![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello, since you usually comment on PRs on video games, I started one on Metroid Prime (which you also previously assessed to the VG project) and I'd like to hear some comments. igordebraga ≠ 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your opinion on Fatimah. I posted a comment on Talk:Fatimah if you care to respond. Slacker 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you commented earlier on [[Talk:WP:VOTE]], there's a similar issue coming up again. Should WP:POLL redirect to (1) Wikipedia:Requests for comment, its traditional location since last september; (2) Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, our guideline about polling, or (3) Wikipedia:Straw polls, an essay dissenting with the above guideline? Radiant 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel like getting involved in this. My opinion is that WP:POLL should redirect to 'Polling is not a substitute for discussion' for the simple reason that most article talk pages use it to refer to that page. RFC might also do, as it has been redirecting there for a while, but no one seems to use that shortcut for RFC.
I also edited Radiant's comments to remove all the font tags and such - I should hire a janitor for my talk page. -- User:Krator ( t c) 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I replied to you. -- Cat chi? 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you with this again. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know how to resolve this sort of issue. User:Klaksonn insists on flagrant POV editing despite me going out of his way to accommodate him (see Talk:Fatimah). Do you have any advice on how to procede? Slacker 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. Slacker 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cybran_Monkeylord.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I starting doing some cleanup work, and I wanted your opinion on two things:
Oh and you uploaded the pic in the article without a source.-- Clyde ( talk) 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Krator, thank you for your interest in the Mind Dynamics article. I believe I was the one who originally put in the quotefarm tag and I am the one who removed it. The entire series of LGAT articles is incredibly biased and one-sided. Any attempts to add neutrality or information from an opposing view are deleted. The deletions either cite strict violation of a wiki rule or they simply 'happen' amoung a rapid series of other edits. It seems clear to me that, based on an edit history and repeated patterns, the reader is being intentionally lead to a desired conclusion. At this point, I believe that the only way to get any neutrality in the article is to allow it to become a quotefarm and 10000% unbalanced. Only when its bias is so grossly obvious, will the neutrality be introduced by its obvious absence. I respectfully request that you remove the quotefarm tag. Best Regards. Lsi john 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to make a good article of Amsterdam. To achieve this, among other things, the information in the section Amsterdam#Demographics should be properly sourced. If you feel like it, you can help with that. Maybe this source is useful: http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/ english/. – Ilse @ 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What you could also do is expand either one of these new articles:
– Ilse @ 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope it stays. Or actually, I hope the section doesn't stay. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the 3O on skeptic.com.
I'm not familiar with the website and therefore do not know their editorial standards of peer-review. I've seen several definitions/articles there which seem to be interesting Original works/opinions, with no verifiable research.
Do I understand correctly that any article or definition on skeptic.com is citable here (on wiki) as a reliable resource? And, for clarity, is that listed anywhere as a policy I could cite to someone?
Lsi john 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"The main drawback to publishing on the WWW has nothing to do with the dynamism of such texts. The main drawback is the one which comes from self-publishing. There is no peer or professional review process." http://skepdic.com/preface.html
WP:RS - What is a reliable source? - Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;.."
Lsi john 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, as I haven't read any Asimov books yet, but when I saw your comment from my watchlist, it made me smile. =)
Seraphim Whipp 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(relocated discussion to talk page of relevant article. Lsi john 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
i was working on it... :P now i have a bunch of edits in a conflict :P Lsi john 12:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC) heh, i finally figured out that it was a double reference. I'm new, gime time :P I eventually get there. Lsi john 12:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This was intended as a personal comment, not technically related to the article itself.
It was about my (in)ability to fix syntax. I put it here because I didnt think it was necessary to put on the article discussion page (not out of disrespect for your desire to discuss things in the article's talk page.)
I dont know any other way to make quick personal comments. When I put comments like this on a user-page, as far as I am concerned, they can be deleted after being read.
Lsi john 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Krator, in Talk:Erhard Seminars Training#Eisner I cited your verbiage slightly out of context in an explanation to someone along a similar vein. I am letting you know, so that you can refute my usage, or confirm it if you wish.
Thanks. Lsi john 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
HagermanBot
17:14, 29 April 2007 (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 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello, since you usually comment on PRs on video games, I started one on Metroid Prime (which you also previously assessed to the VG project) and I'd like to hear some comments. igordebraga ≠ 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your opinion on Fatimah. I posted a comment on Talk:Fatimah if you care to respond. Slacker 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you commented earlier on [[Talk:WP:VOTE]], there's a similar issue coming up again. Should WP:POLL redirect to (1) Wikipedia:Requests for comment, its traditional location since last september; (2) Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, our guideline about polling, or (3) Wikipedia:Straw polls, an essay dissenting with the above guideline? Radiant 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel like getting involved in this. My opinion is that WP:POLL should redirect to 'Polling is not a substitute for discussion' for the simple reason that most article talk pages use it to refer to that page. RFC might also do, as it has been redirecting there for a while, but no one seems to use that shortcut for RFC.
I also edited Radiant's comments to remove all the font tags and such - I should hire a janitor for my talk page. -- User:Krator ( t c) 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I replied to you. -- Cat chi? 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you with this again. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know how to resolve this sort of issue. User:Klaksonn insists on flagrant POV editing despite me going out of his way to accommodate him (see Talk:Fatimah). Do you have any advice on how to procede? Slacker 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. Slacker 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cybran_Monkeylord.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I starting doing some cleanup work, and I wanted your opinion on two things:
Oh and you uploaded the pic in the article without a source.-- Clyde ( talk) 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Krator, thank you for your interest in the Mind Dynamics article. I believe I was the one who originally put in the quotefarm tag and I am the one who removed it. The entire series of LGAT articles is incredibly biased and one-sided. Any attempts to add neutrality or information from an opposing view are deleted. The deletions either cite strict violation of a wiki rule or they simply 'happen' amoung a rapid series of other edits. It seems clear to me that, based on an edit history and repeated patterns, the reader is being intentionally lead to a desired conclusion. At this point, I believe that the only way to get any neutrality in the article is to allow it to become a quotefarm and 10000% unbalanced. Only when its bias is so grossly obvious, will the neutrality be introduced by its obvious absence. I respectfully request that you remove the quotefarm tag. Best Regards. Lsi john 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to make a good article of Amsterdam. To achieve this, among other things, the information in the section Amsterdam#Demographics should be properly sourced. If you feel like it, you can help with that. Maybe this source is useful: http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/ english/. – Ilse @ 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What you could also do is expand either one of these new articles:
– Ilse @ 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope it stays. Or actually, I hope the section doesn't stay. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the 3O on skeptic.com.
I'm not familiar with the website and therefore do not know their editorial standards of peer-review. I've seen several definitions/articles there which seem to be interesting Original works/opinions, with no verifiable research.
Do I understand correctly that any article or definition on skeptic.com is citable here (on wiki) as a reliable resource? And, for clarity, is that listed anywhere as a policy I could cite to someone?
Lsi john 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"The main drawback to publishing on the WWW has nothing to do with the dynamism of such texts. The main drawback is the one which comes from self-publishing. There is no peer or professional review process." http://skepdic.com/preface.html
WP:RS - What is a reliable source? - Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;.."
Lsi john 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, as I haven't read any Asimov books yet, but when I saw your comment from my watchlist, it made me smile. =)
Seraphim Whipp 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(relocated discussion to talk page of relevant article. Lsi john 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
i was working on it... :P now i have a bunch of edits in a conflict :P Lsi john 12:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC) heh, i finally figured out that it was a double reference. I'm new, gime time :P I eventually get there. Lsi john 12:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This was intended as a personal comment, not technically related to the article itself.
It was about my (in)ability to fix syntax. I put it here because I didnt think it was necessary to put on the article discussion page (not out of disrespect for your desire to discuss things in the article's talk page.)
I dont know any other way to make quick personal comments. When I put comments like this on a user-page, as far as I am concerned, they can be deleted after being read.
Lsi john 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Krator, in Talk:Erhard Seminars Training#Eisner I cited your verbiage slightly out of context in an explanation to someone along a similar vein. I am letting you know, so that you can refute my usage, or confirm it if you wish.
Thanks. Lsi john 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
HagermanBot
17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)