo, you require the rollback user right. You can request this right here, but please read the instructions first. Thanks, Ale_Jrb talk 09:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.55.2 ( talk) 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
i am sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.103.84 ( talk) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought what i had edited was useful as just because the police received a report didn't mean that it was a hoax, as Derren is a smart person, he was able to know exactly how to play it safely and was sure no-one would get hurt hence it not being a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.87.84 ( talk) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work on the Atheism lead. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with the category now that it's sourced. You might want to have a look at WP:SURNAME though. Thanks for the source! Dismas| (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Jess: following your suggestion I moved the "integrate other articles" discussion to the new location: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism#Improve_relationships_between_anti.2Fnon-religion.2Fatheism_articles.3F. I removed the discussion from the original location at: Talk:Atheism#Improve_relationships_between_anti.2Fnon-religion.2Fatheism_articles.3F. That movement included moving your comment from one place to another which, of course, requires your permission. Your comment is unchanged, but it is in the new location now. If you want me to move it back, let me know. --18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Please ignore the content I just recently put on your main page. I've deleted that and subsequently pasted the material here now that I found the appropriate section.
Hi Mann jess,
You recently put the "Edit Warring" label on my talk page. I have absolutely no reason why you consider my editing behavior to be edit warring. It's not true. I make changes backed up with plenty of supporting arguments and counter arguments. All of this is done BEFORE I make the changes. I do not simply revert things back to its original content for no reason. All of my changes are consistent with what other users are repeatedly doing (and for that matter, are doing far more than what I'm doing). Moreover, if what I'm doing is truly edit warring, then you are engaged in it. Please do not threaten me with labels that are unjustified and no worse than what you are doing. Doing so is an abuse of wikipedia.-- Jeremy 414 ( talk) 01:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jess, I noticed a message of yours on my discussion page. I decided to take the liberty to ask you how I could change my username. I noticed that it can be found on the web and since it is my real name I would like to change is. Do you know how to go about this? Thanks in advance. -- Arjenvanslingerlandt ( talk) 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL, bureaucrats and their forms.... -- Arjenvanslingerlandt ( talk) 09:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
edit: but here it works???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjenvanslingerlandt ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jess, seeing as you offered to help out on more problems I think I would like to discuss the following: I am trying to improve on the maxim (philosophy) page. It is not hard to improve on it by the way, but I am having troubles with my references. I copied the idea from the Immanuel Kant page. However, when I left my idea to edit for the edit on the talk page I did not see the list of references appear. It might be that the script reading the reference code is not running on talk pages, but I don't know. Could you take a look? Thanks in advance. -- Faust ( talk) 07:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello helpdesk, I was thinking about using an image on my own page (of Faust), so I checked out the Help:Visual file markup. It explains how to displays images and such, which are drawn from a database of some sort. However, there does not seem to be a link to an explanation of how to upload images to said database. Do you know how and should we not place a link to such an explanation in the help article? Thanks again. -- Faust ( talk) 07:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way... are you watching my talk page? If so, I'll stop leaving those silly talkback templates you'll just have to clean up later :) If not, no big deal. I just don't want to be polluting your talk page if I don't have to! Jess talk cs 17:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again Jess, I will study the page and process you pointed out. I am watching your talk page btw, thanks for your concern. -- Faust ( talk) 23:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Would you look over the maxim page? Since I changed it I would like to know if everything is as it should be. Thanks for all you help Jess! -- Faust ( talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on William Lane Craig. I'd love to chat sometime. Good to contact someone who's not an immediate adversary! Theowarner2 ( talk) 02:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Before calling upon the Wikipedia rules and judging other people's behaviour, please, correct your own behaviour. Your 'replies' are cynical, false, ignorant, aimed to ridicule references' authors and Wikipedia users.
Also, fix you user page. Pretending to be a software professional (programmer, ingenieer, which you are obviously not) you should avoid giving a huge list of languages you are proficient with. Such a snotnose boasting just disqualifies you in the eyes of those who are true professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.103 ( talk) 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Always nice to get soms ANONYMOUS advice, don't you think Jess? -- Faust ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Do you want me to report this cowardly remark? It certainly does not improve on a productive editing atmosphere. -- Faust ( talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. -- Faust ( talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) By the way: how can I find out what IP is used by a user or what user uses which IP? -- Faust ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those numbers to be known because Vedas give more precise numbers than modern so-called science which says age of Earth is around this or that, but not sure. So Vedas give precise knowledge from perfect source (above man mistakes - it is from Supreme Person, Supersoul, Godhead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.243.223 ( talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
OMG.... wtf?
|
---|
Hostility Towards Krishna Consciousness Hi, I was just wondering if someone could clear something up for me. It seems to me as if Wikipedia does not want Krishna Conscious beliefs anywhere in Wikipedia articles. For some reason Wikipedia believes that Krishna Consciousness does not matter and that it is Vandalism to even include anything about them. For example in articles such as Rama, Wikipedia will not even let me say that according to ISKCON or Krishna Consciousness Rama appeared 20 million years ago or that he is believed by ISKCON to incarnate every 8.64 billion years (a day of Brahma). Since Wikipedia considers ISKCON to be Hindu I think this should at least be noted since I have supplied many accurate sources from ISCKON itself that represents ISKCON’s beliefs. These are not my own beliefs or original research but beliefs by what you consider a sect of Hinduism so I thought it would be appropriate to atleast acknowledge Krishna Conscious beliefs since you say it is apart of Hindusim. When I do include this you say ISKCON is not Hindu and it does not count in a Hindu article. So if I go on the ISKCON page and change the word Hindu to Vedic or Krishna Conscious, you then say that ISKCON is Hindu and stating it as another religion is wrong. So I think this a contradiction. You insist ISKCON is Hindu and that the word Hindu must be used but you fail to let anyone even acknowledge the beliefs of ISKCON in Hindu articles like Rama or this one “Hindu Cosmology”. It seems like this is a double standard. You insist that ISKCON is Hindu but when I include ISKCON’s beliefs in Hindu articles like this one or Rama you insist that it is not Hindu and cannot get any mention whatsoever. This is unfair because in many articles of Hinduism even non-hindu beliefs are given yet when I try to say if we can have just one sentence acknowledging ISKCON’s beliefs you do not allow it. It seems as if Wikipedia will deny that ISKCON is separate from Hinduism and at the same time insist it is not Hindu in order to completely censor its beliefs relating to Hindu topics such as Rama or Hindu Cosmology. For example you say I cannot even write any ISKCON-related beliefs about Hindu Cosmology, yet you insist that ISKCON is Hindu. This is hypocrisy because you will not acknowledge ISKCON to be its own religion so you call it Hindu, but even so then you will say it is not Hindu and that any view ISKCON has on anything Hindu cannot even be mentioned in one sentence anywhere. I even tried to make my own articles to give the Krishna Conscious belief of Krishna, Rama, and other but Wikipedia continually deletes these articles again and again even though I have many reliable sources. The articles I create are usually entitled as Rama in Krishna Consciousness, or Krishna in Krishna Consciousness so that I am not being biased and that it is not my point of view because I am saying in the title that this is the Krishna Conscious view. So people know that is why it is only talking about one view. And I cite many reliable sources from ISKCON to prove it. I made these articles because Wikipedia would not let me even include one sentence about ISKCON’s belief about Rama in his article, even though they insist ISKCON is Hindu and has a fit if anyone says otherwise. Sadly Wikipedia seems to want to censor all ISKCON related beliefs, all beliefs about how Krishna Consciousness views other things. For example there is an article entitled Jesus in Islam. This gives the Islamic View of Jesus. But when I created an Article entitled Jesus in Krishna Consciousness many times every time Wikipedia deleted it and blocked me from editing. I had cited many reliable sources of How ISKCON (Krishna Consciousness) views Jesus but they keep saying I am vandalilzing. I think it is religious intolerance that other beliefs are allowed to be expressed like Jesus in Islam but Jesus in Krishna Consciousness cannot be allowed to exist. Why is this? Why must Krishna Conscious views by censored and grouped in Hinduism like it doesn’t exist and then their views are not even mentioned so that people do not even know these views exist and assume that everything a Hindu believes in is the same as a Krishna Conscious person. It is like saying Jesus in Islam should not exist, so that everybody will think that the whole world thinks Jesus is the Son of God. Why is Wikipedia letting other religions express their beliefs in articles but censoring any Krishna Conscious belief that does not agree with Modern Hinduism. Even when I create articles explicitly stating that this the Krishna Conscious belief you have people saying it is biased and should be deleted. It is not biased. It is the Krishna Conscious belief. With that logic the article Jesus in Islam is also biased because it only talks about the Islamic beliefs about Jesus, but obviously nobody believes this because obviously if it says Jesus in Islam it is only supposed to be about Islamic beliefs concerning Jesus, in the same way if the articles says Jesus in Krishna Consciousness it is only supposed to be about Krishna Conscious beliefs concerning Jesus. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs on Wikipedia but Krishna Consciousness is persecuted. Why is this religion being persectuted? It doesn’t makes sense why is an article like Jesus in Islam okay but an article like Jesus in Krishna Consciousness is not? I have cited many good and reliable sources showing the Krishna Consciousness view of Jesus, just like the article Jesus in Islam shows the Islamic belief in Jesus, but because it is Krishna Conscious, Wikipedia does not like it so it destroys and erases the article and blocks me again and again everytime I try to represent the Krishna Conscious beliefs. Why are other religions allowed to express their beliefs but Krishna Conscious beliefs are not allowed on anything except the ISKCON page? Is Wikipedia Anti-Krishna Consciousness. All I know is I live in America and in this country we have Freedom of Religion and we not censor one religion but let other religions be expressed. If you have Jesus in Islam but not Jesus in Krishna Consciousness that is unfair and Un-American. I do not think Wikipedia should be allowed persecute Krishna Consciousness yet let other religions express their beliefs. Wikipedia does not want Krishna Consciousness views to be expressed so they call ISKCON Hindu but if you want to mention “Hindu” beliefs in Hindu Cosmology they through such a fit and block you, yet they insist it is Hindu and will not let you say otherwise. What is this hypocrisy. If I were to create a page entitled Krishna Consciouness Cosmology and provide good reliable sources showing how Krishna Consciousness views Cosmology it would be immediately erased because Wikipedia will not let Krishna Conscious views be expressed because they hate Krishna Consciousness but they will allow other religions to be expressed and will allow Mormon Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Buddhist Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology etc. I cannot include Krishna Conscious beliefs in the Hindu Cosmology article because even though they say it is Hindu then they say its not Hindu and if I try to create an article called Krishna Conscious Cosmology they will not allow it because Krishna Consciousness is the one religion that Wikipedia hates and will not allow to be expressed yet every other religion can have one Buddhist Cosmology, Jain Cosmology, Biblical Cosmology, but no not Krishna Conscious cosmology. The only way that Wikpedia can censor Krishna Conscious beliefs is by first not allowing anyone to remove the word Hindu from the ISKCON article. They will not allow you to say change Hindu Scriptures to Vedic Scriptures and they will not allow you to change Hindu religion to Krishna Consciousness on the ISKCON article. The reason they do this is because they want to censor Krishna Consciousness beliefs by calling them Hindu so that nobody knows there is actually a religion called Krishna Consciousness who have belefis that differ from Krishna Consciousness. This is exactly who they censor Krishna Consciousness. First they deny it exists as a religion by claiming it Hinduism and then when we want to express Krishna Consciousness beliefs in Hindu articles they do not allow this and deny it so people are not aware of Krishna Consciousness beliefs. In this way Krishna Conscious belefis are never expressed and nobody knows about them. Since they are called Hindu everybody assumes that Krishna Conscious people are Hindu, believe the same things Hindus believe in and that there is no difference because Wikipedia will not allow us to call Krishna Consciousness different from Hindu and when we want to express are beliefs in Hindu articles they will not allow it so that people are unaware of them and think they are just all Hindu, and they will not allow creation of Krishna Conscious articles like Jesus in Islam, because then people would be aware of these beliefs, but they don’t want that because they want to persecute Krishna Consciousness by calling it Hindu and then not allowing inclusion of its beliefs in any Hindu article because then people will know it is different. This is the only way they can extinguish Krishna Consciousness, by denying it exists by merging into Hinduism and then denying what they call Hindu beliefs to be expressed in a Hindu article. They then say it is not Hindu, but if you change Hindu from Krishna Consciousness they will say it is Hindu, and if you create your article about Krishna Consciousess they delete it because they do not want people to know Krishna Consciousness exists as a unique belief system. Well this is America and I don’t care what Wikipedia does it can block me as many times as it wants but I will still keep editing every day of my life. Do you know why I can do this? Sure Wikipedia can block my computer, but it cannot IP ban every computer at my University, and every computer at the Public Libaray, and every computer I have access to because if you count all of the computers I have access to at my University and at the Public Library near my house it would come out to be like 100,000 computers. This means that even if you blocked the IP address of a computer I used every day it would take you 300 years to block every computer I have access to at my University and the Public Libarary which I go to everyday. For this reason I will continue to edit everyday and you can keep blocking but You will have to keep doing so for 300 years, and your kids will have to continue, doing so and then your grandkids will help to keep reverting my blocks because I have “FREE” access to so many computers at my UNIVERSITY and LIBRARY that you could block my IP Address on a different computer every day for 300 years and you still could not stop me from editing. Even if I die I have people who will continue editing every day and if they did they also have people so this could go on for thousands of years. Bottom line you cannot stop me from editing because I can edit every single day, which I WILL DO! And even if you block my IP everyday its not a big deal because I will just use a different computer in the library or a different computer at my University, or a different computer at my House, or a computer at my friends house, etc. Do you not understand I have free access to so many computers? If you block the IP of all the hundreds of thousands of computers at my University and the libraray, and my house and all my friends houses, I will just go to another library where there are thousands of more computers that you can block, if You block all the IP addresses of all computers in my city, then I will use computers in another city, its not a big deal. If you try to block all the computers in my state. I will go to another state. If you block all the computers in my country, I will use a computer in a different country. You cannot block all the IP addresses of every public computer in the world. There are millions and millions of computers that I have free access to and mark my words I will continue to edit all of these articles every single day of my life which might be another 70 years since I’m young, so probably much longer than most of you will be alive for and if I die no problem I will have people editing all the same articles every day just like I did and you cannot block every public computer in the world, so you can keep persecuting my religion and blocking my IP but when the next day comes I will just use another computer at my library and college and you can block that to. And you can do this every day for thousands of years. What’s the use? Just give up and stop persecuting my religion because you will never win and I will never give up. So please stop persecuting my religion, it doesn’t matter to me I will keep editing every day whether or not you agree with me or not and we have already established that I have enough access to convenient and free computers so it is in your best interest to stop, because what will you gain? I will keep editing every day whether you like it or not? You can’t kill me, so give up and stop persecuting my religion. Thank You. |
@95.133 There is no way I'm reading all of that. Look, scientific articles are about science. They're not about Hinduism. We don't allow Christianity in those articles either. If your new articles were deleted, there was probably good cause, but you would have to take that up with an editor involved in the AfD request. I am not one of those editors. If you really want to add in content which you think is lacking, your first step should be to find a boatload of reliable sources which explicitly talk about that content. Discuss those sources with other editors individually, and ask where they should be placed. I'll tell you right now: No one is persecuting your religion.
Furthermore, threatening to continually vandalize wikipedia for the next 300 years is only going to get you ridiculed and banned. I'd move on to another approach. Jess talk cs 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have started a mediation page as a last resort effort on the conflict between pro-literal (or YEC) and pro-secular (or evolution) bias in the articles Objections to evolution and Genesis creation narrative. Please participate by following this link Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Narrative.--Gniniv ( talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What is your opinion on starting an ANI to block this user from his continued disruptive unhelpful edits? — raeky ( talk | edits) 03:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't make defamatory comments on my talk page. Follow your own advice. Thanks. Tavengen ( talk) 10:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ending discussion and editing of contentious topics until furthur notice...--Gniniv ( talk) 05:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You and your pals are being disruptive (per WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT) -- just like some of your "opponents" were being not that long ago. I'll not refrain from pointing this out just because you know how to dig up patronizing templates to place on my talk page. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The Request for mediation concerning Genesis Creation Narrative, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by
MediationBot, an automated bot account
operated by the
Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
Charles Darwin theorized or came up with the theory of evolution. Changing it back to "established" is both biased and untrue. The reason I change it back is because it is incorrect. Only pure ignorance compels people to say that he "established" anything. The definition of "established" is an accomplished fact. You cannot say that the theory of evolution is a fact, because, after all, it is still a theory. You people please stop changing my editing back. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezob ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had a Wikipedia account for about 5 years. Why are you bothering me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thezob ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The move was done per discussion. Arlen22 ( talk) 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I dropped by the atheism talk page after an absence of a few months and appreciate what you tried to do in June and July. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The Bleiburg massacre was an actual fact. The web has too much sources showing what I'm saying. But, yes, maybe I have to be less combative, but you gotta understand me what indignation causes it to me when I had a relative that escaped from there and was a witness and something that causes more indignation is that I can't change the statement on the article! -- 190.172.198.184 ( talk) 02:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(→Correlation with education levels: Undid comment from 210.56.81.96 - wiki-conspiracy jargon which doesn't improve article.) •Jim62sch• dissera! 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, wondering if anyone has discussed your signature with you before? It seems to span more than one row of text which might not be a good approach. Wikipedia:Signatures has more info on accepted practices regarding signatures. You may want to consider a change in your signature. ++ Lar: t/ c 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mann jess
I see that in this eries of edits you removed 49 articles from Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom on the grounds that "LGBT is more neutral". You have may have a good case to make about the neutrality of the category, but Category:Gay politicians is a long-established category and as far as I can see from the few I have checked, "gay" is an accurate categorisation of these people. If you want the category to be deleted or upmerged, please propose this at WP:CFD, but do not just depopulate because you think it is misconceived; please seek consensus first.
I will now repopulate the category, reverting your edits. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thx
(This is a friendly . . .)
Sturunner ( talk) 04:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You've left so many information on Dr. William Lane Craig out in your wiki page that you and Theo Warner have done of him. There is no mention that he was president of EPS. There is no mention of him being a current teacher at TED. There is dishonest information of him being a progressive creationist (even the cite you reference says he's not!). There is no mention of some of the issues that he has with Plantinga. You just want to ruin Dr. Craig's reputation like all the other crackpots out there. You're not fair and you're a liar. Your article is biased, sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaseMcAllister248 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jess, I just got your message about the irreducible complexity article. I'm not sure what you are referring to with regard to reliable sources. I provided two sources to support the revisions I made. I was making claims about what Intelligent Design proponents are arguing and cited some of the articles they've written on the subject. Please explain my error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopydaniels ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks, Mann jess, for watching my user page. Regards, Pinethicket ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
My edit of this article was rejected with the instruction to use a "reliable source". The source I used, Abdul Baha, is considered an inerrant source on all subjects. What more do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewlabonte ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There are currently 2,910 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today! |
The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! |
Thank you for reverting my overdone citation needed tags, I often forget that policy. I was curious if you want to join Wikipedia: WikiProject Bible? You seem like a editor who is faithful to keep Wikipedia policy enforced, and several Project related articles are suffering from lack of good authorship.--Gniniv ( talk) 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is your official invitation:
You are cordially invited to participate in
WikiProject Bible
The goal of WikiProject Bible is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Bible available on Wikipedia. WP:BIBLE as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or interpretation of the Bible, but prefers that all Biblical content is fairly and accurately represented. |
I disagree with your revert, the head sentence on that section is specifically describing Natural Selection, not Evolution. Is there a possible compromise solution?--Gniniv ( talk) 08:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For unwaveringly supporting and editing articles to WP:Content standards. Gniniv ( talk) 09:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
Hi, it looks like your signature partly overlaps text on lines above and below where it appears. Would you mind adjusting the vertical size of the box a tad? Tia and cheers - DVdm ( talk) 09:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What is a legitimate programming language? As far as I know, if you can compile and code in said language, then that is enough to verify it "legitimate". Also even so, I believe they should remain on the Linux page under "Available Languages:". Regardless of legitimacy, they are still programming languages that are available for use on those systems, therefore, why not allow people to know that their programming language is indeed supported on that system? Lioncash ( talk) 23:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah I see now, thanks for clearing that up :). Although it does depend on distribution whether or not it can be compiled out of the box. Lioncash ( talk) 03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I atttempted to put a compromise edit between the two warring points of view on Cryptozoology. Since you seem to find that it was not neutral enough, can you please suggest how I could improve that paragraph? I was not intentionally edit warring, just trying to compromise.--Gniniv ( talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! About that vandalism incident. I noticed that the article Duma had a template that was misplaced and I assumed it was vandalism. If I was mistaken in that assumption, I apologise for calling it such. Obviously it was a template accidently put on that article from Duma, Syria.--Gniniv ( talk) 08:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I think that a significant amount of effort has been expended trying to improve blanket statements of majority consensus on these articles ( Bigfoot and Cryptozoology) by myself, and due to the fact this is seen as violating WP:NPOV (though in my book I am merely trying to give coverage to a significant minority view) I am imposing a one month ban on myself for these articles. I hope my absence will inspire others to work towards removing rule of the majority problems and WP:Systematic bias without having me to blame as the scapegoat. I appreciate those editors who are of a similar mindset.--Gniniv ( talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |