User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2010/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao
Hi, you said a couple nice things about the St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao article when it came out. I'm looking for someone to review it for good article status. Would you be willing? If so, go to the article talk page and follow the instructions there. Thanks again for your encouragement. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have never reviewed an article before. I will have to read up about the process and think about that.--Charles (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Richard Sternberg edit
Charles, I believe I made my case for the edits I made to the Richard Sternberg article in the discussion page. Did you have a chance to read that before you reverted my edit? I have verifiable sources to counter the unverified statements currently in the article (namely the BSW position website is no longer is operation).
I have used the Souder report appendix as justification for my edits. It is the same report used in the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy page to suggest that Sternberg tried to shake down the Smithsonian for $300,000.
I will revert my edits, but before I do I will give you a chance to respond. Mathezar (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- The full text of the e-mail indicates a state of confusion in its author, clearly not happy with the situation, perhaps unable to put his finger on exactly what was wrong at the time of writing. It is no endorsement and not a reliable source.--Charles (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Based on your statement I have almost no confidence that you actually read the McDiarmid email. While I respect your right to form your own opinion on something, I reject the notion that yours is the only opinion that matters in this instance.
- "not a reliable source"? If this is your position, since the same source was used to suggest the Sternberg asked the Smithsonian for $300,000, are you saying that we should remove that section of the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy page. And did you happen to note that the Souder Appendix was deemed reliable by the Scientific American article that Guetarda cited in our discussion on the Sternberg page. I think you are applying Wiki policy only when it benefits your point of view.
You are invited to discuss the Arain page dispute at Talk:Arain. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: Iotamikadoshi
Thanks, I really couldn't've been bothered to report the whole scenario (hope things work out for you, whatever your situation is). The pastafarian bit wasn't directed at you, btw, it's just what came to mind. Celestialwarden did issue an inappropriate warning to Iotamikadoshi at one point, which I removed, and I think that's kinda where it went from kids not knowing what they were doing to uncivil kids not knowing what they were doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Charlesdrakew, so you have aided your friends, Ian Thomson and Celestialwarden11, and you and others are conspiring to present a united and clearly prejudiced front against myself and certain other users, on basis of personal religious beliefs. See here for a full list of these Satanists; there are many self-professed devil worshippers whom contribute well to Wikipedia. I do not think it well or fair at all to 'watch' them all, merely. Again, I repeat: it was not only I whom raised a complaint against the Celestialwarden11 user; not content with disrupting Wikipedia with her strange and non-neutral comments, this user has insisted on dragging other random users into this situation. Do you think this is fair? Her messages and warnings and Wikismiles, none of them were to my liking; it is my talk page, just as Margolin's user and talk pages are his as well. It is ours to edit as we please, not some official article on Wikipedia.
- Also, I do not know this Reverend Margolin user well; do not attempt to blame what he said in his messages to other users on me, Charlesdrakew. I confess that I recently desired to establish more formal contact with him, but his views on the ever-growing Church of Satan has thrown me off somewhat. Is this issue even worth being reported, a small argument between two users? Anyway, even Celestialwarden11 seems to have understood my point at last, as no more messages have yet been sent, thankfully. Please, do not overreact to this issue. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I have decided this: I did not edit Wikipedia for some time until recently, and I am willing to leave, for at least several months, if you consider stopping your report, Charlesdrakew. I even offer my apologies (if any are needed at all) to any user I may have offended here. I only ask that you are less biased towards Satanists in the future. Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
About Mustafa Kemal ATATURK page
hey i must say his father not Albanian and his mother not Macedonian,millions are people are readin wikipedia and there mustnt be FAKE documents if i cant delete is it possible to add this part to his Early Life which is from ataturk.com
Atatürk was born in 1881 at the Kocakasım ward of Salonika, in a three story pink house located on Islahhane Street. His father is Ali Rıza Efendi and his mother Zübeyde Hanım. His paternal grandfather, Hafız Ahmed Efendi belonged to the Kocacık nomads who were settled in Macedonia during the XIV - XV th centuries. His mother Zübeyde Hanım was the daughter of an Old Turkish family who had settled in the town of Langasa near Salonika. Ali Rıza Efendi, who worked as militia officer, title deed clerck and lumber trader, married Zübeyde Hanım in 1871. Four of the 5 siblings of Atatürk died at early ages and only one sister, Makbule (Atadan) survived, and lived until 1956. http://www.ataturk.com/content/view/24/43/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulytau666 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)