User talk:CaveatLector: Difference between revisions
userification |
|||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==userification== |
==userification== |
||
Re Kitsune, I'll userify anything that isnt copyvio or BLP. If a closing admin forgets, just let me know. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
Re Kitsune, I'll userify anything that isnt copyvio or BLP. If a closing admin forgets, just let me know. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
== [[WP:NPOV]] == |
|||
Per your comments on [[Dissociative identity disorder]] when you reverted to [[User:Standardname]]'s very biased version of the article which tries to pretend that there is no controversy, you should be aware that no less than three admins warned that editor that his editors were blatant violations of the [[WP:NPOV]] policy that cannot stay there. By reverting to that version you are guilty of the same misconduct, and your edit comments showed a rather disturbing hint that you may be reverted out of personal conflict and not out of the merit of the actual edits. I have undone your revert and will not allow the article to try to completely sweep the controversy under the rug under some misplaced inability to respect the views of scholars you personally happen to disagree with. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:38, 5 August 2007
Archives |
---|
Raglan
And if there were a footnote, it would read "The Hero ISBN whatever, passim. ;-> We can do that in text; at least until the footnote brigade get their way,
I agree that Raglan should be mentioned at Hero; but not as the analysis of Greek hero cult, which may need to be another separate article. There's a reasonably good start at an article at FitzRoy_Somerset,_4th_Baron_Raglan#The_Hero, btw; it needn't start from scratch. Good luck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks; it's now Greek hero cult, and seems to have grown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Gay pride article
Why did you remove sourced material without adding to the discussion on the talk page? Could you please go into more detail about "Dubious statements" and what you mean by "better sources". I feel no reason to continue the article when I would expect further edits with no explanation. Many hours of research and writing went into that. I don't see how I am supposed to understand what your meaning is without your talking directly to your actions on the discussion page to know what you expect or what you feel is needed. The edit summery only conveys so much. A little more information would be helpful. One other question. Your placement of the expansion tag is in the middle of a section. Does that mean you feel expansion is only needed for the Roman section or the entire ancient history section? Any help you wish to give would be appreciated.--Amadscientist 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
About Kenneth J. Dover
Could you tell me what your thoughts are on this person and his writings. As I understand it there is some controversy with his theories or research or just possibly his use of such.--Amadscientist 05:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
An essay I've written
Hello. Since we often express similar arguments in deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. --Eyrian 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
userification
Re Kitsune, I'll userify anything that isnt copyvio or BLP. If a closing admin forgets, just let me know. DGG (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Per your comments on Dissociative identity disorder when you reverted to User:Standardname's very biased version of the article which tries to pretend that there is no controversy, you should be aware that no less than three admins warned that editor that his editors were blatant violations of the WP:NPOV policy that cannot stay there. By reverting to that version you are guilty of the same misconduct, and your edit comments showed a rather disturbing hint that you may be reverted out of personal conflict and not out of the merit of the actual edits. I have undone your revert and will not allow the article to try to completely sweep the controversy under the rug under some misplaced inability to respect the views of scholars you personally happen to disagree with. DreamGuy 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)