User talk:TheArguer - Wikipedia
1 person in discussion
|
I undid your removal of that section and started a discussion on the talk, which I hope you join. Shadowjams (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing neutral about 'anti-feminism' or for that matter feminism. And nothing objective about feminist proper-gander and your removal of valid anti-feminist views. such is bias and none objective by a feminist *you) when each anti-feminist point is too valid to be argued against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by90.244.146.125 (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Regardless, you cannot add personal commentary into articles as doing so goes against Wikipedia's Core Content Policies. TheArguer SAY HI! 22:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
i want to add this line to the page
Without knowing the actual time scale outside the "Universe".We can never be sure of the actual "Universal Time Scale" within this Universe.
its true without knowing how time exsists outside the universe then people will never know how time realy exsists inside this universe making all calculations inaccurate.is very simple to understand.earth time is just make beleaive and meaningless in relevance to the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
no i wont bother updating page again bye have a good life...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
how simple is that cant beleive you want page link to source something so simple and so obvious... — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Just because you say something is true doesn't make it true. If you want it in the article, please find and reference an appropriate source to comply with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. TheArguer SAY HI! 22:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
its not that important cant be bothered. bye have a good day.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
if i know something is true in my mind then i say it if it was not true i would not say so.. im a very thoughtful person.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
if i locked you in a room for 7 days at the begining of the 7 days i start a clock outside the room. then after 7 days i give you a clock inside the room and ask you to set your clock to the exact time of my clock outside the room without seeing my clock i dont beleive its possible for you to do that.
thats the same thing i just said about the universe impossible to know how long we have been inside the universe without seeing the clock outside of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- That's nice. If you would like to add this to the article, you need to find an appropriate source. Attempting to convince me that you're right doesn't accomplish anything. TheArguer SAY HI! 23:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
in that example clock meaning machanical or biological because this universe could be either.know one knows — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
ok no problem when i get time ill look for a source
would like to add that 1 line sometime if possible in a good way without degrading the importance of that page.would just like to make that page a little more varible..
have a good night there arguer.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Toth.uk..essex (talk • contribs) 23:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- No worries. TheArguer SAY HI! 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I'm curious why you undid my addition to the Church Universal and Triumphant's page? I am a member of the church.
Best, George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.108.227 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you made a mistake. In future, before unilaterally deleting something that is clearly not vandalism, I recommend performing some research. Spanish language wikipedia has an article which clearly notes "cedrón" as (one of the) Spanish name(s) for Aloysia citrodora in South America (the place of the plant's origin): Here.
On top of that, here's a photo of the commonly available product: Image
It's important to remember the purpose of references: to back up contentious information. We don't reference the colour green every time we describe something using that word, because we all know what green is and it's not contentious. Similarly, the common name for something as spoken by millions is not contentious - except to those who are unfamilar with that area. In which case, those people should not be editing articles on topics with which they are unfamiliar.
190.160.200.89 (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I never said that your edit was vandalism, and I never said that your edit was untrue. Wikipedia policy states that "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." So that's what I did. I am not familiar with shrubs, but your claim that I should not edit a shrub article because of that is completely absurd. This is a Wikipedia article on the English Wikipedia, not Spanish Wikipedia. Chances are that most people reading the article are not from Chile. Because of this, it is completely appropriate and necessary to cite your claim, and I did not make a mistake. I hope I've cleared up any confusion. TheArguer SAY HI! 08:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Dude I am the original cast and krew from the culture, my name is simon antony roberts doe: 8/12/78 - i had been going as wishcraft in xoops.org for sometime, i am just making some requested changes that have been polled to be made on the page will you please revert as it is relievent and true and in our subculture we have other syabasis of english and gramagramication so please resolve you revert.. Thanks you are not the elite overlord like myself
http://twitter.com/espacey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrus2013 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
I added it because I have watched every one of the plays at least two times (have you?), and I also sent an e-mail about subtitles to Michael Colgan, the Artistic Director (which he ignored). I doubt that you can understand all of the dialogue in the plays, assuming that you are a speaker of American English and not an immigrant. These plays are inaccessible to the majority of American viewers in their present state, no matter if they speak English or Spanish or if they are deaf or if their hearing is impaired (as is mine). The addition of subtitles would not have placed a burden on the producers. Instead, they chose not to spend a penny on them, even though their budget was US$9,000,00, much of it from the public sector. Why don't you send a e-mail to Mr. Colgan? Perhaps he can justify this arrogance? My comments are accurate and serve the needs of consumers. Would you spend US$130.00 (per Amazon) on films you couldn't understand? I didn't cite a source because I couldn't find one, nor do I think it's necessary. This is a matter of observation. Please restore my edit. Thanks.Autodidact1 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Unless you can find a source to back that up, I will not undo my edit. TheArguer SAY HI! 11:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
You failed to refute any of my objections to your arbitrary action. There are no subtitles. Let someone who has actually viewed these films do the editing. Autodidact1 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Please view Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, which states that "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." You said that you couldn't find a source. If no sources exist, this is original research and cannot be added to the article. TheArguer SAY HI! 11:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
hi, i am jan koemmet and i think, i have the rights, to make some corrections in my wikipedia profile! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.145.164 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- You have the right, but it needs to follow the manual of style. You also need to check out Wikipedia's policy on editing an article about yourself. TheArguer SAY HI! 12:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
o.k. thank very much for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.145.164 (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
My changes are honest and accurate, I can provide citations, if you reinstate my additions I can provide references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.110.65 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply