Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Relata refero (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 17 June 2008 (→Tone: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Title override

Most recent activity: מסמך נקדי, Papa II, Kulwant Roy.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Hekmatyar and attacks on women's faces

There are a several references to Hekmatyar, who became notorious in the 1970s for this Dear Relata refero, can you tell us more about the references to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and attacks on women, i.e. where you found them? Is it from a subscription database, or available to the general public? sincerely BoogaLouie (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bath Abbey

Are you still GA reviewing this article? This article has been placed on hold for almost a month. miranda 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Different RCC help request

Hi Relata, I'm here to ask for your help with a different RCC help request. I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since your objection to the article was primarily based on issues with the history section, I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking the other editors who opposed partially based on the history section to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Relata refero, this kind of commentary is not helpful. If you believe that the Muhammad al-Durrah article is in poor shape, then please edit it into better shape, or make constructive suggestions on the talkpage. But just complaining about "conspiracy theorists" is not going to help improve the article. Also, this comment was personally targeted at another editor, and again has nothing to do with the actual editing of the article. Please try to adopt a more constructive and civil tone at the talkpage. I am not saying stay away, but I am saying that I think you can be much more effective, if you actually make specific suggestions, such as "This needs to be removed" or "This isn't a reliable source" or "I think this section needs to be expanded". Or even better, just go ahead and edit the article. As long as you stick to the Conditions for editing, you are welcome to make direct changes. --Elonka 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already made it clear that your unilaterally imposed conditions for editing are absolutely inappropriate for this particular venue and this sort of problem, and they have led to a deterioration in quality. If you at the point where you are putting the phrase "conspiracy theories" in scare quotes and objecting to the use of the term, may I say that perhaps you too need to take a step back? It is clear your intervention has been unhelpful.

If you think this is either uncivil on unrelated to the editing of the article, you have an absurdly broad definition of the former and narrow definition of the latter.

Thank you for your permission to edit the article. I would rather stay away till mechanisms are in place that reduce rather than promote fringe-iness, thanks, as I believe I have made amply clear. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)