User talk:Editor0982
Welcome
[edit]Hi, Editor0982. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia! -- Chzz ► 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
|
January 2010
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Profession has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there! Saw your post on the talk page at Profession. Put simply, I basically agree with your argument, and I think some delicate rewriting of that section is called for. I still stand by the revert I made earlier -- you can't just delete that whole section, because that is a widely sourced and prevalent stance on the issue. But there are clearly two sides to the issue, and your side (which I tend to agree with) is wholly absent from that section, and shouldn't be. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Women in Society
[edit]There is only one source for this section, an article by the National Organization of Women. It should be OBVIOUS to Wikipedia that N.O.W.'s views, writings, and "research" are wholly feminist. They represent only ONE perspective. As such, they lack objectivity. A N.O.W. magazine article is credible only to the extent of providing a feminist point of view. In fact, most of N.O.W.'s work is complete garbage. It's fiction, steered by emotion and gender politics. It's most certainly not scholarship, because it's not intellectually honest. As far as the roles and responsibilities of Iroquois women, Wikipedia should bypass the feminist filter altogether and instead DIRECTLY reference EXPERT subject matter. By "expert" subject matter, I mean work done by cultural anthropologists. And by the way, an anthropologist is degreed in anthropology, NOT women's studies, gender studies, or sociology.
Please note that your recent edit to Iroquois looks to be simple pushing of your point of view. This type of edit is against Wikipedia policy. Denouncing the National Organization of Women in Wikipedia's voice is making this article into an editorial platform for your views. You are urged to revert your change to the article and open a discussion on the article's talk page about any concerns that you may have. If you decline to do so, action may be taken against you by Wikipedia administrators. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2010 (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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Editor0982. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)