Jump to content

User talk:209.6.238.201

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woodnot (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 4 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (209.6.238.201) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Earlypsychosis (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Earlypsychosis (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I find this amusing. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do I !! Please assume good faith. I thought you first couple of edits were vandalism but by the time I discovered that they werent, my access to huggle crashed. sorry. Earlypsychosis (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
time to have a break and return to the real world! Cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

I'll try to look at Operation Defensive Shield too. It seems to be suffering from the same problems Battle of Jenin is. The focus on suicide bombings and the lack of a focus on Palestinian deaths, injuries, etc., sustained by the occupation in the background sections is very POV (Israel's that is). Thanks for bringing my attention to that and happy editing. Tiamuttalk 08:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, while it is common courtesy for those who open such a thread to notify you, Jaakobou seems to have forgotten to do that this time. Your edits are being discussed at WP:ANI here. You do not have to participate in the discussion yourself, but I thought you would like to know that such a thing was happening. Cheers. Tiamuttalk 09:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence re: your earlier message. And re:WP:PRESERVE, I agree with you. And when others revert sourced material, they shouldn't stonewall their way through negotiations over it. I've looked into the history of that page and no one answered the first IP's requests for discussion when it first erased in User:Tewfik's edits in October of 2007. I think the way it was handled early on was gross. Two parties just edit-warred their preferred version into existence and whenever anyone tried to restore parts of what was there before that, they were thwarted. Its erasure really does amount to vandalism, but because at Israel-Palestine articles, everyone shies away from addressing the content, it won't be treated that way. Looking at what has been kept out via revert makes clear the POV of those leading the effort. Its totally unbalanced and unfair, in every way. But I'm optimistic now that with extra eyes on the article and with the cool off period, we might begin to make some headway. That is, if people genuinely discuss and add things sentence by sentence, piece by piece to what is there. Tiamuttalk 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You recently suggested some changes to Van Jones

I urge you to make the changes yourself! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold_in_editing_articles

Reliefappearance (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, 209.6.238.201. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:AFC Submission.

I saw that you put "This article is my baby" in your edit summary, thus I would suggest reading WP:OWN. Happy editing SparksBoy (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, it's not in mainspace. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewing process can sometimes take days. We on IRC discuss the articles, and I feel the discussion is done, and will be publishing/moving it to the main space in a moment. SparksBoy (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and the article was created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! SparksBoy (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to the edit policy

I have reverted your change to the Edit Policy. You don't have consensus for that change, and I would like to ask you to find that consensus first on the talkpage. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you are here

While you are here, recently you were in an edit war with User:Jaakobou and some others. May I ask you, even if you strongly disagree, are totally right, &c. &c., but nonetheless you get repeatedly reverted, that you let it be for a moment, and that you discuss on a talkpage. However right you were (and I have not examined the content, but I have only looked at the edits), your behaviour there was totally out of line. Please choose the way of discussing and convincing editors next time. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Please review the WP:PRESERVE policy. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be nonsense, but I do have concerns, and I would like you to review Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions. I have given several editors the advice to discuss if multiple editors show concerns over a certain edit, and that is why I also ask you to do that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you find that an editor is vandalising your edits, I would like to suggest you to inform the editor in question, and ultimately, to report the editor to WP:AIV. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV problems, Soapbox-ing at Death panel

You have edited the page Death panel in a way that misrepresents the origin of the term "Death panel" and provides a misleading summary of an article by Nangia and Wilson in Foreign Policy. I think this is a violation of WP:SOAP. I am calling on you and the other contributors to the page to revisit this issue and either come to a consensus on the proper content, or propose it for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit summary at Death panel refers to one of my edits, when you write: "reverting vandalism again; please don't make have to report this behavior to WP:AIV."
First, please note that a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Tossing around the term "vandalism" to mean "any edit with which I disagree" is widely considered the mark of a POV warrior, and will diminish whatever credibility you might have. Second, if you would like to take this to WP:AIV, then I encourage you to do so. I would welcome a discussion in that forum of my conduct -- and yours. JamesMLane t c 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC/R

I have made the redirect you requested at WP:AFC. Thanks, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page List of panels making life or death decisions has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Leuko (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing the page by rolling back the warning given to User:Leuko. It was a good faith revert due to many patrolers user pages being slapped with the same warning templetes they leave on an IPs talk page. I have just seen that he has been given rollback today and may be in either an edit or revert war with you. Both of which are not good. I'll go ahead and retract my warning as It appears you do not have a history of causing disruptive edits. Sorry for any inconvience ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


List of panels making life or death decisions

I agree that Foreign Policy is a reliable source, and it does in fact group the health care and death penalty issues together, but our article is very different from the content of that magazine article. The FP article is a good reference for the section in the sarah palin policy article, showing the public discussion of this idea, but i still believe that our article under discussion is too POV and OR. But i do apologize, i did NOT check the refs first, which was unprofessional and unfair. mea culpa, and I hope it doesnt show unwarranted bias on my part. thanks for your feedback.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished how people can argue opposite viewpoints (RS v OR) or read into articles things that are not there (i.e, political diatribe against Sarah Palin). I'm convinced that most who participate in AfD vote for the sake of voting without deeply reading the articles and sources in question.
All is not lost.
Best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death panels, etc.

Hello! Thanks for your message on my talk page. I agree with you that the topic you were getting at in that page is an important one and belongs somewhere. It is a challenge, however, to figure out (a) how to define the boundaries of the topic, and (b) how to present it in NPOV, due to the association with certain politics. I may be a bad choice because I have a very strong bias against western medicine, and I also have a bias against Palin's politics (and she is the driving force behind the term "death panels") so I would produce an oddly skewed view, although I'd certainly be interested in participating. Here is a compelling article that talks about the status of the "death panel" concept as a continuing topic of debate: [1]. That article describes another related term, Rationing#Health_care_rationing, for which there is already a section here on wikipedia. In a sense, I think this issue is broader than just issues of panels making life-and-death decisions about medical care--it's a broader question of who has a right to decide who gets what medical service...which is a complex and multifaceted issue--and certainly something wikipedia should cover in depth. This gets deep into Medical ethics too. Cazort (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You seem to be an active contributor to wikipedia...have you considered creating an account? Cazort (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilson

I think that the page is likely to stay semi-protected for some time yet. If you have a constructive contribution to make to the page use {{editsemiprotected}} on the article's talk page and suggest your edit there. It will then be reviewed and if seen to be a good suggestion it will be added to the article. Alternatively you may consider creating an account of your own. After four days and ten edits you will be able to edit the page yourself when logged in. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your request was successful. I've only just been made an admin so didn't feel I could make the decision myself. Hopefully it will not be necessary to re-protect the article in the future. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[:]]

Sweet, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.255.247 (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

Hello, 209.6.238.201. You have new messages at Btilm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

talkback

Hello, 209.6.238.201. You have new messages at Btilm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (209.6.238.201) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!  Btilm  02:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 209.6.238.201. You have new messages at Btilm's talk page.
Message added 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 Btilm  02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Since you have read my article on why war must be permitted, tell me what political ideology you think it sounds like talk

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.6.238.201&oldid=317870364"