User talk:Lir/4
|
|
If one is listing facts and allegations supporting various conspiracy theories, then having the PATRIOT Act fact in there is obviously fine. The structure of the article is rather confusing though, and the current situation that allegations and facts are mixed under the heading "allegations" doesn't help. --snoyes 05:27, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- After you pointed out that facts are listed there I'm fine with keeping that fact there, otherwise I would have reverted your reversion ;-). --snoyes 05:54, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
---
Thanks for your support against censoring: It is doubtful wheter "Zyklon B" has been used to kill humans in Auschwitz or elsewhere: http://www.codoh.com/found/fndgcger.html from: http://www.codoh.com/found/found.html
Hey Lir -- just added another supportive comment on Conflicts between users -- leave me a message if there's something more I can do. I lost patience with Wik during the edit war over 2002 Gujarat violence. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:40, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't object to the move. You just moved it using c/p. That cannot be tolerated. It needs to be moved using the "move this page" function. --Jiang
I would recommend (given that Wik would revert the move, even if done correctly) that you announce on the relevant talk page you intention to move in X number of hours if no one objects. Then, any objectors would be required to defend their position. Please avoid another edit war. --Jiang 04:45, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll delete the pages and you can give it a try. If it gets moved back to its current location, don't move it again - discuss. --Jiang
The pages have been deleted. You can now move the article.--Jiang
This is the reference for the "Rachel Scott favorites"
The page that contains the info about her favorites is accessed by clicking "Bio and interesting facts" in that page
Therefore, the info about favorites will be added back. WhisperToMe 18:58, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- This is just nonsense. Totally unencyclopaedic! --snoyes 18:59, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Id still like to know that website's source on the information; its personal information. Her favourite color? Come on. Lirath Q. Pynnor"
Relating to the Rachel stuff.... Ask the question "Who wrote the website?" When I say Rachel's parents, it should become fairly obvious where the source is.... WhisperToMe 22:35, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
":This is just nonsense. Totally unencyclopaedic! --snoyes 18:59, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)"
Then look at Megan Kanka and Polly Klaas, where I also put such info up. WhisperToMe 22:35, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This should prove who wrote the site: http://www.racheljoyscott.com/contact.htm - "Beth Nimmo" is the name of Rachel's remarried mother. WhisperToMe 22:37, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Someone else set it so that the text wouldn't show, so I've decided not to put it back. - I thought that the mother had written the site herself till I saw that a church affiliated with her actually did it, though the mother was mentioned in the "tributes" section. WhisperToMe 23:00, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the US v U.S. vote you started has now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style at Martin's suggestion. Angela 03:31, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Lir, is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals dispute between you and RK over? If you no longer have issues, please can you remove it from Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles. I wasn't sure whether it was over or not as you hadn't edited it since RK's last edit. Angela 08:59, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re: Bush family conspiracy theory: not trying to delete any stuff, but it's necessary to separate the grounds for allegations from the allegations. Also, this article should not be a dumping ground for criticisms of the current administration--not that they shouldn't be in Wikipedia, but the context needs to be improved. Please don't revert. --The Cunctator 22:36, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm not asking to you not edit the article at all, especially to re-include content--but you might want to consider what to include. For example, you should figure out what the statement 'Richard Perle, an advisor to the Bush administration, goes by the nickname 'The Prince of Darkness'", has to do with Bush family conspiracy theories. The above statement isn't an allegation. The information related to Perle that should be in the entry is probably something like in the facts section: "PNAC promoted an invasion of Iraq in the 1990s. Several members of PNAC have influential roles in the Bush administration." and in the allegation section: "Although the Bush administration gave WMDs and terrorism as the reasons for invading Iraq, the PNAC people planned to invade no matter what, and used 9-11 as political cover." or something like that. --The Cunctator 00:00, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I mentioned Jimbo because I thought he was pinged about Wik on the mailing list and acknowledged; but I've lost track of the mailing list disputes and haven't searched the archives to check. Maybe this could be a test case for mediators when he finishes organizing that. Stan 04:33, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't object to the article. --Jiang 00:41, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I never "moved it back." It was never moved in the first place. It was just copied and pasted. If you are to move, move it correctly and fix all the double redirects. --Jiang 00:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That's incorrect. You are able to move the page. Haven't you done that before? No one (sysops included) can move a page with a history (other than redirect). --Jiang 00:49, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You can move pages over redirects, just not over redirects with previous page history. C/p is just wasting your time because such a move in unacceptable and will be reverted. Post a notice at Wikipedia:Disputes over articles. I deleted the destination page, in case you haven't noticed yet. --Jiang 01:06, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ask for mediation on the mailing list. --Jiang
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:MyRedDice&diff=0&oldid=0
- -)
Hey Lir, I made this page, since I do not know of an article like it: United_States_perception_of_Osama_Bin_Laden. JoeM's piccy of the teenager with the anti-bin laden shirt now is here.WhisperToMe 02:16, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Please see the vote at Talk:2003 Canada-U.S. blackout. Angela. 04:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand the front page: "Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate free content encyclopedia". External links to personal pages are misleading as it appears to give them credibility as REFERENCES. Angelique 01:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I posted my thoughts on the "Reference" subject to the Village Pump. Hope it's the proper place because I'm new here and really want to do a good job. Thank you. Angelique 02:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You lost me with your last comment about assimilation. ??? Angelique 02:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
wikipedia: chatroom ??? Angelique 02:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Now, I'm really confused ? wikipedia: chatroom -- On my talk page it is Red and when I clicked it was to create a new article? Angelique
You said: "The information at the external link, which u removed, will eventually be added to the wikipedia; and there will be no need for that link. Until then, keep the linl. Lirath Q. Pynnor"
That's my point. Do we want people copying information from an unsubstantiated site into Wikipedia. Or, do we want users/researchers to believe that external link has Wikipedia's sanction? Angelique 02:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Is there any special reason why Martin Dempsey gets a link in the page for Brigadier General? Dempsey should have an article (thanks for creatng it), and I hope sdomeone expands it, But, it sems to me we wouldn't want a list of hundreds of brigadiers. Just thought I'd ask before I delete the link. Thanks Lou I 17:12, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Oh, man, what've you brought us in for on the Talk:Silesia page? Just to prepare you for the storm, while Silesia may once have been a Germanic region (this, too, is highly disputed by our Polish contributors, at least to an extent), it has not been since World War II, when it was taken back by Poland. They seem to consider it an extension of old style German imperialism to use German names for Polish places, even during the time when said places were basically German. john 05:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm right there with you. Others seem to think differently. john 07:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Life on/off Earth
One of the things I wondered about the last time I worked on Earth is how to unobtrusively include the POV that microbial extraterrestrial life has already been found on Mars 1) in the Viking program experiments [1] (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/07/20/viking.anniversary/), 2) in the ALH 84001 meteorite. It's mainstream science and just writing that Earth is the only planet where life is "proven" to exist might be going too far. What are your thoughts on this?—Eloquence
Re: life article and biologists
In the life article, I was trying to use the word "biologist" in the most general sense of a "biologist", i.e. a biologists who study life of earth and "exobiologists", that is somebody who studies, or looks for, the possibility of non-Earthbound life, including extraterrestrial forms (which I freely admit have not or may not ever be discovered) or artificial life forms (for which a robust debate exists). I agree that the wording left something to be desired, but nevertheless it would be useful for the distinction to be made somehow, unless you define a biologist as somebody who studies only life on earth, which seems to be an overly restrictive definition. By this definition it would mean that people who worked on the Viking program or Mars Pathfinder projects which attempted to discover life on Mars couldn't possibly ever be biologists regardless of whether or not they were successful. --Lexor 11:00, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Re: Biology
Please see the Talk:Biology page regarding your recent changes to the preamble. Thanks. Peak 05:48, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)