Jump to content

User talk:Moeron: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Regarding baron.
Your deletion on my links
Line 111: Line 111:


[[User:75.3.114.228|75.3.114.228]] 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Hero
[[User:75.3.114.228|75.3.114.228]] 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Hero

== Your deletion on my links ==

I want to tell you the links I proposed are well-researched, very thorough, contains no hate and would be an asset to Wikipedia. My question: did you read them before removing? Try that short one: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html , an introduction for my many pages. Note: that site has been posted as a link, for a long time (please don't remove it!) on Wikipedia pages about 'historical Jesus', 'historicity of Jesus' and 'Jesus myth'.
Maybe I am not a registered scholar, but I thought Wikipedia was not all about propagating the work of professionals.
I consider myself more of a critical & investigative amateur historian, with burning (but not blinding) passion about the history of very early Christianity. And my approach (and background) should be commanded in a field "controlled" by many scholars (most of them on a payroll) with very different opinions & theories (which would prove that scholarly works, in this specific field, may be the problem, not the solution).
I must admit I am very annoyed when my pages are rejected, mainly because some existing links are of bad quality, very biased or totally irrelevant (Check the last link on the 'Ignatius of Antioch' page --'Ignatius of Nerdtreehouse'). (BTW, I would love to attract your attention on these bad links, after reviewing them, of course).
I did participate about one year ago into editing the 'Jesus' page. But that was very discouraging, with my work being often chopped down by evangelical Christians, even after some very long discussions. Doing so, I declared my own name (as I do on my website, with my personal email) and I had my own Wikipedia ID (which I forgot).
I hope to be in contact with you.
Please note I can have my sites posted by someone else (in compliance with Wikipedia policy) and my webpages are ad-free.
Bernard Muller, mullerb@shaw.ca

Revision as of 01:54, 20 October 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Moeron/Archive 3. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

WARNING!
Your comments MAY wind up deleted if:
- You do not sign your comments
- You leave unclear comments
- Make disparaging remarks

(Unless they are comical, then they may stay)


Archive
Archives
  1. February - June 2006
  2. July - August 2006
  3. September 2006 -


Excuse me.

My IP address may be identical to someone else's, or you may have typed it in wrong, because I have not ever looked up much less edited "Apartment Derangement". Can you look into this further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.88.242 (talkcontribs)


WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Aguerriero (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moeron, I just had an edit I did to the Crank Film page reverted. The information I added was correct and as far as I can tell shouldn't have been reverted. Did I make some sort of mistake?

Thanks -- 70.24.154.235 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange rejection

If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- moe.RON

I added this to the "Love and War" page. It's an unique and serious project in many ways. For some reason it got rejected. / Tomas

I reverted the edit because there was a link to an off-site webpage in a disambugation page. As long as you keep the link out, it would fine for you to add "Love and War", a 2006 short film by Fredrik Emilson. (noticed I also removed the "probably" part, since that is speculation and implies something that is not verifiable). -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Revert

I don't feel my edit[1] was a test, as you labeled it, nor do I feel your warning was justifiable. The template you used is for obvious vandalism/tests; my edit was a neutral statement with a reference. The correct course of action on your part would have been to discuss your problem with my addition on the article's talk page. - 81.178.102.118 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was reverted because forums are not a reliable source due to original research. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing policies, original research isn't the same as unreliable sources, but you have a point (the practicalities of editing esoteric or popular culture articles means that often what are generally considered unreliable sources are given exception, see: WP:IAR). In any case this doesn't excuse your inappropriate use of vandalism templates, or deletion of the statement (especially considering there's another statement in the same paragraph without any reference.) Overzealous vandalism patrolling isn't the best way to attempt to become an admin, in my opinion, but that doesn't seem to prevent a vast swathe of relatively recent editors from doing it. Sigh. - 81.178.102.118 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I've changed the reference. - 81.178.102.118 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want you know that I never considered you a vandal, but perhaps a Wikipedian newbie. When this the case, I will use the template:test1 warning, which does not make mention of a vandal, and hopefully directs people in the right direction. For people who ARE vandals, there are other warnings I will use. I just don't want you thinking that my revision of your edit makes me think you are a vandal. =)
As for the sources ... I like the first one, but I am still bothered by the forums link, re: Wikipedia:No original research. However, it gets tricky when you possibly consider it under the sixth point of Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F. Due to this ambuiguity, I humbly ask if you would consider removing the forum source and leaving the other to stand for itself. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"but perhaps a Wikipedian newbie." I've been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2003. - 81.178.102.118 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say that is how I view most IPs when assessing vandalism.. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. To be fair, I suppose that's probably an accurate assumption for the most part. - 81.178.102.118 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article "Test"

Hello,

there's a typo in your disambiguation page "Test". The bullet "Stiftung Wahrentest Test" is supposed to be "Stiftung Warentest" (without h). The same typo reoccurs in the WikiLink at the beginning of that bullet.

Cheers Klaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.18.134 (talkcontribs)

I see that you are correct and that my reversion of your edit was in error. I apologize and will remove the template:test1 from your talk page. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coil Live

dont know what the problem is, i plan on basing it off of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerine_Tree i just started on it so i plan on expanding the text into a full article, as well as a comprehensive concert list. AlexOvShaolin 21:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with you "expanding the text into a full article" but when it comes to a "comprehensive concert list", based on WP:NOT and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is generally frowned upon. I will gladly removed the template:prod when you are satified with your edits to this being a complete article. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't subst speedy templates

Please don't subst db-bio and other speedy deletion templates; it makes it slightly more annoying to delete the articles (since the log won't have the self-explanatory "content was: '{{db-bio}}"...' preloaded); it makes it more difficult to remove the template from a non-speedyable article; and some, like db-bio, don't show up properly when substed. —Cryptic 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding baron.

Firstly, I didn't write anything; the information posted came DIRECTLY FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE, which, I'm sure you noticed, was also added to the page.

Methinks that the reason you consider it to be garbage is because it deals with an openly gay African-American man. Check yourself, love, before you judge others.

75.3.114.228 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Hero[reply]

I want to tell you the links I proposed are well-researched, very thorough, contains no hate and would be an asset to Wikipedia. My question: did you read them before removing? Try that short one: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html , an introduction for my many pages. Note: that site has been posted as a link, for a long time (please don't remove it!) on Wikipedia pages about 'historical Jesus', 'historicity of Jesus' and 'Jesus myth'. Maybe I am not a registered scholar, but I thought Wikipedia was not all about propagating the work of professionals. I consider myself more of a critical & investigative amateur historian, with burning (but not blinding) passion about the history of very early Christianity. And my approach (and background) should be commanded in a field "controlled" by many scholars (most of them on a payroll) with very different opinions & theories (which would prove that scholarly works, in this specific field, may be the problem, not the solution). I must admit I am very annoyed when my pages are rejected, mainly because some existing links are of bad quality, very biased or totally irrelevant (Check the last link on the 'Ignatius of Antioch' page --'Ignatius of Nerdtreehouse'). (BTW, I would love to attract your attention on these bad links, after reviewing them, of course). I did participate about one year ago into editing the 'Jesus' page. But that was very discouraging, with my work being often chopped down by evangelical Christians, even after some very long discussions. Doing so, I declared my own name (as I do on my website, with my personal email) and I had my own Wikipedia ID (which I forgot). I hope to be in contact with you. Please note I can have my sites posted by someone else (in compliance with Wikipedia policy) and my webpages are ad-free. Bernard Muller, mullerb@shaw.ca