Difference between revisions of "User talk:HarabecW"
(→Sorry) |
(→Undo revision 886218 by AmericanbyHeart) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
It doesnt need to be fixed, what I did is something the community is obviously OK with as no one responded to me for over a week when I posted massive issues with the original article. The article needs to be deleted --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 13:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | It doesnt need to be fixed, what I did is something the community is obviously OK with as no one responded to me for over a week when I posted massive issues with the original article. The article needs to be deleted --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 13:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
:Well, I agree that some of that stuff is questionable but just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean it's Ok. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:00, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | :Well, I agree that some of that stuff is questionable but just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean it's Ok. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:00, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::So what are we supposed to do? Just let it sit there until someone deigns to discuss it? --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:03, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::Apparently yes. It's not your website. The admins get to decide what they want in it. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:05, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::That isnt what a website like this is deigned for. It is supposed to be editable by everyone and everyone can contribute. If this is a website meant for a select group, then why allow us plebs to do any editing at all? If they want to outsource the sucker work like fixing grammar, they need to say so. The article is atrociously bad and needs to be removed. I gave ample time for people to read and respond. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:09, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::::I don't know. TK say you can do whatever you want with a wikipedia software website. These guys are doing what they want with this one. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:12, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::::::Harabec, I think you simply deleted a substantial amount of material in an entry. Is that what you call "editing"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:19, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::::::Yes, I do, especially if that information is demonstrably incorrect. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 15:07, 22 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == [[Labor union]] == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Please don't censor material without prior discussion on the talk page. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 14:51, 2 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :What's to discuss? There was loaded language on the page and it was removed in favor of more neutral and less biased language --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 22:51, 2 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Undo revision 886218 by AmericanbyHeart == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Why? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:48, 5 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | :No sources or information to back up the statement. If we're running a rag, then so be it, but the purpose of this website isn't to slander. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:24, 5 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::Slander who exactly? I didn't feel that was an issue when I wrote it. There are reports everywhere, give me time and I'll dredge them up.--[[User:AmericanbyHeart|AmericanbyHeart]] 17:33, 6 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::: OK, go ahead. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 18:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:49, July 6, 2011
Contents
Wicca
Please wait for an answer to your request before deleting material. --Joaquín Martínez 11:08, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
HarabecW, all I see you doing now is slipping in fact tags or removing information; I saw very little improving done to the Wicca article, which you said you would do. We are here to build up an encyclopedia, not take it down. Karajou 17:40, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
Tagging is improving the site. It lets people know where things need to be removed, added, or changed. And I cant seem to make any changes without getting yelled at by someone that I'm stepping on their turf. I have also doubled the size of the Wicca article and improved it's accuracy greatly. I am contributing plenty. -HarabecW
Gallery of American Heroes
Done, thanks, I agree with you in this subject. It was posted by a User that later was blocked. --Joaquín Martínez 00:16, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
Sorry
Looking at your good contributions I think you must have just made a mistake. Sorry for calling that vandalism and not giving you a chance to fix it. Nate 13:56, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
It doesnt need to be fixed, what I did is something the community is obviously OK with as no one responded to me for over a week when I posted massive issues with the original article. The article needs to be deleted --HarabecW 13:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- Well, I agree that some of that stuff is questionable but just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean it's Ok. Nate 14:00, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- So what are we supposed to do? Just let it sit there until someone deigns to discuss it? --HarabecW 14:03, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- Apparently yes. It's not your website. The admins get to decide what they want in it. Nate 14:05, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- That isnt what a website like this is deigned for. It is supposed to be editable by everyone and everyone can contribute. If this is a website meant for a select group, then why allow us plebs to do any editing at all? If they want to outsource the sucker work like fixing grammar, they need to say so. The article is atrociously bad and needs to be removed. I gave ample time for people to read and respond. --HarabecW 14:09, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- I don't know. TK say you can do whatever you want with a wikipedia software website. These guys are doing what they want with this one. Nate 14:12, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- That isnt what a website like this is deigned for. It is supposed to be editable by everyone and everyone can contribute. If this is a website meant for a select group, then why allow us plebs to do any editing at all? If they want to outsource the sucker work like fixing grammar, they need to say so. The article is atrociously bad and needs to be removed. I gave ample time for people to read and respond. --HarabecW 14:09, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- Apparently yes. It's not your website. The admins get to decide what they want in it. Nate 14:05, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- So what are we supposed to do? Just let it sit there until someone deigns to discuss it? --HarabecW 14:03, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- Harabec, I think you simply deleted a substantial amount of material in an entry. Is that what you call "editing"?--Andy Schlafly 14:19, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- Yes, I do, especially if that information is demonstrably incorrect. --HarabecW 15:07, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
- Harabec, I think you simply deleted a substantial amount of material in an entry. Is that what you call "editing"?--Andy Schlafly 14:19, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
Labor union
Please don't censor material without prior discussion on the talk page. MeganH 14:51, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
- What's to discuss? There was loaded language on the page and it was removed in favor of more neutral and less biased language --HarabecW 22:51, 2 July 2011 (EDT)
Undo revision 886218 by AmericanbyHeart
Why? --Joaquín Martínez 17:48, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
- No sources or information to back up the statement. If we're running a rag, then so be it, but the purpose of this website isn't to slander. --HarabecW 18:24, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
- Slander who exactly? I didn't feel that was an issue when I wrote it. There are reports everywhere, give me time and I'll dredge them up.--AmericanbyHeart 17:33, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
- OK, go ahead. --Joaquín Martínez 18:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
