User talk:SpacemanAfrica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frog won![edit]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Frog was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Dijxtra 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AID[edit]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Contact lens was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Roma people was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…
Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Latin America was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Joyous | Talk 18:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner[edit]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rosetta Stone was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

In your chat room vandalism revert you also reverted a post vandalism good edit ie the addition of "*Perverted-Justice exposes online pedophiles". Please take more care in future. We who didnt spot the vandalism should too buit this was an important edit you reverted. Cheers, SqueakBox 03:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpacemanAfrica. In this edit you removed a sentence that pointed out the moral theory behind a particular objection to pacifism with the comment "No it doesn't. Many wouldn't consider killing an aggressor a "necessary evil" because they wouldn't consider it evil at all." But neither the Pacifism article, nor the Consequentialism article it linked to use the idea of "necessary evil". I think you may have mis-read the paragraph. In this instance the argument against pacifism isn't that killing aggressors isn't evil, the argument is that not killing the aggressor will result in more overall violence. That's very much a consequentialism argument. It's not the only argument against pacifism, but it's a correct notation of at least one moral theory used for this particular argument against it. -- SiobhanHansa 01:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]