→Mairéad Farrell: references |
Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk | contribs) →Mairéad Farrell: silly comment, removed. I don't take comments from hypocrites seriously. |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
== [[Australia]] warning == |
== [[Australia]] warning == |
||
Good morning Biofoundationsoflanguage. I have reverted your adjustment to the Australia page with regards the national anthem. I have done this because after considerable discussion between numerous editors it was agreed by consensus that the information regarding Australia's National Anthem was to be added as a footnote. Readers therefore gain information about this ceremonial anthem by clicking on the footnote link where it is explained in full. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing personal views - thus the importance of consensus in matters of content, style, references etc sometimes gains specific importance. In this case, the style of the page has been agreed to and you should not again adjust that consensus - without first attempting to gain a new consensus on the issue. Please continue to enjoy your editing. Best wishes. --[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
Good morning Biofoundationsoflanguage. I have reverted your adjustment to the Australia page with regards the national anthem. I have done this because after considerable discussion between numerous editors it was agreed by consensus that the information regarding Australia's National Anthem was to be added as a footnote. Readers therefore gain information about this ceremonial anthem by clicking on the footnote link where it is explained in full. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing personal views - thus the importance of consensus in matters of content, style, references etc sometimes gains specific importance. In this case, the style of the page has been agreed to and you should not again adjust that consensus - without first attempting to gain a new consensus on the issue. Please continue to enjoy your editing. Best wishes. --[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Mairéad Farrell == |
|||
[[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]] We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to [[Mairéad Farrell]] are considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be '''[[Wikipedia:blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. <!-- Template:Blatantvandal (serious warning) -->--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You can explain why you keep removing the POW tag from this article can’t you. Like a clear rational statement. Backed up with the appropriate references or citations of course. Thanks in advance --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 10:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:56, 12 July 2007
No mud slinging! |
I've got to the stage in my life where I no longer care what daft people think. |
Welcome!
Hello, Biofoundationsoflanguage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Xiner (talk, email) 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey i hope so too, the thing is in SL people think that independences was granted in 1948 and that was the end of the story. No one refers to the day SL became a republic and many dont even know the meaning of the word republic, its very sad. I wont be the least be surprised if some one removes the date. Nitraven 22:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Tense
Hello. If you care to check, you will see that John actually tried to correct the tense to change it into the past tense[1]. Please do not portray my edits as unconstructive. You should assume good faith. Thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, for someone who admits himself that "My English is quite poor", I'm surprised you have such a strong view on this. I for one do not believe that my English is poor. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm a poor typer. BTW - if you sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ it puts in your signature and date automatically. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Typer → typist. Regards, Chris Buttigieg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Funny, I hadn't heard of that. :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Typer → typist. Regards, Chris Buttigieg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm a poor typer. BTW - if you sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ it puts in your signature and date automatically. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Terrorist
Stop adding the term terrorist to the Gibraltar articel. it is against wiki policy and is a POV term. thank you.--Vintagekits 12:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concern. It says later on in the article that the European Court of Human Rights ruled it was a terrorist attack anyway. Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well this is wiki not the European Court of Human Rights and we abid by wiki rules. Additonally the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is also clearly outlined. regards.--Vintagekits 12:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, the point I'm making is that I won't pursue readding 'terrorist' because it says so later on in mentioning a ruling by the European Court. :) Biofoundationsoflanguage 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well this is wiki not the European Court of Human Rights and we abid by wiki rules. Additonally the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is also clearly outlined. regards.--Vintagekits 12:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your insertion of the NPOV tag on the above article. Can you address this issue or I will remove the tag. regards.--Vintagekits 12:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I removed the tag for now as I think the discussion on the talk page is still progressing. In general the best way to adjust the POV of an article is to find and add well-sourced material. Let me know if I can be any further help. --John 14:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're not doing yourself justice. If you can find any references which are more neutral I think the article would benefit from them. --John 01:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Edits
Can you explaine this [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=143927505&oldid=143913617 this edit] he made please? Firstly, dead reference links shouldn't be removed. Secondly, that is not neutral editing. After removing the dead reference, a "fact" tag has been placed on the part about them being unarmed and trying to surrender. However the parts about, for example, the Semtex being found in a car Farrell has keys for hasn't had an "fact" tag added. Surely if he's going to remove references everything that was references needs a "fact" tag adding, not just picking and choosing parts? That is not neutral and fair editing in my opinion.--Domer48 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Australia warning
Good morning Biofoundationsoflanguage. I have reverted your adjustment to the Australia page with regards the national anthem. I have done this because after considerable discussion between numerous editors it was agreed by consensus that the information regarding Australia's National Anthem was to be added as a footnote. Readers therefore gain information about this ceremonial anthem by clicking on the footnote link where it is explained in full. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing personal views - thus the importance of consensus in matters of content, style, references etc sometimes gains specific importance. In this case, the style of the page has been agreed to and you should not again adjust that consensus - without first attempting to gain a new consensus on the issue. Please continue to enjoy your editing. Best wishes. --VS talk 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)