Difference between revisions of "Talk:Professor420"
(→Neutrality) |
Omnipotent-Q (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
You deleted his work, I won't have people just deleting/vandalising other's work like that. It have put a neutrality template on the new Section called 'views on the Curia'. Prof is entitled to his views on the Curia and these may be a part of his main article, but not the main part of it. --[[User:Jp26991|Jp26991]] 04:39, 14 April 2007 (CDT) | You deleted his work, I won't have people just deleting/vandalising other's work like that. It have put a neutrality template on the new Section called 'views on the Curia'. Prof is entitled to his views on the Curia and these may be a part of his main article, but not the main part of it. --[[User:Jp26991|Jp26991]] 04:39, 14 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Since when are political rants worthy enough to be in a knowledge base? Since when is a biased un-neutral rant that isn't on the article subject itself, but on something else "work". It sounds to be as if you're trying to feebly justify your bias, because the only other explanation is that you're totally clueless to how knowledge bases, articles and subjects in general and Wiki's work. [[User:Omnipotent-Q|Omnipotent-Q]] 08:04, 14 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:04, 14 April 2007
I've forwarded Prof to my page... if any of the other "ProfXYZ" members want they can remove it, or Prof can forward to a disambiguation page.
The internet = serious business - Livia
All flash and no substance. No real ideas or directions here. Just a dissatisfied rant by someone who doesnt understand the workings of an internet forum.
Neutrality
Seen as the Leader of the Wiki doesn't seem to understand the difference between User and Article namespaces and the clear fact that an article should be on the subject of the article, and not what the subject of the article thinks or has opinions on, I've put a well deserved Neutrality warning on the article.
Not that I would want to make accusations, but some probably ill-advised people could think that the real reason the rant remains is due to some kind of a bias between towards Prof by Perikles and that you both discussed the reversion over MSN or something to that nature (The edit times are extremely close to each other). Omnipotent-Q 16:32, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
Yes I thanked him for the fact that he edited the changes you erroneously made. Now please keep your grimy hands off my article, and user, pages. Don't you have a forum to troll, or something? -Prof
The editing is completely justified under the ethos of what a Wiki is and isn't in any way erroneous. Perhaps you should ask Simetrical to explain the basic workings of a Wiki and how an article should be on its subject, not the article subject talking and ranting about something.
It's fairly obvious that you're a bit new to this whole Wiki thing. Its a rule of thumb that Neutrality templates are not removed until the dispute is resolved. Clearly it isn't, so it isn't your place to remove it. Omnipotent-Q 02:47, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
You deleted his work, I won't have people just deleting/vandalising other's work like that. It have put a neutrality template on the new Section called 'views on the Curia'. Prof is entitled to his views on the Curia and these may be a part of his main article, but not the main part of it. --Jp26991 04:39, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
Since when are political rants worthy enough to be in a knowledge base? Since when is a biased un-neutral rant that isn't on the article subject itself, but on something else "work". It sounds to be as if you're trying to feebly justify your bias, because the only other explanation is that you're totally clueless to how knowledge bases, articles and subjects in general and Wiki's work. Omnipotent-Q 08:04, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
