| Revision as of 15:37, 19 October 2011 editRobertMfromLI (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,457 edits →I have collapsed and archived the discussion on Talk:Muhammad#Question_good_article_status.3B_view_overall_article_as_apparently_biased: Incorrect← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:53, 12 November 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm →top: Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| ==I have collapsed and archived the discussion on ]== | |||
| Please keep in mind, this does not in any way preclude you or prevent you from raising points on how to fix the issues you perceive with the article, but: | |||
| *Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to (or issues with) the content of the article - that includes indicating which sections and how you perceive they can be improved (with relevant suggestions). | |||
| *Article talk pages are '''not''' for discussing changing policies, including policies related to article talk pages. You may wish to visit the ] or elsewhere to discuss that. | |||
| *Continued off-topic and irrelevant discussions are not permitted on article talk pages. | |||
| *Disruption of article talk pages and articles is against policies and guidelines - such discussions will continue to be closed. | |||
| With that said, you may, if you are willing to, start a new section on the biases you perceive, if you are now ready to discuss specifically where you perceive such biases to be and how they can be fixed. This is assuming such issues are not related to changing policies to push your point of view, in which case, again, Village Pump or similar would be the proper venue - and '''not''' the article's talk page. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :well I notice your post on user:Qwyrxian talk page asking if it was to his satifaction it's obvious who you side with | |||
| :*As I responded on my talk page: | |||
| ::Incorrect. Though it may not have been clear to you, I know it was to Qwyrxian. I was discussing the ''method'' I used - not whether Q was happy with me doing it. I closed it because '''*I* deemed it unproductive and disruptive'''. My message on '''your''' talk page should have indicated that very clearly, as well as my closing message on the article talk page. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Feel free to keep the conversation in one place. I can answer you here or there - no need to double post. Also, please remember to sign your posts by putting <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of them. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:53, 12 November 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.