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 username or IP address 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. --SineBot (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I stumbled upon your user page and just wanted to let you know that you can customize your signature in "my preferences" on the top of your screen. Enjoy! Kotiwalo (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've started a repository of underused and potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Falun Gong workgroup progress cookie! Enjoy! (Merger of Eutelsat-NTDTV censorship controversy into New Tang Dynasty TV) |
Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
the BRD cycle states that then a bold edit is reverted it is to be discussed. It was Simonm223's bold change of "practitioners" to "worshippers" (which is a misnomer anyway, because that would effectively mean these people were worshipping Falun Gong, the practice itself) that was reverted. Anyway, as he correctly identified, this is a matter of standards in how practitioners of Falun Gong are to be referred to on wikipedia. There was no precedent for "worshipper." It saddens me, really, that so much of the time discussion on these pages becomes "he's wrong and I'm right" or something of the like.--Asdfg12345 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being such a levelheaded standup person, your sensible approach makes discussing on the Falun Gong pages enjoyable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
When the main FG article becomes editable again, be ready for the deluge of FalunGongDisciple look-a-likes. You can be "the one." Theleike (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this could be an ideological conflict. I prefer merging over splitting or deleting, so I say merge. They're clearly the same issue with K&M being the one big attention given to the suffering of Falun Gong practitioners at the hands of organ harvesters. Others may believe that every little subject deserves its own article, perhaps even a new gategory for "groups the Chinese government has harvested organs from", others may think the content can just be deleted and let the general "organ harvesting in China" be the only article on the subject. Me, I think the information deserves to be on Wikipedia, but I do not believe in splitting each subject into small pieces, so I go with the mergist approach. / PerEdman 16:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I found your name on a list of users willing to copy edit articles. I would appreciate it if you could comment on the one I wrote about Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo. It is currently listed for peer review here. This article is short, only two pages long not including references, ext links, templates/categories. If you accept my invitation it shouldn't take up too much of your time. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo article a lot since the last time you copy edited it. I think it's in need of a refresher. Would you mind reviewing it again? I would appreciate it. Let me know whether you want to or not because if you don't want to or don't have the time, I'll ask another editor. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for Feature list, "LIST OF TALLEST RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD" i need your help regarding, gramatical mistakes,and copy editing my purpose is to make this article perfect or close to perfection, so that it would for sure become a feature list.
Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The article of tallest residential buildings in the world doesnt passed this time for FL Status, but i am still working on it and will resubmit after making some improvements and corrections.I need your help regarding adding the alttext to the images in this article, as English is not my first language can you add it ? as i dont know how to elaborate the images and write its alttext so that it explains how the building looks like, you can see its example to the vary first image of this article. regards.
Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello PerEdman:
I am seeking a few active volunteers to assist with a peer review of the logos page and I am hoping that you will contribute. Please see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Logos/archive1 for details on this request.
Thanks!
Edunoramus (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer interested in copyediting articles, would you like to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by giving a thorough review of the short, but interesting, article about Ya Kun Kaya Toast, a multinational kaya toast chain and Singaporean cultural icon? Thanks! 谢谢!Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)