Thank you for your contributions to the above-linked article. Please, however, consider that Wikipedia is about collating and presenting the work of reliable sources, and the personal opinions and conclusions of we editors are irrelevant. You may also wish to peruse the WP:POINT guideline. - Eldereft ( cont.) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- you say that you are using the discussion forums to let your opinions be known. In fact, Wikipedia has no discussion forums in the usual Internet sense of the word. What it has is Talk pages to discuss the aasociated article. Now you might say 'what's the difference', which is a good question. In a web discussion forum normally it's fine to express your opinions in general on a subject. On an article Talk page, however, (or in an article) its a bit different.
Specifically,
WP:Talk says
I hope the above helps you see the difference between a discussion group and a Wikipedia Talk page. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you do not have it watchlisted, I wanted to let you know I have added sources to the article, which might address your concerns. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Verbal
chat 15:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to
List of fields or concepts that have been labeled as pseudosciences and pseudoscientific, you will be
blocked from editing.
Verbal
chat 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit comment. Saying Harper was the first non-Catholic elected PM was a flat out falsehood. The first PM was the first elected non-Catholic PM, and others followed (soon after, and well after). What you said wasn't remotely close to what the source said, and wasn't remotely close to the truth. Your edit was grossly and massively misleading, and reflected a profound lack of knowledge of Canadian history. So, of course, I didn't reword it, I reverted it. For you to pretend that this is about a little detail is sheer nonsense. -- Rob ( talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the above-linked article. Please, however, consider that Wikipedia is about collating and presenting the work of reliable sources, and the personal opinions and conclusions of we editors are irrelevant. You may also wish to peruse the WP:POINT guideline. - Eldereft ( cont.) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- you say that you are using the discussion forums to let your opinions be known. In fact, Wikipedia has no discussion forums in the usual Internet sense of the word. What it has is Talk pages to discuss the aasociated article. Now you might say 'what's the difference', which is a good question. In a web discussion forum normally it's fine to express your opinions in general on a subject. On an article Talk page, however, (or in an article) its a bit different.
Specifically,
WP:Talk says
I hope the above helps you see the difference between a discussion group and a Wikipedia Talk page. Doug Weller ( talk) 06:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you do not have it watchlisted, I wanted to let you know I have added sources to the article, which might address your concerns. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Verbal
chat 15:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to
List of fields or concepts that have been labeled as pseudosciences and pseudoscientific, you will be
blocked from editing.
Verbal
chat 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit comment. Saying Harper was the first non-Catholic elected PM was a flat out falsehood. The first PM was the first elected non-Catholic PM, and others followed (soon after, and well after). What you said wasn't remotely close to what the source said, and wasn't remotely close to the truth. Your edit was grossly and massively misleading, and reflected a profound lack of knowledge of Canadian history. So, of course, I didn't reword it, I reverted it. For you to pretend that this is about a little detail is sheer nonsense. -- Rob ( talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)