Revision as of 20:58, 3 October 2006 editJersyko (talk | contribs)14,671 edits →suggestion: reproducing response here← Previous edit |
Revision as of 19:10, 4 October 2006 edit undo130.49.220.107 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
<center> |
|
|
{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" style="background: #EEE; border: 1px solid #CCC; padding: 5px; font-size: 90%;" |
|
|
| style="text-align: center"|<font color="black">Click to start a new message thread.<br>Please sign your posts (you can do so with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).</font> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" style="background: #FFF; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #CCC" |
|
|
|<center>'''Talk archives'''</center> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|<center><big>] / ] / ] / ] / ]</big><center> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
</center> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is this a game you are playing ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Jersyko, I fail to understand your comment about not reaching a consensus on the dental amalgam controversy page, especially since I did raise the issue clearly on the talk page and , after being twice interrupted by Dozenist who felt the urge to interject on a different issue, I specifically asked to resume the discussion on the topic at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
However after about two days waiting for a reply , I assumed that, after reading ] which appears to be clear about non-reliable links that should be removed from WP, you did not object to the reasons I gave so I went ahead and removed the link. As I pointed out the issue is not about what you and I may think about the other links in general but about verifiable and credible information that is currently available about the quality of the information posted on QW. Also there is the issue of the title of the QW article in question which is very sarcastic and accusatory, providing further support to the conclusion of the review. I was under the impression that you agreed to have a well documented, referenced quality article.... Did I misunderstand your intention ? |
|
|
|
|
|
One more thing, I am not the one who is reversing edits without prior discussion on the talk page. Finally it should be noted that some editors are nitpicking at the article, posting {{citation needed}} tags to items supporting the risks posed by amalgam but doing very little to find such references or making edits with a one sided view. It is easy to nitpick but another matter to provide a constructive contribution. ] 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Dear Jersyko. Shall I expect a reply ?? ] 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notability == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you're in to userboxen, but I saw your comment on the talk page of ] talk page, and thought you might like ] for a userbox. -- <font color=blue>]<small> ]<small> ]<small> ]</small></small></small></font> 14:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Refs == |
|
|
|
|
|
Jersyko, |
|
|
|
|
|
I've been having some difficulty using the best footnote system -- that is, the one that lets you cite the same source several times and that then gives "a, b, c, d".. Would you mind taking a look at the little article I've written in which I've tried to fix this problem? It's in French, but it's just the ref system that needs help. If you could just fix it, then I'd be able to do a diff and see what I needed to do differently. It's in ]. Thanks! --<font color="black">]</font> <font color="darkgreen" size="1">]</font> 06:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Arbitration relating to ] and Radiant == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at ]. The case is about some users who have been abusing some guidline and proposal pages (including ] and ]). Since you've been involved with NNOT (and might have even witnessed the stuff I talk about), I thought you might be interested in giving your comments. I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! ] 05:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote, in ] (and possibly other places), "Of the four polls released since September 25..." The problem with that, imho, is that as soon as the next poll gets released (and a new one was released today -- ), the statement becomes out of date. Can you reword it somehow. -- ] 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:''Yeah, I suppose the relevant articles really need to go through each of the recent polls and present the results. My summary from earlier was just the result of laziness. You're right, and I'll fix it. · <font color="#707070">]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)'' |
|