| Revision as of 07:35, 9 February 2005 editBjörn-Isak Rosendahl (talk | contribs)550 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:36, 9 February 2005 edit undoBjörn-Isak Rosendahl (talk | contribs)550 edits →Chechnya issueNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Although, I think the dispute this way only widened to the new space of Wiki. I don't quite think the opponents are about to agree even on the determination of the nature of this so called dispute. | Although, I think the dispute this way only widened to the new space of Wiki. I don't quite think the opponents are about to agree even on the determination of the nature of this so called dispute. | ||
| Just compare: | Just compare:] | ||
| My explanatory text: The other Wiki's Chechnya articles are related to this one. The Article 'Second Chechen War' and the impartial Analyses and Reports resume deserves professional writing due to the sensitive political situation and Genocide topically on the spot. | My explanatory text: The other Wiki's Chechnya articles are related to this one. The Article 'Second Chechen War' and the impartial Analyses and Reports resume deserves professional writing due to the sensitive political situation and Genocide topically on the spot. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| Pnikolov's revert: NPOV and inclusion dispute. | Pnikolov's revert: NPOV and inclusion dispute. | ||
| Topically, who's to tell how to write NPOVwise about such as evidently imminent state terrorism and genocide among one minor defenceless people? | Topically, who's to tell how to write NPOVwise about such as evidently imminent state terrorism and genocide among one minor defenceless people?--] 07:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:36, 9 February 2005
Welcome!
Hi TenOfAllTrades! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! --Flockmeal 00:39, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Fresh comments welcome; I do check back here from time to time.
Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades 18:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that areosynchronous != areostationary the last time I checked (and it was well before Dec 2004). Nothing is as simple as it seams. Please be careful with such quick fixes.
Cheers, ---0.39 22:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Coopetition
Thank you for your kind words on coopetition—I'll see if I can find a source for the earlier writer's comment about Taylor and incorporate Noorda. Stombs 08:56, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Your comments on WP:VFD/Operating system advocacy
Iasson has an RfC running against him. While I and apparently many others are as frustrated with him as you seem to be, it's not at clear that he's acting in bad faith. Of particular note is that English is not his first language. If, as it seems, he's acting in good faith, then a deep breath and some comments at the RfC are the way to go. On the other hand, if he's just trolling, then responses like yours are exactly what he's after. —Korath (Talk) 21:58, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Consensus Science
Hi. Could you take a look at the recent edits I made to consensus science and consider changing your merge/deletion vote? I believe the new version more accurately describes the clear divide between the two concepts, and adheres more closely toward NPOV. Thanks. — Cortonin | Talk 09:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Niles Eldredge
'Directly'? 'Lifted'? My good man, what are you saying? However, thank you for the URL to Eldredge's own web site. I could find no reference anywhere to his DoB, but you supplied a suitable source of information! :)
I've shined it up a bit, explained some stuff in simpler terms, and removed the reference to Eldredge's eternal battle with the Creationists, as it's not very interesting. Toodle-ooh. sugarfish 23:59, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Chechnya issue
Thanks for a piece of advice.
Although, I think the dispute this way only widened to the new space of Wiki. I don't quite think the opponents are about to agree even on the determination of the nature of this so called dispute.
Just compare:Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment
My explanatory text: The other Wiki's Chechnya articles are related to this one. The Article 'Second Chechen War' and the impartial Analyses and Reports resume deserves professional writing due to the sensitive political situation and Genocide topically on the spot.
Pnikolov's revert: NPOV and inclusion dispute.
Topically, who's to tell how to write NPOVwise about such as evidently imminent state terrorism and genocide among one minor defenceless people?--BIR 07:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)