| Revision as of 15:26, 19 October 2011 editRobertMfromLI (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,457 edits new section regarding closing of discussion | Revision as of 15:31, 19 October 2011 edit undo88.109.6.130 (talk) →I have collapsed and archived the discussion on Talk:Muhammad#Question_good_article_status.3B_view_overall_article_as_apparently_biasedNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| With that said, you may, if you are willing to, start a new section on the biases you perceive, if you are now ready to discuss specifically where you perceive such biases to be and how they can be fixed. This is assuming such issues are not related to changing policies to push your point of view, in which case, again, Village Pump or similar would be the proper venue - and '''not''' the article's talk page. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | With that said, you may, if you are willing to, start a new section on the biases you perceive, if you are now ready to discuss specifically where you perceive such biases to be and how they can be fixed. This is assuming such issues are not related to changing policies to push your point of view, in which case, again, Village Pump or similar would be the proper venue - and '''not''' the article's talk page. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :well I notice your post on user:Qwyrxian talk page asking if it was to his satifaction it's obvious who you side with | |||
Revision as of 15:31, 19 October 2011
I have collapsed and archived the discussion on Talk:Muhammad#Question_good_article_status.3B_view_overall_article_as_apparently_biased
Please keep in mind, this does not in any way preclude you or prevent you from raising points on how to fix the issues you perceive with the article, but:
- Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to (or issues with) the content of the article - that includes indicating which sections and how you perceive they can be improved (with relevant suggestions).
- Article talk pages are not for discussing changing policies, including policies related to article talk pages. You may wish to visit the Village Pump or elsewhere to discuss that.
- Continued off-topic and irrelevant discussions are not permitted on article talk pages.
- Disruption of article talk pages and articles is against policies and guidelines - such discussions will continue to be closed.
With that said, you may, if you are willing to, start a new section on the biases you perceive, if you are now ready to discuss specifically where you perceive such biases to be and how they can be fixed. This is assuming such issues are not related to changing policies to push your point of view, in which case, again, Village Pump or similar would be the proper venue - and not the article's talk page. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /CN 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- well I notice your post on user:Qwyrxian talk page asking if it was to his satifaction it's obvious who you side with