This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack forbes (renamed) (talk | contribs) at 20:35, 29 September 2009 (→Blocked user: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:35, 29 September 2009 by Jack forbes (renamed) (talk | contribs) (→Blocked user: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please leave new comment here. If you send me a message, I will mostly reply here unless you don't
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3
RE:Could this be a sign from god (Allah?)
Heaven? No clue, don't particularly care. --Afghana 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not that big on going there either. I am more worried about simply doing what is right because it is right, rather than any celestial pleasure I will get later on. --Afghana 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Brittany
I am somewhat perplexed by your edit summary to the refimprove template you have added to Brittany. I tend to find these templates ugly and unnecessary unless there is a good reason for them, and I am at a loss to understand what could possibly be "may not be from a NPOV" in this rather uncontroversial article. Sure, more references are probably desirable, but it would be helpful to know what exactly led to your edit summary. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It only has 13 Refs? And the thing about NPOV is relating to that and that only. Basically, I like to explain why these tags are added. Perhaps I should of added about the fact most un-sourced material tends to be non-NPOV. As for you thinking that these tags are unnecessary, I strongly disagree, people flicking through articles which allot of editors generally do will take a look at the top first, see the tag and maybe add some refs...Don't you think? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It is entirely untrue that "most un-sourced material tends to be non-NPOV". In fact a great many articles on uncontroversial subjects are poorly sourced precisely because the content is not in dispute, and does not attact tag-adders, who are usually motivated by a desire to reject some assertion or another. It is often difficult and tiresome to find footnotes for uncontroversial facts. Aribitrarily, I will mention Carl Nielsen as an example. In contrast controversial subjects also attract deceptive and disingenuous use of references as anyone who regularly reads the Reliable Sources Noticeboard may see. It is inappropriate to imply POV if you have no reason to do so. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked user
Hello, Frank. I noticed your post at JZ's talk page concerning a block of a user. I have no opinion on it but I thought I'd say I think it would be better if you gave him some diffs if you think the block was wrong. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)