|
 | This user is a recent changes patroller. |
|
no archives yet ( create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
| Search user languages |
Oort cloud finally made FA! Congrats! Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I saw that marvelous. Sorry for the unoticed wikibreak. I was having some family troubles and completely forgot about wikipedia during taht time. Samuel Sol ( talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that Serendipodous is now working on Definition of planet. I've decided to be independent and do some work on scattered disc. Would you like to help me? Thanks, Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- One month latter. And another wikibreak that you just don't realize you are going to take until it happens. Here I am. Really sorry for that. Are you still going independent on this and need some help with it? Samuel Sol ( talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No I've started my own WikiProject and have been focusing on articles there. You're free to join if you wish. ~ Me ldshal 42 19:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind giving this editor a clue? The clarification you and Jenny opined in admin help didn't seem to have gotten thru. He deleted them again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Falun_Gong&diff=223041906&oldid=223027199
Bobby fletcher ( talk) 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sol, you may have missed my point. I know that the CCP is the best to go to for the CCP's views. But I'm questioning the relevance of the CCP's views on Falun Gong going in the lede, and pointing out that these views are overwhelmingly seen by reliable sources as mere propaganda to legitimse violence and murder. I gave the example of whether it would be appropriate or not for Falun Gong's view that the CCP is an evil cult to be in the lede of the Chinese Communist Party page. That was a rhetorical example. Would the view of the United States government on Falun Gong go on the lede of the Falun Gong page? There is the issue of the persecution of Falun Gong, and the CCP's explanation of its actions ought to be addressed in the relevant section. However, wikipedia is not particularly a vehicle for the CCP's explanation of its actions--it talks about how the CCP explains its actions based on what reliable sources have said, it isn't a mouthpiece for the CCP itself. So I guess I still fail to understand the relevance of the CCP's view on Falun Gong (the CCP is, by the way, is not in this context a reliable source, and it is promoting a fringe theory in the literature) -- so why should that be accorded a place in the lede? I'm pretty much repeating earlier questions raised on the ANI section. This conversation should all actually belong on the Falun Gong talk page, and the issues should be discussed civilly, intelligently, and even quite methodologically, if possible.-- Asdfg 12345 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Admins, I'm sorry to bother you like this, but another editor has deleted the Chinese government source, again:
- There has been a patttern of circling the wagon with certain editors, and those of us wishing to edit this page for a balanced POV has been bullied, harrased, blanked and hacked to the point many editors have given up.
- What should I do? Most of my edit for counter POV are being systematically removed, and these FLG pages are essentially FLG promotiona material, as you have noticed. Bobby fletcher ( talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you responded to an ANI a while ago, but the issue presists. I have placed an informal RfC in the relevant Talk page, do you mind giving me your opinion? Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_Repeated_Removal_of_Adminstrator_Reviewed_Edits Bobby fletcher ( talk) 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! :)
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ ( talk) 18:31, 23 September 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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
|
|
| This user is a recent changes patroller. |
|
no archives yet ( create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
| Search user languages |
Oort cloud finally made FA! Congrats! Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I saw that marvelous. Sorry for the unoticed wikibreak. I was having some family troubles and completely forgot about wikipedia during taht time. Samuel Sol ( talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that Serendipodous is now working on Definition of planet. I've decided to be independent and do some work on scattered disc. Would you like to help me? Thanks, Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- One month latter. And another wikibreak that you just don't realize you are going to take until it happens. Here I am. Really sorry for that. Are you still going independent on this and need some help with it? Samuel Sol ( talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No I've started my own WikiProject and have been focusing on articles there. You're free to join if you wish. ~ Me ldshal 42 19:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind giving this editor a clue? The clarification you and Jenny opined in admin help didn't seem to have gotten thru. He deleted them again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Falun_Gong&diff=223041906&oldid=223027199
Bobby fletcher ( talk) 23:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sol, you may have missed my point. I know that the CCP is the best to go to for the CCP's views. But I'm questioning the relevance of the CCP's views on Falun Gong going in the lede, and pointing out that these views are overwhelmingly seen by reliable sources as mere propaganda to legitimse violence and murder. I gave the example of whether it would be appropriate or not for Falun Gong's view that the CCP is an evil cult to be in the lede of the Chinese Communist Party page. That was a rhetorical example. Would the view of the United States government on Falun Gong go on the lede of the Falun Gong page? There is the issue of the persecution of Falun Gong, and the CCP's explanation of its actions ought to be addressed in the relevant section. However, wikipedia is not particularly a vehicle for the CCP's explanation of its actions--it talks about how the CCP explains its actions based on what reliable sources have said, it isn't a mouthpiece for the CCP itself. So I guess I still fail to understand the relevance of the CCP's view on Falun Gong (the CCP is, by the way, is not in this context a reliable source, and it is promoting a fringe theory in the literature) -- so why should that be accorded a place in the lede? I'm pretty much repeating earlier questions raised on the ANI section. This conversation should all actually belong on the Falun Gong talk page, and the issues should be discussed civilly, intelligently, and even quite methodologically, if possible.-- Asdfg 12345 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Admins, I'm sorry to bother you like this, but another editor has deleted the Chinese government source, again:
- There has been a patttern of circling the wagon with certain editors, and those of us wishing to edit this page for a balanced POV has been bullied, harrased, blanked and hacked to the point many editors have given up.
- What should I do? Most of my edit for counter POV are being systematically removed, and these FLG pages are essentially FLG promotiona material, as you have noticed. Bobby fletcher ( talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you responded to an ANI a while ago, but the issue presists. I have placed an informal RfC in the relevant Talk page, do you mind giving me your opinion? Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_Repeated_Removal_of_Adminstrator_Reviewed_Edits Bobby fletcher ( talk) 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! :)
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ ( talk) 18:31, 23 September 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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)