User talk:Mceder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Ogham Coincidence
Hi mceder I noticed your interest and remembered a program i had seen on TV about ogham insciptions on late roman/early saxon town houses of the roman name and info of the owner of the house(in latin but using ogham script). Thought it was very strange and a recent discovery i'll try and remember more info, i know it was a BBC program called "Meet the Ancestors" and was a one hour on a romano-british town.Hypnosadist 00:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Which edits are you referring to? Black people listening to rap music is not controversialJosh16 00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The structure of Hezbollah article
Hi,
There is discussion about the structure of Hezbollah article. Please read all of them and tell us your idea.--Sa.vakilian 03:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not sure what happend.
First time it said a minor edit when it was not(A sign of vandalism). 2nd time I'm not sure what happend I think it might of been a mistake with somthing elese.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] terrorist
is a subjective term. There is no generally accepted definition. Thus the quotation marks. Rm uk 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Hezbollah/Archive lead
Hi. Thank you for this effort.
I want to know you move the text to this archive or copy it.--Sa.vakilian 04:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer to copy the text because we need a chronological archive too.--Sa.vakilian 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of Terrorist category
I agree that this category should not exist, but I am concerned about the reverting happening on the Baruch Goldstein article. I saw you have tried to get the category deleted before but was unable to reach consensus and that is a shame.
There is no official policy on Wikipedia that states to avoid the word Terrorist. There is Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which is a guide... And it argues both for and against the use of said word! What it does state is that the word should be used in a manner that describes who is calling them what. Is a notable organisation calling Baruch Goldstein a terrorist and are there reputable sources that backs that up? If so, I believe the category should remain. mceder (u t c) 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree he is a terrorist. However, I think such a category creates a list of "Terrorists according to Wikipedia" which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Whether sources are provided is irrelevent in my opinion; a category of 'Accused terrorists' would be OK, but by adding someone to such a category as simply 'Terrorists' basically says Wikipedia agrees with the source, which it cannot do. Thus, while he is clearly a terrorist, there are lots of other people that belong on the list that are not there because some people object to their being labelled as a terrorist. So long as this subjectivity continues, it is not fair to label anyone as a terrorist 'according to Wikipedia.' —Aiden 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden
This WikiProject is now officially started. I suggest you first read the new scope and goals of the project. If you still agree, please sign att the members section.
