This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one. |
Hi, I see this is a new account and am just wondering whether this is a special purpose ID for third opinions and such.
Also, I have responded on the talk page for the Michelle Rhee article and made an addition to the article using a RS and a quote from it. Thanks again, for helping out. --Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Just one more question - did you just change your user name from something with third opinion in it to something with NPOV in it? If so, how did you do that? I thought it was a big deal to change a user name or that only admins could do it. I really don't mean anything by this question, I am just wondering because I really could swear you had a different user name here a few hours ago. -Regards - KeptSouth ( talk) 02:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to ask whether you've edited Wikipedia previously under other account names, and if so, whether those accounts have been subject to blocks, bans, or other such sanctions. MastCell Talk 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Teapot george Talk 10:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Tgeairn. Wikipedia is an all-volunteer operation and I am one of the many volunteers here who watch for unconstructive edits. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but I noticed that one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Intelligent design with this edit, appeared to be unconstructive. I have reverted it and ask that in the future you please use the sandbox for test edits, not encyclopedia articles. For constructive edits, always provide an informative edit summary so that other editors like me have a brief description of your intentions. If you have questions about editing Wikipedia, you might want to take a look at this tutorial. Also, feel free to ask me questions about editing Wikipedia (or anything else) on my talk page. Tgeairn ( talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want an RFC done for Wedge strategy, go to Wikipedia:RFC. Falcon8765 (TALK) 15:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MissionNPOVible changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in at least one case, the book's editor made an error in the find-and-replace functionality, resulting in the sentence: "Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view." Aside from being a heinous example of a comma splice, the typo might lead a critical thinker to infer that intelligent design was merely a cynical repackaging of creationism to circumvent legal hurdles; hence the notoriety of the term.
It's covered in the NOVA special, which was really quite well-done, or you can read more at The Panda's Thumb. Anyhow, if you wonder why people see creationism and intelligent design as semantically equivalent, it's useful to know that the promoters of these terms apparently share that view. MastCell Talk 19:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
How tragic!! That's quite funny - thanks for the history MastCell, I'll have a squiz at the doco you mentioned. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 06:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've warned Hrafn about the tone of his comments on the ID talk page. I would suggest the same thing to you. I know the discussion there can get heated sometimes, and I know it's frustrating to have your article edits immediately reverted, but it's necessary to stay civil and impersonal in talk page discussions. Ignore the attempts to bait and dismiss you and instead continually try to find compromise solutions to content disagreements. If the other editors respond by continuing to try to belittle and provoke you, I and others will (eventually) do something about it. The Intelligent Design article, for whatever reason, is notorious for that kind of behavior so it's important for all participating editors to do their best not to contribute to the ongoing issues there. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 05:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
This is in regard to the message that you posted and then removed from my talk page. What is a PI issue? What does 'via 30' mean? 'qn' I assume is question? What is 'BG'? Acronym overload! Thanks FiachraByrne ( talk) 00:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It has now escalated to Wikipedia:ANI#Dispute over contents of DSM. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 20:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one. |
Hi, I see this is a new account and am just wondering whether this is a special purpose ID for third opinions and such.
Also, I have responded on the talk page for the Michelle Rhee article and made an addition to the article using a RS and a quote from it. Thanks again, for helping out. --Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Just one more question - did you just change your user name from something with third opinion in it to something with NPOV in it? If so, how did you do that? I thought it was a big deal to change a user name or that only admins could do it. I really don't mean anything by this question, I am just wondering because I really could swear you had a different user name here a few hours ago. -Regards - KeptSouth ( talk) 02:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to ask whether you've edited Wikipedia previously under other account names, and if so, whether those accounts have been subject to blocks, bans, or other such sanctions. MastCell Talk 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Teapot george Talk 10:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Tgeairn. Wikipedia is an all-volunteer operation and I am one of the many volunteers here who watch for unconstructive edits. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but I noticed that one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Intelligent design with this edit, appeared to be unconstructive. I have reverted it and ask that in the future you please use the sandbox for test edits, not encyclopedia articles. For constructive edits, always provide an informative edit summary so that other editors like me have a brief description of your intentions. If you have questions about editing Wikipedia, you might want to take a look at this tutorial. Also, feel free to ask me questions about editing Wikipedia (or anything else) on my talk page. Tgeairn ( talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want an RFC done for Wedge strategy, go to Wikipedia:RFC. Falcon8765 (TALK) 15:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MissionNPOVible changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in at least one case, the book's editor made an error in the find-and-replace functionality, resulting in the sentence: "Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view." Aside from being a heinous example of a comma splice, the typo might lead a critical thinker to infer that intelligent design was merely a cynical repackaging of creationism to circumvent legal hurdles; hence the notoriety of the term.
It's covered in the NOVA special, which was really quite well-done, or you can read more at The Panda's Thumb. Anyhow, if you wonder why people see creationism and intelligent design as semantically equivalent, it's useful to know that the promoters of these terms apparently share that view. MastCell Talk 19:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
How tragic!! That's quite funny - thanks for the history MastCell, I'll have a squiz at the doco you mentioned. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 06:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've warned Hrafn about the tone of his comments on the ID talk page. I would suggest the same thing to you. I know the discussion there can get heated sometimes, and I know it's frustrating to have your article edits immediately reverted, but it's necessary to stay civil and impersonal in talk page discussions. Ignore the attempts to bait and dismiss you and instead continually try to find compromise solutions to content disagreements. If the other editors respond by continuing to try to belittle and provoke you, I and others will (eventually) do something about it. The Intelligent Design article, for whatever reason, is notorious for that kind of behavior so it's important for all participating editors to do their best not to contribute to the ongoing issues there. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 05:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
This is in regard to the message that you posted and then removed from my talk page. What is a PI issue? What does 'via 30' mean? 'qn' I assume is question? What is 'BG'? Acronym overload! Thanks FiachraByrne ( talk) 00:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It has now escalated to Wikipedia:ANI#Dispute over contents of DSM. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 20:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)