User talk:Cleanemupnowboys

Hello Cleanemupnowboys, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Bksimonb (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

References

So, can I have a straight answer, which books and which papers on the subject have you read? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer on your talk page. Please reciprocate. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Most stuff I work on is blatantly tedious - I work on Australian geography and politics mostly. One does find interesting things though just by reading the offbeat section of the (regular) news then looking it up on Wikipedia. The exploding whale one came to my attention as an editor of my acquaintance was its major contributor. Orderinchaos 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Justify your edit

I am sorry Renee. The wikipedia is not a game.

You can mimic Wiki-talk until the cows come home but at the end of the day what is required is expertise in the topics.

In all politeness, by the quality of the question you asked, it is possible to determine your knowledge level of the subject at hand. Not just to the extent of your knowledge but to the relevance of the knowledge you have. Your question was equivalent to going on the Jewish talk page and saying, "As far as I have read, Moses only climbed Mount Sinai once, shall we stick with this version?". If you were shouted down there and ended up excluding yourself from serious discussion, would it be any wonder.

You rejoined this topic on a partisan basis, immediately re-started the edit-warring and then reintroduced factual errors, we hope on the basis of your lack of understanding rather that a conflict of interest.

As an under-graduate, with no apparent excellence in the technical skills of presenting articles on the Wikipedia, until you are much better read ... and experienced of the subject ... I really don't see that what you have to offer us.

• You really don't know enough about the subject matter.

• You could not justify why you removed the factual elements of the previous revision.

• You cannot justify why you removed the improved or corrected technical/formatting/typo elements of the previous revision. You merely aped the actions of the BKWSU's own team.

What do you mean by "majority"? ... All we have are two or three BK followers, one or two of which are part of the BKWSU PR Team. Does your conception of policy and democracy consider that to be fair and correct process?

OK, if you want to consider a consensus approach ... justify why you removed the section on The Three Worlds? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)