This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hello, Simonm223, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme))
before the question. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me with clarifying the information in Piguaquan. It's appreciated. Angie Y. (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am oonly using one account. I am at work and we all share an IP address. I've been auto-blocked because of soemthing done by one of my co-workers. Please consult my contribution history to demonstrate I am not a sock puppet.
If you know the user involved with the sock puppetry case, it would be preferable if you asked him nicely to refrain from making unconstructive edits. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What koolaid does The Epoch Times mix?--Asdfg12345 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What false testimony are you referring to?--Asdfg12345 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has been around for over three years, has undergone hundreds of revisions, and has lots of references, demonstrating that it it a notable topic. I removed your proposed deletion tag, because it was totally inappropriate, given that the proposed deletion process is for "uncontroversial deletions", which this clearly would not be. Your arguments of lack of neutrality would be more appropriately taken up on the article's talk page.--Michig (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
See [1], a very insightful look onto the FLG articles on wikipedia.--PCPP (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
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) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this addition to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: that is not what this noticeboard is for. It's only to report individuals who are violating Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. If you are looking for input about what to do with the content of the article, you can try WP:Third opinion, Editor assistance, or asking for help at WT:WikiProject China. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that you take part in mediation for the current dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état --Conor Fallon (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You have not shown it was inappropriate, 4 others have agreed to mediation, it is you and one other that do not agree, look at the talk page, look how long it is, it needs some sort of mediation, I saw the first poll only after putting up mine, then I requested mediation. --Conor Fallon (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What was this revert for? I don't necessarily oppose it because it's similar to my own wording from earlier. But right before your edit, another editor removed that very sentence and gave a rationale, so it's not good to revert like this without even giving an edit summary. Please explain at the talk page (the relevant section is at the bottom of the talk page right now) so that this doesn't turn into an edit war. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The Ürümqi Barn"star" | ||
Thanks for all your work maintaining the article July 2009 Ürümqi riots during its time on the main page. This has been a difficult and thankless task, working at a frenetic pace for 4 days straight so far (I, for one, have been getting very little sleep), and it's only been thanks to coordinated efforts and discussion from numerous editors that the article has been kept as neutral and informative as possible. This is the most collaboration I've done, with the largest number of editors once, since I have joined Wikipedia, and I think the results are showing; while it's not perfect, when my friends and family ask me about what's going on in Urumqi, I have been more comfortable recommending this article than any other source. The work is far from over, but now that this article is off the main page I think it's finally time to thank the editors Seb az86556, Colipon, Jim101, Ohconfucius, Benlisquare, Simonm223, and Jinhuili for all their contributions; while we had disagreements, I think each of these editors has been particularly active and has made real efforts to improve the article.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
See the result of this 3RR case regarding your edits at Teachings of Falun Gong. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I think you are an interested contributor for the Falun Gong pages so I added you to this page: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-15/Falun_Gong. Best Regards --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Verbal chat 20:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_crisis#Name. Thank you. Rico 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (Using ((Please see)))
Hi there. Someone has mentioned your name as in a dispute at this page and I have volunteered to mediate the case as part of the Mediation Cabal. Please read the "mediator notes" section of the case page for further instructions. Thank you, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi:
I have added some points on Talk:Falun Gong. Please go there and contribute. Colipon+(T) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using ((Please see)))
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#POV article name. Thank you. Rico 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using ((Please see)))
Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is to inform you that you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Olaf_Stephanos. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 10 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) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not stalking you, I came across this on RCA, and found you commented as well: Communist genocide... Someone just created a category "Communist genocide"... that's so frickin' over the top. Would you support deletion, and if so, can you nominate it? thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed that you voted to support deletion of this category; could you indicate your vote and comments on this page instead? csloat (talk) 22:57, 13 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)
"editing drunk" --- you nailed it!... I need to wipe the tears outta my eyes .... Seb az86556 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Simon, I'm really bothered by this accusation, as it was not my intent nor do I see it in my discussion. I'm a long term editor in good standing here, and very active in in a multitude of projects and subjects trying to keep things neutral and under the guidlines of their respective projects. I always try and repsect people's opinions on their matters, even when under great personal attack myself as I have been in a few threads by anonymous IP's and such. Let me state again, I respect your opinion and anyone else that weighs in on the matter. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The article Lineage war has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod))
will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The image links are deliberately broken in the article to prevent non-free images from showing in an article which is in userspace, per our non-free image policy (WP:NFCC#9). Logos5557 was wrong to call your fix vandalism, but please leave it as it is. Thanks, Black Kite 13:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, quick fingers. :) Thanks for letting me know :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a good edit, thanks.--Asdfg12345 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Simonm223, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Robert K. G. Temple has been removed. It was removed by Tony Sidaway with the following edit summary '(Famous author, and a FRAS. Try afd if you still thinks this merits deletion.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Tony Sidaway before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
There is currently an active discussion occurring on this article's talk page regarding the specific material you have been attempting to edit in this article. Please refrain from re-adding the material until a consensus has been arrived at through discussion. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I just proposed a merger of the hip-hop theat"re" page into hip-hop theat"er". I would appreciate it if you would to contribute to the discussion here. You don't have to respond if you don't want to. I'm just trying to generate consensus so I extended an invitation to you since you've proposed a merger of your own in the past. They're both short articles so it shouldn't take up much of your time. Gbern3 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry you have been dragged into this, but an editor (RedKing7) who I am currently in a dispute with left a message on your talk page (and the talk pages of many other people), asking you to get involved in this dispute. An administrator (User talk:William M. Connolley) subsequently imposed a temporary block on his account, and removed all the messages he sent, including the comment to your talk page. Kransky (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Was it ever established who this superpowerful wikimedia uk representative was? The person who was going to swoop in and force Herschel's version of the article on the community? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I usually have no tolerance for self-promoters but I was starting to feel sorry for the guy and will actually miss him. I think I'm the only one who voted "Keep." Of course we still may not have heard the last of him. Rees11 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Is a money conversion from 1910 to its value in 2008 original research? Example: It cost $20.00 dollars for sitting with Piper in 1910 . [The same would cost $456.60 in 2008]. Only $20.00 amount in 1910 is contained in reference material. Adding 2008 conversion myself. Can I do this? Please reply. Kazuba (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks Simonm223. That was also my conclusion. Kazuba (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider redirecting this article to William S. Burroughs right now? This material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Never-mind editor already commented. Ikip (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You should know better!--FalunDafaDisciple (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Simonm223, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mad Science has been removed. It was removed by Dougweller with the following edit summary '(between the New York Times article and the fact it works with CSI, etc I have no problems with notability (I've found a number of other news articles also which show notability), also remove coi tag)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Dougweller before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
I'm inclined to agree with your redirect. I also anticipate a loud disagreement from the article's author and protector, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Reported him to WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) If you want to remove my coi warning and replace it with yours, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Simon,
Why do you keep deleting everything off of Color light acupuncture?
If you have issues with how it is stated then that can be corrected.
I see that you did not delete a statement that said colorpuncture was applied with "torches" which is from the 1970s, now they use LEDs. You did not delete an unproven statement that colorpuncture causes headaches, insomnia, etc - which may be possible if shone in the eyes, but this is not the right way to apply colorpuncture. And you can't leave a statement like that up there if only one person stated it, it must be clarified as to the context of that statement.
Your editing seems to be very biased against color light acupuncture.
Please indicate the issues you had with all the context you deleted, and I will correct it.
Thanks
Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Simonm223, regarding your bold redirect of Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010, I have undone it, and I think we should discuss the possible merge/redirect on the talk page of the article. As you are the party in favour of the merge I would appreciate it if you could start the discussion (as per standard procedure). If you've changed your mind or simply have no interest in pursuing a discussion on the subject please let me know, all the best. PS: I've also sent The Anome a similar message. SpitfireTally-ho! 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We've been through several rounds of this already. Metaphysical, New Age, esoteric, folklore, or occult beliefs are not necessarily "fringe theories", even if they are considered fantastic or unproven by science; science is not the arbiter of ultimate truth, much less Wikipedia. It's not our place to decide that such beliefs are nonsense unworthy of inclusion.
If a school of esoteric thinking is itself notable, its teachings can be authoritatively referenced to leaders of that school. Indeed, for our purpose, certainty is more easily achieved in this area rather than others. The classification of birds and insects is often vague and contentious, being founded on evidence and its interpretation, but for matters contingent on revelation, there is a final authority.
The claim that an arcane or metaphysical doctrine is "in-universe", as if it were a work of fiction, would appear to me to be a fairly strong indication of bias and lack of neutrality. In this case, the very unintelligibility of Austin Osman Spare's formulation of his doctrine, whatever it is, essentially means that Spare's formulation is incontrovertible. And since Spare was one of the founding fathers and chief influences of chaos magic, his ideas have enough resonance to be worthy of articles. You may think Spare was a charlatan and that chaos magic is nonsense. You're probably right.
At least we can be sure that Kia automobiles are Satan's handiwork. But you knew that already. Still, treating arcane or occult subjects as automatically dubious and looking for reasons to delete them is probably just going to create a mess that someone else will need to clean up. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Your answer is requested on the talk page. Redheylin (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in the deletion discussion of Bullshido.net in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination), you may be interested in my renomination of the article for deletion. If you would like to participate in that debate, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you have placed a deletion template on this article but have not added it to the list of AfD. (So there is no talk page for the discussion.) The Four Deuces (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not salt because of the long interval since the previous submission, but if it is inserted again, I will do a protected redirect. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Article looks clean comparing with a version from back in June - good job. WikEd has a much better diff comparison display, which works well when vandalism is partially obscured by intervening edits. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Global Consciousness Project, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Logos5557 (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Simonm223. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your edits/behaviour in Global Consciousness Project. Thank you.. Logos5557 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Fences&Windows 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I almost understand what you say about consensus. Anyone that clicks on a link does so for one reason - to learn more. Editors at the Political positions of Sarah Palin page strongly prefer the less is more approach. They have their reasons, but there is extreme tension between what they desire, and what anyone who wants to learn more would want. It's impossible to poll people who click on links, but it's possible to get a very good guess as to their consensus, which is to learn.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes but the majority of the content on here does not use British spelling, I think the articles need to be consistent. --Jt white93 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)