- 1 L. Lin Wood
- 2 thanks
- 3 reasons
- 4 Thanks
- 5 Re: Wikiproject International Criminal Law
- 6 Dispute resolution survey
- 7 I AIN'T DEAD
- 8 WP Human Rights in the Signpost
- 9 Holiday cheer
- 10 Cyrus cylinder
- 11 Commons username
- 12 A Tesla Roadster for you!
- 13 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 14 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 15 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
L. Lin Wood
Hello, I've added four solid references to the mis-titled Lynn Wood, as you requested. The article still needs lots of work, but I hope you will agree that I've demonstrated notability. Let me know what you think. Cullen328 (talk)
thanks for sorting that edit out
I saw an image of a chinese woman being "executed" by the death of a thousand cuts and was appalled and felt powerless - although the photo was nearly 100 years old
surely, I felt, there must be something to be gained somewhere
Some years ago I looked at this type of page after coming up against POV pushers at the Bombing of Dresden who called the Allied bombings a genocide. I took it on myself to try to get this sort of page in line with what the majority of sources (as opposed to fringe views say). One technique is to move the controversial stuff out into another page (Eg Genocide in history) and to write other pages to help define certain other terms eg Genocidal massacre, and to write articles like definitions of genocide and Genocide under municipal laws, to help frame the debate on the talk page and in the process inform readers [I knew I had written a useful article (at least for academics) when two academics added their definitions to the genocide definitions list:-)]. It is interesting that boring pages like definitions of genocide hardly ever attract POV warriors, while Genocide in history where the blame game can be played attract swarms of them.
The Genocide article has also lead to some other stuff, related to genocide. For example I think that these two articles are a POV fork: Armenian Genocide denial and Armenian Genocide recognition, I have been unable to gain a consensus for merging them, but at least by writing articles such as the Whitaker Report, reduced the POV presented from advocate sites on the web which were previously cited as reliable sources, but which in fact cherry picked their primary sources.
Other articles like genocide include Terror bombing now thank goodness a redirect. but that lead to the need for a legal definition of what is and is not legal under the laws of war and that leads to articles like Aerial bombardment and international law and short articles like Military necessity, Non-combatant (funny how even reliable sources write "civilians" when they mean "non-combatants").
Other similar articles that needed lots of work were Historical revisionism, Historical revisionism (negationism), genocide denial (BLP considersation) and Denialism (still needs the POV list removed), terrorism (a basket case -- but at least I got in a section on polemics that seems to have stood the test of time) and Definitions of terrorism (a much better article).
Mercenaries (that was almost just a list of what is now in Mercenaries in popular culture), there are lots of others of a similar type, which I have been involved (eg child soldiers) because nearly all of them did not have a definition section based on international law, but what they are defined as in popular culture. On other area that I have found to be a real problem is articles about almost any subject where people tack on a POV list at the end. Eg Last stand as it was and it took two RfD for to get list of massacres changed to a format which has less POV problems.
I much rather prefer editing more strait forward military history (Eg Battle in Berlin or minor campaigns of 1815) and I have been trying to disengage from all of the above as much as I can, but if you come across such articles and need a hand let me know. -- PBS (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: Wikiproject International Criminal Law
Hi Ajbpearce! Pi and I were looking for some guidance from Wikiprojects to start a task force, but no one ever responded to our task force proposal (see here) so we started our own project. It's entirely possible that it can be incorporated into another project as a task force at some point in the future, though. – Zntrip 19:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's good advice. There's plenty of work to be done everywhere. Hopefully we can coordinate something once the project picks up a bit. – Zntrip 22:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello AlasdairEdits. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I AIN'T DEAD
WP Human Rights in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Human Rights for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
|Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS|
I have tried in 2010 to add Cyrus Cylinder as the first ever known political decree to document the attempt to respect human rights, but my writing got removed from the article about human rights. To those who are willing to pay attention to factual historical evidence about Cyrus Cylinder, I add this link http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/03/neil-macgregor-cyrus-cylinder. Hope that it would be convincing enough if other historical books are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majlesi5 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A Tesla Roadster for you!
|A Tesla Roadster for you!|
|Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)|
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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)