Michael C Price (talk | contribs) |
Loremaster (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
Instead of imposing your own POV into the article, discuss it and reach a consensus on the talk page first. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 01:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
Instead of imposing your own POV into the article, discuss it and reach a consensus on the talk page first. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 01:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Michael, I've repeatedly provided explanations for my revert edits in light of your vandalism. I have already explained to why the Lead does not need to mention your sourced inserts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is ridiculous of you to describe the deletion of these inserts as inserting original research. I've discussed all these issues on the Ebionites talk page and I've supported Ovadyah's position which is identical to my own. There is no consensus possible since you are using wikilawyering to impose your own POV into the article which I am trying to remove to preserve a neutral point of view. Period. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:33, 14 January 2007
The current time is 07:18, June 21, 2024 (UTC).
Previous discussions:
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:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
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 (| talk)
Priory of Sion
FYI, I did I little formatting on your fine Priory of Sion article, mostly in regards to section headings (per Dysprosia's comment) and numbering. I also did some work on the Rennes-le-Château and Bérenger Saunière articles, in case you're interested. Gwimpey 19:04, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Paul Smith hacked at Bérenger Saunière by completely replacing the text, then blanked my user page and told me I needed to do some more reading. Apparently, he didn't like the way I described the Priory hoax. I'm trying to incorporate his edits back into my article with some language improvements. You might want to keep an eye on all the Priory pages. Gwimpey 01:37, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
Templars
That was a great change you made to what I wrong on Knights Templar. I agree with it totally, thanks!
Wgfinley 16:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Templar Revelation
Since you've done such good work on Priory of Sion and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I thought I'd ask if you can add anything to the The Templar Revelation article. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would love to but I haven't read the book so I can't contribute much to the article. Loremaster 15:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neurotheology: Protoscience
Thank you for correcting this[1], protoscience is more correct. --AI 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Templar page
Thanks for the revisions Loremaster - that really cleaned up that page. I'll work on my re-write of the history in Jan, and post it on the talk page for approval. Like your quote, by the way - Sneakers, isn't it?DonaNobisPacem 23:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I look forward to reading your re-write. Oh yes that quote is from the film Sneakers. ;) Loremaster 00:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- User 166.66.16.116 is constantly trying POV editing on the page, and refuses to go to the talk page - is there anything to do, other than constantly revert? I mean, you should check out the history there! He's taken his editing to other pages as well, mostly with conspiracy theories and the like.....DonaNobisPacem 07:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if this user decides to undo all the work I have done, we would have to trigger the dispute procedure. However, since he seems to only focus on external links for now, we can let him be as long as the section isn't overwhelmed with Templar-Masonic links. Loremaster 21:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- So by the comments on the Templar page, it appears user 166.66.16.116 is really BlueTemplar13 - that's quite a rant against the Church he has going there! It doesn't have much to do with the article, it seems to be a bit more personal than that - I think I'm just going to let it go....DonaNobisPacem 06:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently I am not liked....User_talk:DonaNobisPacem#Templar.....which is really funny, considering I haven't been around to revert his edits lately! DonaNobisPacem 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I think our crusading BlueTemplar will be neutralized sooner rather than later. --Loremaster 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Transhumanism article
You're doing great work there. This article is getting better and better. Metamagician3000 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. So are you. Someone should work on the Human enhancement article. --Loremaster 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's already a useful article called Human genetic engineering, which you may have seen. I've done some work on it and think it is pretty good in its current form. It doesn't cover the entirety of what could be called "human enhancement" but it's doing some of the job. I don't have time now, but it would make sense to grab some of the material in that article as the core of a human enhancement article. It would be necessary to cross-link them and to explain that the expression "human enhancement" could cover a variety of technologies that could be used to increase human capacities - whether prosthetic, neurological, or whatever - as well as genetic technology. Metamagician3000 05:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I created a stub article for Human enhancement. --Loremaster 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I had seen the notice of Main Page status for Transhumanism as well. You should be quite gratified as the author with the most substantial contributions to the article.--StN 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I also want to congratulate and thank you (and others too, but as stated above you've been a central person) for your work on this and related articles. Well done! ...And sorry that i've wikifaded and not recognized you sooner. "alyosha" (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Democratic Transhumanism
Thank you for your corrections of my edits on Democratic Transhumanism. I actually agree with your assessment of the situation. See the talk page of that article for more. --Danaman5 23:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great job on the article, it looks great now. See the talk there for more. --Danaman5 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
talk page slog out & apologies
Hi, now that I've regained my senses I realize I ve been a bit of an asshole on the Transhumanist talk page. I hope you will accept my apologies for being less than cordial.--Isolani 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies accepted. --Loremaster 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Priory help?
Hey bro,
I just wrote a note on the Priory of Sion talk page about an inconsistency in the article I was hoping you would know how to address. I can take a shot in the dark but would prefer a more informed ruling.
By the way, I really like the bit on your user page about being a world citizen. It rings true. Thanks and peace,
CaliforniaKid 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done and thank you. --Loremaster 16:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Biopunk movement
Thanks for the lead. I have now read the Newitz pieces, but it will take me a little time to decide how I would like to approach this.--StN 02:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Take your time. I know you will do a good job. ;) --Loremaster 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Revised and expanded your worthy article and would love to see what you make of it. Maybe if it is improved sufficently we can get it peer reviewed or as a featured article? Cheers, Fergananim 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great work. Since I am too busy working on other projects, I am happy to see someone improving it. --Loremaster 04:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Roboticist
Thanks for the save on the Frankenstein complex article ... I have GOT to stop searching for just the plurals ... I'd left it that way hoping someone would add an article, but I guess I was just lazy and didn't search hard enough. :-)
Good work on Citizen Cyborg
(-: Procrastinating@talk2me 10:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
My edit of GATTACA was the first I have made in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how I dropped the link on the word "invalid," but I'm glad you caught it and repaired it.
-Leo
See also
See also are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and see also, which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Piotrus. --Loremaster 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ebionite 3RR warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Loremaster, you have repeatedly reverted sourced inserts, and inserted your own original research by making arguments from primary sources that are not supported by the secondary sources. Please stop. You have already made reverts: [2] [3] [4]
Instead of imposing your own POV into the article, discuss it and reach a consensus on the talk page first. --Michael C. Price talk 01:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Michael, I've repeatedly provided explanations for my revert edits in light of your vandalism. I have already explained to why the Lead does not need to mention your sourced inserts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is ridiculous of you to describe the deletion of these inserts as inserting original research. I've discussed all these issues on the Ebionites talk page and I've supported Ovadyah's position which is identical to my own. There is no consensus possible since you are using wikilawyering to impose your own POV into the article which I am trying to remove to preserve a neutral point of view. Period. --Loremaster 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)