User talk:Danedouard00
What bothers me about several Wiki editors (and by extension, articles) is their varying standards. several of them produce or defend various unsources statements that are laced with POV yet when they encounter a sourced statement that doesnt jive with their understanding/beliefs/agenda/values, they (move to) strike. These editors usually center around ethnic/nationalistic themes. Please examine yourselves and be consistent with your standards. danedouard00 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
For me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates
Bye[edit]
I'm quitting Wikipedia because of POV editors. Have a nice life.danedouard00 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't do it, Dan. Take a few days off, take the whole week off, but come back. You'll be alright. SamEV 10:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- You-know-who is the second worst editor I have ever met for one year (and there have been and continue to add quite a few, fortunately people who is terribly inteligent and cultivated keep adding as well). In some regards, he is the first (the other one did not hide comments, for example) and he keeps adding in his personal score.
- Wikipedia can be indeed a source of frustrations at times when you meet this kind of POV editors, and I understand if you want to quit: that means that you have a life and you don't want to waste your time with any given editor who thinks that yelling in capital letters is very smart.
- I see more and more people quitting because of this, and, myself, I have also have had to take breaks (from #1 POV editor, which looks like he is going to come back, by the way...)
- However, these editors usually get out of the community sooner or later, for a number of reasons. My advice is please keep working, if only in other articles. People like you is needed. Mountolive | Talk 23:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I came back for just a look and I'm glad I'm not around; my blood pressure would probably be a few points higher if I had stayed. I think the wikipedia project has reached its quality limits given the current framework. Perhaps one day I'll contribute under different circumstances. Danedouard00 03:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you say and, unfortunately, I do very well. Still, I thik you may want to look at this [1] and say your own lot as well, because those "different circumstances" will never appear...if they do it will be more and more people like that ruining what used to be a great idea (aka wikipedia)....then, I guess, immediately swallow the blood pressure pill and sneak only from time to time to see what's going on ;)
- Mountolive
AfD nomination of List of Ron Paul bashers[edit]
I have nominated List of Ron Paul bashers, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ron Paul bashers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --- tqbf 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)