User talk:Earthliberator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use NaodW29-nowiki623d80cd2b57494a00000001 (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type NaodW29-nowiki623d80cd2b57494a00000002 (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the test area.
- You can get help at the Help Desk
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log.
-- Utcursch | Talk to me
[edit] 2004
There really is no sensible way to question that the page is disputed. As I keep saying, it is a simple matter of language. Astrotrain is presently arguing that it should not be disputed; but is incapable of registering that it factually is disputed. I would go further, and claim that it is obvious that the page is biased, not neutral, and should be disputed. Nothing will avail to persuade Astrotrain of that. Curiously, I tagged the article originally to avoid a brewing edit war. Astrotrain and I were reverting each other, and rather than persist with that, I simply tagged the article and let Astrotrain have his/her way. Now Astrotrain wants to remove the tag as well; apparently I am not allowed to have an opinion on the page at all. Others have entered the fray, and while there have been other disputes among the other editors, the bulk of editors have likewise concluded that Astrotrain’s choices of what to include and exclude are biased. Astrotrain simply does not get it. I originally found the encyclopedia a wonderful resource. Now I find it a flawed resource, and a frustrating project, because I have no choice about which editors to work with. I imagine you will quickly get as discouraged as I am. I spend entirely too much time arguing with those of closed and narrow minds. Still, there are some splendid things about the encyclopedia, so I am not giving up just yet.
— Ford 21:38, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC) .
[edit] Grammar
Hi, you have recently made a small correction to Kinnaur. Have you read this article through?. If not, and since you say that you have a keen interest in grammar, maybe you should. If you are not put off by the amount of work that is to be done there with respect to the syntax, spelling, typos and stuff, your help would be very useful. However beware! the author of this article (User:Mr_Tan) can be really "difficult" (see Talk:Zanskar). For a short overview of what is wrong with the article, see Talk:Kinnaur (last entry).
Moumine 23:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Eva Braiman
Eva Braiman has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this person might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.
If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" template, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but if an editor is still not satisfied that it meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
