User talk:Krj373/Pg8
Please post any & all messages on my main page located
| This is a subpage of Krj373's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Talk Pages
[edit]Current Page
[edit]Oldest ➠ youngest
[edit]Purge link
[edit]This is a link for the page you are currently on. There is no reason to click it unless something looks out of date. An example would be if I did some archiving and the list of pervious pages is not yet updated on the current page. Barbie hall died on Friday. Please change it back to the 22nd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.140.82 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
U suk
[edit]lel get rekt fgt
Jerryjacob999
[edit]Thanks for the talkback, going to have to watch this one! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Canadian Fossil Discovery Centre Edits and Removed Content
[edit]Apologies for the confusion. I am the executive director of the CFDC and I was updating the article. Feel free to email me - peter@discoverfossils.com
The removed content is no longer relevant
Hello Krj373, I am working in Mr. Ruddy's office. I formatted his filmography in the way he would like it to be presented. We are also reconstructing his personal and early life sections. Thank you!
F
[edit]Plzz say how do create new page a Wikipedia Golu dwivedi Unckle (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
RFA
[edit]Dear Krj373, I reverted your transclusion of your RFA to the main page because you have some formatting errors with your RFA. I strongly suggest you fix them before continuing. Secondly, (this is my personal opinion) that your RFA likely will not pass. So please carefully consider proceeding as unsuccessful RFAs will affect your subsequent requests. If you're not familiar with it already, we have an optional RFA screening process at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll where you will receive feedback on where you stand as a candidate. In any case, I wish you the best of luck. Mkdwtalk 06:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
robert e lee statue
[edit]I fail to see what value the story of Mr. Mahler's Lamborghini adds to the history of this statue. It's not relevant. The fact that he withdrew from the contract to remove statues has not been proven to have anything to do with his car being torched. Why allow it in the article about Lee's statue? If you're trying to show a link between preservationists and flaggers to that vandalism, you're way off base. The only vandalism so far has been by those wanting the monuments removed. Also, Mr. Mahler is being sued by former employees, all of whom reside in New Orleans. The timing of the torching is suspicious, coming the day after the judge postponed any ruling on the statues. It would seem the most likely culprits would be those upset about that, those unhappy about Mr. Mahler's refusal to do the job, and his former employees who are suing him. Also it's highly suspicious that such a trophy car would be left outside overnight in that particular area. Think "city performance bond" and "insurance." Also, only mentioning the "death threats" is biased. H&O is primarily a landscaping contractor, and many of his clients threatened to cancel their contracts with him if he removed the statues. In all of the articles, he admitted that he wasn't worried about the death threats, that his primary concern was losing business.
I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT ALL MENTION OF THAT INCIDENT BE REMOVED UNTIL IT'S BEEN PROVEN IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THE MONUMENTS.
Nor is the current political information necessary, unless and until the statues are removed. That info can be found in great detail elsewhere. What is needed is the location, and how it came to be there, which is NOT reported in detail anywhere else. If you're going to include current politics, do a more balanced treatment of past and present. You might do a more complete history of the dedication and dignitaries who were present, instead of persisting with attempts to make the statues monuments to white supremacy and only naming Confederate notables present. Check the Times Picayune articles of that time and stop judging the past by today's standards.
Same for the Wiki's on other monuments of the times and Lee's Circle.
THE "CONTROVERSY" CONTENT ADDED APPEARS TO VIOLATE 2 OF WIKI'S CORE POLICIES, 1) NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND 2) NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. The author has cut/pasted directly from his sources, not written in his own words. Nor has the other point of view as to why the statue is important and should remain be presented.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS ARTICLE BE REVISED AS I EDITED IT. LOCATION, AND HISTORICAL FACTS RELEVANT TO WHY IT EXISTS.
Removing biased information isn't vandalism. Allowing it to remain is misleading the public, tells only one side of a story and damages Wiki's reputation. Revisionists are damaging it's credibility, it's quite obvious the same people are rewriting things to fit their own agenda.
The message I received referred to my edits as "vandalism," and I was threatened with blocking if I continued to remove the content. The current information is one-sided and based on Wiki's policy should not be allowed. I have no intention of engaging in an "edit war" with individuals who are biased on the subject of American history, and if I receive further threats I will take it up with Wiki Administration.24.179.58.196 (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)