User talk:Cleanemupnowboys
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] References
So, can I have a straight answer, which books and which papers on the subject have you read? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Answer on your talk page. Please reciprocate. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Most stuff I work on is blatantly tedious - I work on Australian geography and politics mostly. One does find interesting things though just by reading the offbeat section of the (regular) news then looking it up on Wikipedia. The exploding whale one came to my attention as an editor of my acquaintance was its major contributor. Orderinchaos 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPA issues response
Hi Cleanemupnowboys. I'm probably not the right person to ask what to do since I've just had a final warning posted on my talk page by an admin! When I've responded I've always regretted it (hence the warning). Probably the best policy right now for us is to only respond to polite and sincere comments and consider the less friendly bits or opinions to be whitespace. You're doing OK. Just hold on in there :-) Regards Bksimonb (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sandbox
Lucy, you just wrote on the BKWSU talk page that you responded about the sandbox. I missed that. Please give the dif or re-explain. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I will spell this out in detailed logical steps, one last time, in full expectation that you will go report it as another attack ... ho hum.
- The reason I asked you to justify, e.g.;
-
- the removal of 'The Three Worlds' section
- the removal of the improved formatting and
- the removal of the additional citations in the later edit
- was not to accusing you of the original edits but to honestly question why we are starting to work from the lesser version of the article?
- The honest truth is, you cannot justify why anyone would remove fixed formatting etc. The later version is improved on a functual (formatting) and informative (citations) basis and has both official and independent web links.
- You talk about "consensus" or democracy. I have documented how that so-called "consensus" consisted of the sockpuppets of an indefinitely banned user IPSOS and the BKs. IPSOS was responsible for many uninformed deletions and edit-warring before he was banned again. The BKs engage in their own policy of exclusion. That is not democracy, consensus nor how to make a good encyclopedia.
- So, I stated that there was no need for me to make a sandbox because my vote remained with the later version, at least as a starting point. Preferably, we split the article into small more specific ones. The version you immediately reverted on your reincarnation continued on an edit-war I take in trust is not yours ... but is misconceived on the basis that you probably did not know about IPSOS and the BKs' gaming.
- Now, I have expertise in this subject. Love me or not I am, by accident, one of the leading experts in this particular organization. I know/knew more about it than most of its followers and practical all of the other academics. That does not make me an "opposition party" but I do know what I am talking when it comes to the fundaments of this religion.
- Here are the two versions, [1].
- I propose that we start by reverting to the more complete and corrected version, [2].
- To start work from the revision you did does not make sense, given the corrections etc ... unless you can justify them, which you cant.
- I am sorry but one would have to be utterly naive to ignore all the jockeying and condone all that has gone on. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
