|
User talk:Dylansmrjones/Archive 1
People's Movement for Justice and WelfareA {{prod}} template has been added to the article People's Movement for Justice and Welfare, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the Add a section called "Workstation" to the section titled "Variants" of the Windows Server 2003 article, and i will remove it again. It's an intentionally misleading name, as Microsoft has never released a version of Windows Server 2003 with that name. Sure, there was an NT 4 variant with that name, which is where the moniker "Workstation" likely comes from, but we need to be crystal-clear and completely accurate about these things. Just because one can install Windows Server 2003 and use it as one would a client, doesn't mean it is entitled to its own section alongside the actual variants. It's just not that important of a detail. Right now the article needs a lot more help in describing the features of the operating system itself; if you'd like to contribute, focus on better describing the product as it's sold and intended to be used... we can do a better job here. -/- Warren 03:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC) StopWhat source is missing? Go do some more research plz and edited.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude cut the crap,PLZ.I told u so many times,go do ur research!You are more than welcomed to change the sentence with strong sources or references.Thank and stop ur nonsense.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your accusation of conflict of interestCould you explain why you think I have a conflict of interest with regard to Communism? I think you may be misunderstanding what "conflict of interest" means. I am interested in communism, in the sense that I find it interesting; but I don't have an interest in communism in the sense of deriving a benefit from the promotion of communism, so I don't think I have a conflict of interest. Now, it's also true that I have certain beliefs about communism, which doubtless affect my edits; but that's true of every editor and every topic, and doesn't in principle prevent anyone from observing the NPOV policy.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Claims of vandalismLo there, you've made some reverts on Communism claiming rv vandalism, esp. that of Jimmy Da Tuna(?!?) which looked to my eye like legitimatew edits, even if you disagree with them 9e.g. sayign communism is considered the extreme form of the socialist/workers' movement). Unwarranted claims of vandalism could be seen as impolite, or even disruptive. It's more construcive to state why you disagree with a claim, esp. if it isn't absolutely clear vandalism.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Environmental racismHi Dylansmrjones -- One, you placed a NPOV tag on environmental racism; you need to explain your concerns on the talk page so editors can begin to address it. Otherwise, this kind of drive-by tagging is not helpful, and the tag will be removed. Two, in your edit summary, you made a personal attack on an editor ("(Marked as POV due to onesidedness in references - most editors here are racist Far Left extremists believing in environmental "racism", like the user "Envirocorrector")") -- as I'm sure you know, this is not permitted by WP:NPA. --Lquilter (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Wrong historical data on "Germanic peoples"Please stop to restablish mistakes such about Frankish forming culture. The sentences that make mention of Frankish culture were utterly wrong as there is none significant impact on these areas except for northern Alsace which whom was refered there. My quotes are more true than your wilful prejudices so please, respect the other's point of view and don't treat me of vandal. Furthermore you're self belieing because this article speaks about dialects all over the map thereof you should have to start to wipe several sentences out. If you disagree with my undid come over there and account for. --Snowballa68 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC) January 2008
Please remembe to assume good faithEdits which aren't helpful in your opinion do not necessarily constitute vandalism, please remember to Assume good faith, and not call something vandalism in your edit summaries if it is not necessarily so.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
BNP manifestoI'm going by the copy of the manifesto on the BBC's website.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Assume good faithWP:ASSUME is a very helpful peice of guidance, getting editors' backs up with accusations of bad faith or vandalism is a poor way to attain consensus. A more positive additude may see your changes to the articles through.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) NeutralityWell, my definition of fascism is irrelevent, since I'm not editing the fascism article. On the BNP page I stick by reliable thrid party sources, and stick to defending WP:V. So far as I am concerned my opinions come a distant 6th to the verifiability policy, and I have made frequent edits to articles the effect of which is radically different from the opinion I myself hold on the subject (especially on the Socialism page). now, as I've said many times, find one reliable third party source that says the BNP isn't fascist, and I'll personally remove it from the info box. I'd be really interested to find which edits of mine to articles you consider non-neutral, though.--Red Deathy (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: BNPOn my talk page you wrote: "Do not make further edits on the BNP page and please refrain from inserting OR in the article. And before editing PLEASE consult the talk page. I didn't remove the fascism part, but it was removed due to BLP violation. If you reinsert it, you run the risk of being blocked indefinitely. That's why I don't touch the infobox."
BNP and raceAlthough the BNP does not focus on the issue of race as much as it has in the past and because it focuses on Islam does not mean that the party is no longer racial. Logically, would the party favor the repatriation of non-whites from Britain and would it exlusively accept whites into the party if it were not racially-oriented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
ReplyHey, man, I didn't mean to offend. I actually meant to ask what knowledge you have, and how you got by it. Your user page didn't say anything about languages, so I asked. Jeg er forresten norsk, så jeg regner med at du kan forstå det hvis jeg skriver på et språk vi begge kan forstå? : ) Så, jeg mente intet negativt med det jeg skrev, det var ikke noe retorisk spørsmål, men et faktisk spørsmål. Det er alltid spennende å treffe andre som er interessert i språk. Så, alt ok? --Alexlykke (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Old talk: "Danish tongue" commentI was looking at the talk archives for Old Norse, and I noticed that you claimed that the term "Danish tongue" was not used by native speakers of Old Icelandic. No one ever replied, but I'd just like to correct this. The term "dǫnsk tunga" (Danish tongue) is found in Grǫ́gǫ́s, i.e., the Gray Goose Laws, a 12th century Icelandic legal document. That would be Old Icelandic. As well, you stated, "Old Norse is all of Scandinavia before the middle ages." The middle ages are defined as the 5th to 16th centuries. Even Proto-Norse was active until the 7th century. Furthermore, the dialects of the language were in fact almost uniform from the Proto-Norse period up to the 12th and 13th centuries. The Old Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish dialects then emerged, but were still mutually intelligible, and probably more similar to each other than American English is to Australian English. Perhaps you confused the middle ages with the time of late-medieval languages like Middle Icelandic. LokiClock (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
|
