Misplaced Pages

User talk:Weed Harper

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Formeruser-81 (talk | contribs) at 09:01, 15 September 2004 (→Edit Summaries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:01, 15 September 2004 by Formeruser-81 (talk | contribs) (→Edit Summaries)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam 16:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Please try to make your edit summaries actively and fully explain what you are doing to an article. For instance, your most recent summary to Lyndon LaRouche said that you added some information, but it failed to note that you were also basically reverting Everyking/Adam Carr.

Also, you may want to look at the talk page for that article - I'm trying to bring both sides together to hash out specific issues and objections, and if you could raise some with concrete evidence instead of continual and blanket reversions, it would be really helpful.

Thanks. Snowspinner 20:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, your version is deleting masses of information. If that information is inaccurate, then you are right to remove it, but I have not seen a good and concrete accounting of where the problems with the information are. (The Herschel list does a good job of listing what parts you take issue with, but it's very weak on citations.)
It is not acceptable to have "two competing versions of an article" perpetually reverting each other. You need to work towards compromise. I am asking, on Lyndon LaRouche, for you to take the first step. (Whereas on the other article I'm currently trying to mediate dispute on, the political views article, I'm asking Adam et al to take the first step). Please pick five aspects of the longer version of the article that are, in your view, inaccurate, and explain why, with objective and checkable evidence to back you up. Snowspinner 21:08, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge

Please cease your reversions at Eurasian Land-Bridge as they violate the ArbCom decision in the Lyndon LaRouche case re Original Research: See AndyL 09:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)