User talk:Squiddy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
::The time I and the opposing members have spend on wikipedia, seems more or less irrelevant to the fact that the sentence at hand is in violation with [[NPOV]] I would like to rephrase my question into few following questions and get a more exact answer this time: If an item is violating the guidelines of wikipedia, can it then be removed without consensus? If the answer is yes, then surely if I prove the sentence at hand is breaching with [[NPOV]] it can be removed without consensus correct? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Averagejoedev|Averagejoedev]] ([[User talk:Averagejoedev|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Averagejoedev|contribs]]) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::The time I and the opposing members have spend on wikipedia, seems more or less irrelevant to the fact that the sentence at hand is in violation with [[NPOV]] I would like to rephrase my question into few following questions and get a more exact answer this time: If an item is violating the guidelines of wikipedia, can it then be removed without consensus? If the answer is yes, then surely if I prove the sentence at hand is breaching with [[NPOV]] it can be removed without consensus correct? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Averagejoedev|Averagejoedev]] ([[User talk:Averagejoedev|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Averagejoedev|contribs]]) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::::No, because NPOV is hashed out on the discussion page. I can't think of a simpler way to put it. You need to get a consensus of involved editors that some text is violating policy in order to get it removed. [[User:Squiddy|Squiddy]] | [[User talk:Squiddy|<small>(squirt ink?)</small>]] 00:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC) |
::::No, because NPOV is hashed out on the discussion page. I can't think of a simpler way to put it. You need to get a consensus of involved editors that some text is violating policy in order to get it removed. [[User:Squiddy|Squiddy]] | [[User talk:Squiddy|<small>(squirt ink?)</small>]] 00:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Your comment about Rasmussen Poll at Public Opinion on Global warming == |
|||
Hi Squiddy, Thanks for reverting the graphic. FYI, in the summary for the change you didn't quite nail the poll. You described it as ''"Poll says 69% think it is at least 'somewhat possible' that scientists falsified..., not that 69% think they did"'' |
|||
The poll language states: |
|||
'' "69% say it’s at least '''somewhat likely''' that '''some''' scientists have falsified research data"'' |
|||
Key words: |
|||
That casts a mighty thin net. |
|||
Revision as of 19:12, 23 August 2011
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5
Welcome to my talk page!
- If you write to me here, I'll answer here. If I've written on your talk page, I will have put it on my watchlist and will look for replies there.
- Constructive discussion of articles or subjects I'm involved with is welcome, and I'm happy to debate the merits of any of my edits.
- If you've been vandalizing articles, but still want to come here to whine about being reverted... well, you're welcome, but I'll just tell you where to go. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Holocaust denial
Hello, I believe that this article is misleading and does not adhere to an academical standard. Especially the heavy bias in favor of the political pressure group ADL does not help to get an adequate description. Please consider these data:
- What Does Holocaust Denial Really Mean?
- What is 'Holocaust Denial'? 109.77.71.153 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Recent edits on Holocaust Denial
Hello, if the deleted content breaches with NPOV then surely it can be justified to delete it without consensus, or am I wrong?
- No, because NPOV is hashed out on the discussion page. In this case you, a relatively inexperienced editor, are in a minority of one, and various long-term editors are opposed to your deletion. Repeatedly deleting counts as edit-warring, which is disruptive, and will not effect the change you wish to see. If you persist you are likely to be blocked. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- The time I and the opposing members have spend on wikipedia, seems more or less irrelevant to the fact that the sentence at hand is in violation with NPOV I would like to rephrase my question into few following questions and get a more exact answer this time: If an item is violating the guidelines of wikipedia, can it then be removed without consensus? If the answer is yes, then surely if I prove the sentence at hand is breaching with NPOV it can be removed without consensus correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averagejoedev (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, because NPOV is hashed out on the discussion page. I can't think of a simpler way to put it. You need to get a consensus of involved editors that some text is violating policy in order to get it removed. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- The time I and the opposing members have spend on wikipedia, seems more or less irrelevant to the fact that the sentence at hand is in violation with NPOV I would like to rephrase my question into few following questions and get a more exact answer this time: If an item is violating the guidelines of wikipedia, can it then be removed without consensus? If the answer is yes, then surely if I prove the sentence at hand is breaching with NPOV it can be removed without consensus correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averagejoedev (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Your comment about Rasmussen Poll at Public Opinion on Global warming
Hi Squiddy, Thanks for reverting the graphic. FYI, in the summary for the change you didn't quite nail the poll. You described it as "Poll says 69% think it is at least 'somewhat possible' that scientists falsified..., not that 69% think they did"
The poll language states: "69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data"
Key words:
That casts a mighty thin net.