![]() | This page 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. |
Howdy. Bob Dylan kind of stands out in that sentence you added. The others they were into from almost the beginning, in Germany, etc. Dylan came later and was not a "Rock and Roll" pioneer. I'm not saying he didn't influence them, but it doesn't seem to be the right place. Bob shows up later. . . John (Jwy) 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I missed the part about the banner. It is clearer to have the article quote the charter; I don't think I'm the first user to be confused by this. I like your version. -- Kendrick7talk 08:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Helter Skelter (song), please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jprg1966 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
it was explained, had you paid attention you would hav enoticed that i was reverting a previous edit, that was itself a deletion without explanation... the explanation is in the first edit but not the second if you look at the history. l.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Boris Johnson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Widefox (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jprg1966! I would gladly collaborate with him and I have tried to reach a consensus. However, he does not care one bit about the discussion I started before making the edit. He did not make an effort to provide one argument against my arguments. How am I supposed to collaborate with him? Thanks, 92.36.173.254 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Jprg1966! I have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and I would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Leave a message on my talk page or visit the Academy's information page. ~~~~ |
--Chip123456 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
see here User talk:Achowat#Twinkle Icon
Hello, I'm Chip123456. The reason I have posted this here because me and another Rollbacker have been looking at your recent edits. To say the least, they are very promising. I myself have been through the academy and would strongly recommend it, especially if you are looking for new vandalism tools e.g WP:RBK which helps you quickly revert vandalism. Of course, that is not the only thing you go in there for. You get to learn how to correctly identify, revert, warn and report the user. Any questions, ask here or my talk page. You can also ask Achowat who is willing to take you as a student. Best --Chip123456 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Jprg; You recently tagged me in Curry_Todd as a result of my use of the word "spam". Let me assure you that the description is appropriate and used advisedly. The word as I used it refers not simply to the individual entry, since an individual entry cannot be spam, but to the habit of the editor of circumventing the appropriate Talk page (the relevant one is American Legislative Exchange Council, where I have discussed this topic at length. ALEC is a 501(c)3 organization, and it is utterly POV to label it a lobbying group, and a pejorative to label it right-wing, since it is actually Centrist/Libertarian. The editor does NOT refer to Talk pages, but INSTEAD repetitively inserts the phrase "right-wing lobbying" into dozens of pages, wherever ALEC is mentioned. I assume my edit came up on some Bot, since I do not see any evidence that you are an involved editor (another problem with the ALEC page; Wiki-lawyering and canvassing, both on and off-Wiki)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that you're in violation of the 1RR on the article Gilad Shalit. You had one revert done at 14:02 on May 21st, and then another 4 minutes later. Although I did block the IP you were reverting, I am not going to block you, since you at least remained civil in your edit summaries and made attempts to bring discussion to the talk page. Just remember to keep the number of reverts in line and not to get bogged down in edit wars in the future.--Slon02 (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I've come to rebut the message you posted on the User Talk page for 75.27.41.134 (which is indeed a shared IP address). It seems a bit unnecessary for you to have done that, but I see that you're a Constable of the WikiPolice, and I can deduce what that means.
"For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English."
The Nausicaä manga has been translated from the original Japanese into American English by a publisher based in the United States. In fact, the only English edition of Nausicaä currently in print is the American English edition. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable—even within the confines of the policy you quoted—to change the spelling from British English to American English. It's also worth noting that the article is not entirely written in British English; at the very least, the grammar and spelling should be made consistent throughout. And, as this particular book has been translated into American English by a publisher based in the United States, American English is the clear choice. I am going to continue to change the spelling in this article using that rationale.
"Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours."
How someone could possibly misconstrue the changing of spelling in an entry as a lack of respect for another version of English, I don't know. But I do know that I am going to continue to edit this article, in the interest of improving it, because I care about the subject. Thank you. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well seeing how I own the wrote the content I "copied and pasted" from copyright is not an issue, however changes were made to suit you. Second how is it now marked advertising. I placed nothing in any of the infomation that tells how "great" ECA is. Everything that I placed on there are nothing more than non-debateable facts. Locations of schools, dates that the schools were opened, affiliated business of ECA and links to those businesses websites without suggesting that users user those services or indulging in how wonderful they were. What is your definition of advertising? ECA's students are allowed on Wikipedia to receive facts about everything. If facts that do not promote people to do something are advertisments then perhaps we need to reconsider allowing our 15,000+ students and 5,000+ faculty and staff members on Wikipedia.
Lastly the item I removed is baised. Go to your other for-profit college wikipedia entries. The week that the issue was on the floor 36 other owners and partners of for-profit colleges were present and vocal. Yet ECA is the only one with this linked to them? Don't be baised. If I am not allowed to list the affilated businesses in the page then the first paragraph should not discuss affiliated businesses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.138.18 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Well JPRG1966, I wrote the material that I took off of my website to fill in the voids from a lack of information. You may want to return and read the policy on copy and paste. Public Domains are permitted(this does not fall under that) and can I really violate a copywrite when I am the one who wrote it for the ECA website and also maintains all content that goes on there? Okay so you didn't like the copy and paste. I changed the parts that were pasted. Check for your self. Copy each line and paste it into Google. You will get Wikipedia's result. Anything else that you see will be facts, such as were ECA is licenses from? If you didn't place the "this article appears to be written like an advertisement" then that leaves who? Again I ask. What part of this information about the history of ECA is an advertisment? The years that they opened the campuses? I never once put a thing in there that was geared in anyway to push anyone to have anything to do with ECA. It is just facts!Did you even read it before that was placed at the header of it did you assume. Do you really believe that it is not baised to have ECA as the school that was involved in the governments hearing? Seriously! Why is that on here but not all the other for-profits? Is that a good enough reason to remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.138.18 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
What does the place I work at have to do with anything. A conflict of interest. Yeah buddy. I cannot place facts on here about ECA without a conflict of interest. You do not answer questions and cannot tell me what part I put in there that was an advertisment or conflicting except that I make money from them. I don't make money based on how many many people go to their schools. I guess seeing how I am a sports fan that is also a conflict of interest if I post something about a sports team. You took out the part where the students signed a wavier acknowledging that accreditation had not been received and yet you claim I am being baised. Let me give you a link to that... http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=14008994 Now can you put the information about the students signing a wavier before ever starting classes back in there? This makes it sound like students were never told there was no MS accreditation and before the information was removed it was listed that they signed the wavier and even asked about it. Does that seem fair and non-baised to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.138.18 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Oh and I told you I was affliated with ECA in the first message to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.138.18 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
David Frum has an axe to grind with Ijaz over the Memogate affair. Each article he has written has bias, unsupportable commentary and is based on the information provided to him by the antagonist in the memorandum matter, Ambassador Husain Haqqani. There is no evidence in the public domain anywhere that Ijaz himself has made unsupportable statements with regard to bin Laden's possible extradition or not in 1996. The matter in any event is covered objectively further in the Wiki article on Ijaz under Statements on Bin Laden. The commentary posted (most likely by Frum or one of his associates) is biased, does not have any verifiable content and could be considered by Ijaz and his lawyers as slanderous and defamatory. Such comments may not be made according to Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalahind (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The Miniter book has many different sources. Ijaz is not the source of the accusations over bin Laden's possible extradition offer - those are the ex-defense minister at the time, El Fatih Erwa, and others. If you read the book carefully, Ijaz appears in one chapter with regard to the Sudanese counter-terrorism offer he allegedly negotiated in April 1997 that is a matter of public record. See Ijaz's testimony in Congress in June 1997. See article reference in section dealing with bin Laden where Ijaz and a former US ambassador to Sudan jointly write an article about what happened. See VANITY FAIR article in December 2001 on efforts to bring bin Laden to justice, that include the perspectives of at least four person, including former US Amb Tim Carney. To say Ijaz has a "long history of fabrication" is not a substantiated statement when the section of the Wiki article dealing with the controversies he has been involved in already cover the pros and cons of each individual matter - Memogate being the latest. Such comments are perhaps better left in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalahind (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I added the ((update)) tag to the article because I believe it needs to be changed to clarify that Axford's save streak has been broken. It's actually a bit confusing. The article says that the streak ended but also says that it is the longest "active" save streak, which is obviously not correct since it is no longer "active". I suppose I could have made the necessary changes myself, but, being unfamiliar with the specifics of the streak, I wasn't sure exactly what it should say. If you know more about it, perhaps you could edit it to be more clear. Thanks. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |