User talk:Jersyko
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Click here to start a new message thread. Please sign your posts (you can do so with ~~~~). |
|
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Enamel
With a ref now, a bit more legit. I thought of a place I can check to see if I have another source to the same material. When I have time, I'll give it a look. - Dozenist talk 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] new user...
Haha, yeah, I just started actually poking around sites I previously noticed were blocked, and they're not anymore. Thanks! Whirlingdervish 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
For clearing my user page, they've been at it all night. Cheers. Canadian-Bacon t c 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:70.110.206.68
Weird vandal... I see he blanked your talkpage too.. Do we have an article in common? --Deenoe 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opus Dei
Thank you so much for your comments and help defending the article! It looks like Wikipedia really really works, and I'm positively giddy about that. :) Thank you! --Alecmconroy 15:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for you help out lately on that. It seems like there's a pretty strong consensus that the rewrite is an improvement (11 our of 11 outside views), so, hopefully that's settled. There's a slightly different debate ongoing right now about whether or not the improvement introduced NPOV problem. If you have a second, could you look it over and offer your opinion on whether that's the case? --Alecmconroy 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opus Dei: a section title and balance
Jersyko-- thank you so much for helping out before by lending your eyes to Opus Dei. This is an issue that attracts lots of passionate people on all sides, so true outsider eyeballs are greatly prized by all. :) If you have a second, could you look things over and give us some feedback?
Here's the latest on Talk:Opus Dei. One issue is on whether it's acceptable to have section entitled "Criticism and 'cult' allegations". It's undisputed that notable cult allegations are being made and are they are the #1 criticism of the organization. However, one school of thought holds that referring to the "cult allegations" in the section titles is so prejudicial that we shouldn't cut it from the header. I say that if the allegations are notable enough to have section, they're notable enough to have a title that reflects their mention-- but there are some good editors who have made points in opposition.
A second question going on is whether the article complies with NPOV. Are the "criticisms" and the "support" section 'balanced', or are we giving undue weight to one side or the other. I think we're doing pretty good on that at the moment, but there are a lot of different ideas all over the spectrum on what those sections should look like, so anything you can do to help us strike the right balance and get to FAC would be much appreciated!
Thanks for all your advice and help. --Alecmconroy 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List
I finished Hawaii, so now we have an model. All the citations are a pain to get, but absolutely worth it. --Zantastik talk 08:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Verification process
I need a way to defend my posts. Today my update to the Wiki was removed and I was (lightly) scolded because what I wrote wasn't verifiable. Yet my post is verifiable by what I would presume to be excellent sources (New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.). I attempted to use the {{help me}} on my user page as instructed, but viewing in Firefox Browser, if there is any place to put it, it wasn't readily apparent.
I understand that everyone here has their own lives and that we all contribute the spare time we can make for this project. Yet I would like the ability to show my sources whenever I make additions or corrections to the project, instead of being dismissed out of hand.
Thanks!
FeoAmante 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The best way to ensure that others know material you add is true is to provide a reference within the article. Including the link in the edit summary is also helpful, but sources should be referenced primarily within the article. SWAdair 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gore picture
The Gore picture was pulled from Yahoo photos I am pretty sure. It is a media photo from Reuters or the AP. So how would that be classified? CJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisDJackson (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] anonymous IP tag
Hi. I noticed the shared IP tag you placed on User talk:64.228.248.64 in addition to the usual vandalism warning tag. Most effective. Is this something I should be using whenever I place a vandalism warning on a Talk page for an anonymous IP user? Shawn in Montreal 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I should probably stay away from using it, because I don't (at least yet) have the know-how to do that kind of evaluation. Just one more question, though. I noticed you placed the shared IP tag with using "subst:" in the parentheses. I tried it on the sandbox the tag does seem to work with or without "subst:". We are supposed to use it, right, in case the templates are changed at a later date? Many thanks, Shawn in Montreal 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
