Hariton Pushwagner is not a big pop art artist. He is big only in Norway. He should not be on this Page. Yes this disturbing that you or the person behind this page not have any control. I was only edited this page from that, but you or the person behind this page put it back. Can you please answer why this artist should be on this page? ISueco (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Contents
Hi
Hi I'm wondering why you took down my listing of current artist-run centres from the Canadian Artist Run Centre entry. This is a list of present artist run centres that are part of the artist-run network. Can you please send me back my source material?
I'm improving upon this entry to make the details about these centres more complete. When you send me back the source materials you deleted, I will put it into my sandbox and improve the citations and materials before I publish it. I am a new wikipedia editor, so it would be helpful to have a better dialogue before simple deletions. ACOLL011 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've explained it to you in two edit summaries, plus on your talk page. External links do not go into the main body of the article. Lists made up of subjects without articles are pointless and a list of ARCs is unmanageable, as a list like that would constantly be out of date -- this is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Your source material is available anytime -- look in the article history and click on one of your edits. freshacconci talk to me 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Revert of my Nordic Model edits
Hi Freshacconi! I have no idea if you live in the United States, but in the USA the Nordic Model is a hotly contested subject, where as in Europe it is seen as the ultimate system by many. By frequently referencing capitalist ideals as component to the Nordic model, the article is skewed to be more appealing to those with economically-conservative leanings. Also, the wording which I used was in no way "weasel words", and my sources were adequate, though next time I will be more careful. I will have the article reverted, with some additional edits to make sure that it is acceptable. The liberal bias on Wikipedia is undeniable, and I am trying to make it a more neutral site.
WwiikkiiPEDIA (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)WwiikkiiPEDIA
Trudeau
I did not add commentary, as you accused me of. I restructured a sentence to be more neutral an added another quote from a citation (the Maclean's article) already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.176.1 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're hardly making it neutral, you're interpreting the source to push your own agenda. The legacy section of the article deals with criticism of Trudeau. Stating that some historians, plural, call him overrated is flat-out wrong based on the source. It's only one (the other one is a doctoral student, which shows how difficult it was for MacLeans to find historians to agree with that). You have a specific POV to push and you are editing in a disruptive manner. Make your case on the talk page or walk away. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for you. freshacconci talk to me 18:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel that's a very strong and aggressive response, for an alleged and fairly innocent mistake. That's how you scare away would-be Wikipedians -- what happened to "be nice to the newbies"? On first reading I found the original Wikipedia sentence biased, compare to the quotes in that Maclean's article. I didn't know one couldn't count doctoral students (so dismissing all the great minds who never had PhDs?) Perhaps you should have led with your argument, instead of just reverting my change and accusing me of having an agenda -- I have none -- or vandalizing. I also noticed that the Maclean's article never referred to him as "father of modern Canada", so I removed it. Can't be pushing a specific POV. I hope you treat the next "flat-out wrong" edit with some more grace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.82.208 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Eugene Levy edit
My edit was not poorly referenced. My sister went to the same school and graduated with Eugene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.12.20 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's the very definition of poorly referenced. We're supposed to take your word for it? See WP:RS and WP:V. freshacconci talk to me 21:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Work of art essay listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Work of art essay. Since you had some involvement with the Work of art essay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Revert
Hi, am I to know the reason for your reversion of my edit here? ツ FrB.TG (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Reversed my edits
You have reversed my edits twice about a notable Pakistani. I cannot seem to identify anything that is not properly sourced (in some instances I feel there are a bit too many references). The tone is also matter of fact, without making a positive or negative judgement. Please identify or remove language that you find unacceptable or let me remove the tag as I cannot improve the article further. 221.120.215.138 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Zehra Khan
- If you cannot improve the article further then you shouldn't be editing the article. There are many problems with the article and your edits do not address all the issues. Feel free to make the changes you did but do not remove the templates as these are meant for other editors who may be able to edit further. freshacconci talk to me 18:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please highlight the problems? I really want to help, but you'd have to be more specific.221.120.215.138 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)ZK