User talk:FT in Leeds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits

FT, you keep on adding this article about the Panchen Lama to completely unrelated articles like Himalaya. What do the mountains have to do with the Panchen Lama? Did you write the article or something? If that is true, what you're doing is considered self-promotion. --Hottentot

But why are you reverting it in ALL articles? Don't you think that's kind of rude??--FT in Leeds 00:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
What you're doing is adding the link to almost every Tibet-related article. Also, the article is very one-sided. --Hottentot
Ok, but you may only add the article to the 3 articles related to the Panchen Lama. That's all. Also, use a different title for the link to the article. --Hottentot
I can add the article to all of them. Why do you get to decide which article!?--FT in Leeds 00:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, you may add it to any article you like, but I'll revert every time. --Hottentot
Isn't that considered vandalism?--FT in Leeds 01:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
No, because I'm removing something that shouldn't be there. --Hottentot
At least I don't create accounts solely to add one external link. --Hottentot
You're actually wrong. I have your point of view and think it's rediculous that the Chinese appointed their own Panchen Lama, but I respect Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy. --Hottentot

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Not taking sides, but this is a content dispute. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding links

Please do not add links unless they are relevant to the specific content of the article to which you are adding them. Adding meaningless external links is considered vandalism and is frowned upon. Please stop. Thank you. —chris.lawson (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

mean'·ing·less adj. Having no meaning or significance. Your link is not relevant to every single article about Tibet. At best, as Hottentot pointed out, it is relevant to the Panchen Lama, and only the Panchen Lama. Furthermore, the manner in which you are referencing the link is in violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. Please do not attempt to add this link to any more articles unless they directly concern the Panchen Lama.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
See my comments above, and see Falphin's comment below. The link you insist upon adding is not related to the articles so please refrain from adding it.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
You're not listening. The article talks about one specific individual who is the Panchen Lama. It does not discuss the present Dalai Lama. It does not relate to past Dalai Lamas, nor does it relate to past Panchen Lamas. It does not relate directly to Tibet. Furthermore, you are using Wikipedia as a propaganda machine, which is something Wikipedia is not. Please read and understand this page as well as neutral point of view before posting further links. Thank you. —chris.lawson (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I am "bugging you so much," as you so kindly put it, because I care about ensuring that Wikipedia retains its high standards of content. I care about Wikipedia's having the highest possible article quality. I care about neutral point of view.
You, unfortunately, do not seem to share these goals. Fortunately, there are many administrators on Wikipedia, and sooner or later, one of them will tire of your vandalism and block you from editing. To that end...

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Adding a link is indeed not vandalism.

Adding the link you keep adding to articles in which it is out of place, in a POV manner, is vandalism. Stop it. —chris.lawson (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not neutral

It is only one perspective not both sides and to maintain NPOV both sides should be shown. Secondly, Hottentot is no vandal look at his edits he simply reverted yours, thats not uncommon although he should of explained his reasoning. Finally, the link does not belong there now because it is unrelated to anything in the article or in the external links. When that information is added then it is relevant. Cheers! Falphin 02:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

It is official Wikipedia policy to take a neutral point of view. Whether or not the link is relevant -- and it is not relevant to every single lama article, as you seem to think it is -- it is of the utmost importance that you conform to neutral point of view when editing articles.

The manner in which you continue to add this link is in violation of this policy. Please desist from editing Wikipedia until you have read and understand neutral point of view. Thank you. —chris.lawson (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing a point of view from an article that discusses both sides of an issue necessarily causes the article to be slanted toward one viewpoint, in violation of neutral point of view policy. Please do not remove balanced discussion of disputed viewpoints from articles.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I will gladly be more specific. The section headers you just changed on Tsangyang Gyatso, 6th Dalai Lama were changed contrary to the Manual of Style and you deliberately inserted a character in the BBC external link on the same page so as to make it 404.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penis pictures?

Uhm...

Where?—chris.lawson (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

There were some a few minutes ago. I was going to complain about them myself, but they disappeared. Probably someone vandalising one of the templates.--130.95.128.51 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Looking at some of your edits I think you may have misunderstood the NPOV policy. Including one sides POV does not violate the policy if we state that this is a certain groups POV. Also I do not think that including the Chinese word of Tibet violates the policy. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)