User talk:Urthogie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:28, 1 August 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User talk:Urthogie/archive/. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

TfD nomination of Template:Allegations of apartheid

Template:Allegations of apartheid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bleh999 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Wikipedia note" was a compromise reached after the July 10 TfD to take care of concerns about undue weight, an NPOV problem. Please join the discussion on the talk page about the draft to delineate any problems you have with the notice, and why the neutrality of the template is not compromised by its absence. Cheers, Gracenotes^T § 23:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which notice we're talking about. Do you have problems with 1. the notice about allegations of apartheid in nations other than those which have allegation of apartheid articles, or 2. the notice about centralized discussion? Gracenotes^T § 00:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

This is a message for all regulars at the “apartheid” AfD series. I believe there may have been a breakthrough. Please share your thoughts here. Thanks. --Targeman 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overbold

It might be not the right kind of articles to apply this policy; my bad. On the other hand, if nothing is made about them, they will remain in the pitiful state they're in now while we stone our heads against a wall. I suppose that's not what you want, as you wouldn't call the treatment of women in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia slender, would you? --Victor falk 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and disruption

Please cease violating our neutral point of view policy and deliberately causing disruption in relation to Segregation in Northern Ireland. These are blockable offences, and you are liable to find yourself being blocked if you continue. -- ChrisO 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, Why are you removing sourced material and refences from this article, stop edit warring and discuss changes in the article talk page.--padraig 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the edit dif in the article shows otherwise.--padraig 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

population History of Ancient Egypt

Greetings..I was just looking over the "Population History Of Ancient Egypt" and I see you have done many edits to that article in the past...well it appears that that another person named Taharqa has been adding and editing to that article as well. Anyways, It's an extremely Afrocentricly distorted article. Most of his sources come from two afrocentrics (neither of whom are geneticists) Diop and keita.

Anyways I'm rather new to wikipedia so I would like your help. No Egyptian Museum take Afrocentrism seriously and if Wikipedia (which has been getting bashed all over the news recently) is to be a quality reference this article cannot stay as it is.

THANKS .--Evil Greek

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :Well the edit dif in the article shows otherwise.--[[User:Padraig|padraig]] 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
+== population History of Ancient Egypt ==
+Greetings..I was just looking over the "Population History Of Ancient Egypt" and I see you have done many edits to that article in the past...well it appears that that another person named Taharqa has been adding and editing to that article as well. Anyways, It's an extremely Afrocentricly distorted article. Most of his sources come from two afrocentrics (neither of whom are geneticists) Diop and keita.
+Anyways I'm rather new to wikipedia so I would like your help. No Egyptian Museum take Afrocentrism seriously and if Wikipedia (which has been getting bashed all over the news recently) is to be a quality reference this article cannot stay as it is.
+THANKS .--[[User:Evil Greek|Evil Greek]]