User talk:SWik78
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| November 2007 - March 2008 April 2008 - May 2008 |
Contents |
[edit] Archiving checkuser cases
If you're going to archive checkuser cases, you need to remove the case transclusion from the RFCU page [1] and add the results to the archive page [2]. Thanks. Thatcher 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure I do that in the future. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Markku Peltola
You may not even remember this as it was a little while back, but in this edit you removed a Wikinews link. I think you may have done it by accident, but if not please be aware that Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Guidelines reads "Wikipedia encourages links to sister projects... when possible. I'm sure you meant no harm, just thought Id mention it. Cheers, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Yeah, I see that I did remove it but it must have been just a dumb mistake while adding the infobox.
- Thanks for the heads up. Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sure, man. I thought so but as many people don't realise and try to wrongly apply WP:EL I thought I'd make sure. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFA Thanks
Hey, just wanted to thank you for participating in my recent RFA. Yes, I will dabble in a little of everything...as soon as I get all this thank spam out! ;> (templated spam left below). also, your comments are welcome at my in-depth RFA analysis. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article to be deleted
HELP. Can you help me SAY KEEP in id.wiki, because this article to be deleted? Thanks. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My Rfa
|
[edit] I MADE U A ANSER BUT i EATED IT
O HAI delldot talk 06:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Still not that great at the whole responding + archiving thing, but here's a diff for you. delldot talk 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of "neutrality disputed" tag.
This marks the third time you've reverted the "neutrality disputed" tag from Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. As explained earlier, there is a dispute going on between you and I as to whether or not the article is neutral. You might not agree with me and I might the only one bringing this up right now, but we have not yet reached a consensus.
I'm not interested in an edit war with you so I'm not reverting it back, but I'd appreciate it if you put the tag back up yourself. You and I are both reasonable people who can settle this dispute without appealing to mediation or administrative intervention. I'd like to propose a truce: you put up the tag for three days, while I wait for more feedback at WP:V. By then, if there's still no one at WP:V who agrees with me, I will do the following:
- I will assume that the rough consensus is against me for whether or not we can rely on those two sources, and admit that we can keep them generally as is,
- I will take down the general POV tag on the top of the page, and
- I will stick to inline POV tags for whatever wording issues I disagree with.
We both want to make the article better, and I think the best way to go about this is by cooperating. --Explodicle (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- From the way you've carried yourself so far in this discussion and from all of your writings, I gather nothing less than that you are reasonable and intelligent and, if I will be involved in a dispute, I would always prefer it to be with someone like you
- However, I have an issue with what you're trying to do here and, in my opinion, it amounts to fishing. So far, you've claimed lack of verifibility, lack of reliable sources, lack of third party sources, non-neutrality and original research as reasons to either tag this article as problematic/disputed as well as, Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation, the other article in question. You started several discussions and asked for outside opinions, for which I do very much commend you, but none of them have returned any opinions that would suggest that either of these articles is suffering from any one of those above mentioned problems. In addition, there have been several instances where, not only did you clearly misinterpret policies and guidelines, but you also misconstrued the actual purpose of the article itself. Given all that, plus the fact that the two articles have been in steady development for some time (which would imply at least some sort of a standing consensus) as well as the fact that you are yet to find another editor who agrees with you that there are (not that there may be) problems with this article from any one of the standpoints you're taking, I would conclude that you are giving undue weight to your own opinion when you insist that these issues do exist.
- Further to what you said earlier, you should be able to conclude that a rough consensus does exist against your viewpoint and, considering the age of the article and the second and third opinions you've been given compared to the length of your involvement and the lack of support for your view, the burden of proof is on you, not on the rest of the community that is discussing this with you. If you are the only person that disagrees with something in the article, you really need to show us why your viewpoint is significant enough the render the article disputed. You have yet to do that and, based on everything that transpired so far in this dispute, I strongly disagree that this article is problematic even though it could use some improvement but, then again, that can be said of every article in this project.
- Anyways, I disagree with the tag being placed there because there isn't a clear purpose behind it that would bring about an improvement. I will keep discussing this with you and I welcome any outside opinions, even if they differ my own, but I don't quite understand the reason for possible administrative involvement. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
