User talk:Wisq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Link: Cold War → Sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War
I am not ignoring the VfD process. Even if that article were to survive, it would not belong in the list of related articles in Cold War, which is a list of only the most important, broad related entries. It is not a list of any Cold War-related topic. If it were, the list would be longer than the entire article. Please remove the link. 172 15:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Each of the other articles listed in that section is a list of historical events that helped form and shape the Cold War. Similarly, the article in question, dubious as it may be, is a list of points where (according to the authors) the Cold War nearly broke into worldwide nuclear destruction. It's fairly related, I believe.
- That being said, I actually agree with you to some degree. I don't know enough about the Cold War to say how believable or dubious the information is, but regardless, we should not be including controversial or suppositional (e.g. nuclear threat "implied") data based on only a single anti-nuclear biased reference. I would prefer that the list be substantiated or properly "NPOV debated" (all sides presented), but that seems unlikely, so I am marginally in favour of deletion or merging into the relevant "group" related page (either Veterans Against Nuclear Arms or David R. Morgan), rather than Cold War related page.
- In the case of delete or merge, I would also advocate removing the link, and I'm sure most everyone else would agree. I was simply concerned because I had been watching an edit war going on for a while, largely between only two people. My third (non-expert) opinion was that we should let VfD take its course, erring on the side of inclusion for now, and take appropriate action when an outcome is decided upon. I made that clear through my edits.
- I know some of my edit summaries have probably come off a little harsh, but I guess that's because I was a little annoyed at all the back and forth editing, and also had limited space to make my objections clear. I do feel that the community needs to have its say and then action be taken, rather than the other way around — since in the end, the community is the deciding force in the matter, individual efforts notwithstanding. -- Wisq 21:01, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
[edit] Keep a (special) watch on Monty Hall problem and talk page?
69.180.7.137 (talk • contribs) has been vandalizing the talk page and looks like he's likely to violate the 3RR on the article itself (he's already been warned about it.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] help clean up former "problems" section of terrorism.
of course the heading "problems" had been pretty unhelpful, but my new revisions could use a good second opinion, especially a bit of copyediting. care to land a hend? terrorism (first section).
thanks!
87.97.36.84 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oops
Sorry message on wrong page - I've deleted it now. (should be User:Ashton Brood) see talk page history for details. sorry.HappyVR 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of romaji
If you read all of the discussion on the PS3 page before you commented, maybe you would have noticed I referenced the Japanese article on "Latin alphabet", one of it's names is romaji. I must confess I find it slightly irritating when people with little to no knowledge of the language write dead sure comments about what they think is the correct definition. Mackan 13:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
