User talk:Soulpatch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please try to be neutral when contributing to the articles. I know you think Singer and Lomborg, et al., are wrong about environmental issues, but this is not an opinion board. Posting a one-sided smear by the DCSD made at best an unbalanced article -- and might even be a violation of NPOV. Just because they condemn him, doesn't mean they're right. Their report didn't even give any examples!

If you and I are going to work together on environmental issues, you can keep me honest by pointing out when I mess up. I often fail to provide sources for "facts", for example, or make sweeping statements. I will do the same for you, okay?

To Soulpatch... I am writing you directly only because someone in the discussion section on the New Testament article accused you of going throughout Wikipedia and changing all the "A.D." entries to "C.E.". If this is the case, I thought you may be interested in the entry that I posted a few lines below yours in the same conversation. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter as to why (I assume) you disagree with me on this position. My own sensitivities are with those who fear that a lot of history is being unnecessarily (or purposely) re-written, misunderstood, or washed over simply by others of a different viewpoint changing the language that we use to communicate. I look forward to your reply. BeakerK44 01:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral College

In case you aren't watching it, I replied to your comments in the Electoral College explaining why the Electoral College is a Representative Election, not a Minority Election. Kainaw 18:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/u/User_talk%7ESoulpatch_3165.html"