User talk:ManEatingDonut: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:49, 23 October 2006

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ManEatingDonut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 10:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proven links (EAP)

I don't know if you are Swedish, and my earlier hypothesis on you living i Virginia is obviously wrong. But did you really study the source I gave for Gunnarssons proven links to EAP? It says (my translation)

The statement that the man was a member is probably correct in a formal sense. To achieve the number of members needed to get ballot papers printed and placed at the polling stations the EAP alledgedly used the signatures collected for other purposes at their card table shrines. People signed petitions against Palme, drugs <SNIP> Probably, the 33-year old signed one of these petitions, whereafter he became a registered member. There are also information that he was active in the Danish branch of the organisation.

Well. I won't revert, it's not worth it. If it makes your life happier not mentioning Gunnarssons provens links to the party in the LaRouche article, it's fine with me. It's funny that whenever you make an edit to a LaRouche topic you always encounter other wikipedians urging you to name sources for each statement you make. The demand for sources is so much higher in LaRouche articles than in other articles. I have seen that MO before... //Astor Piazzolla 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche publications

Regarding this edit, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors who repeatedly try to use LaRouche publications inappropriately (which means to use them as a source on anything other than the LaRouche organization) may be blocked from editing, as they are not regarded as reliable sources. This is particularly important when dealing with claims about living persons. See WP:BLP, which is policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Well. I won't revert, it's not worth it. If it makes your life happier not mentioning Gunnarssons provens links to the party in the LaRouche article, it's fine with me. It's funny that whenever you make an edit to a LaRouche topic you '''always''' encounter other wikipedians urging you to name sources for each statement you make. The demand for sources is so much higher in LaRouche articles than in other articles. I have seen that MO before... //[[User:Astor Piazzolla|Astor Piazzolla]] 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
+==LaRouche publications==
+Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=83177202&oldid=83113919 this edit], the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors who repeatedly try to use LaRouche publications inappropriately (which means to use them as a source on anything other than the LaRouche organization) may be blocked from editing, as they are not regarded as reliable sources. This is particularly important when dealing with claims about living persons. See [[WP:BLP]], which is policy. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)