Contents

User talk:Sidelight12

Please do not change the parameters of a merge template unless there has been a previous discussion of this (each such template shows a Discuss link to the current discussion). I have reverted your change.HGilbert (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the discussion page, and didn't see a discussion about it. My suggested merge is more logical. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 18:07, February 1, 2015 (UTC)

The merge notice itself includes a link to the discussion. - 19:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I searched the archived discussion of one page and didn't find it. It's on the Ecological farming page. It's not logical to merge Ecological farming with Organic Farming. Although organic farming is a subset, they're not equivalents. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 18:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment on the talk page discussion of this; that's what it's for! HGilbert (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's there. Talk:Ecological farming. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of you comments. I agree that RT is and looks like …. But it seems like you are treating wikipedia like a blog post or youtube post to discuss or show what you see wrong with them. This inevitably leads to biased editing either is substance or in tone. The most difficult task is to be unbiased when there is such strong emotions present. As you have described yourself (you hate RT for… all the right reasons I’m sure). But I don’t care, neither should you care about what I think. The article needs to read like a very neutral objective presentation of what they claim to be, what they actually do and what the criticism are. All of this in appropriate section. Respectfully209.59.106.25 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I got carried away on one article, when I usually don't on others. Thank you for your sincerity and for reminding me. I've lost interest in the article. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome your input on how to split the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral article. See the discussion here. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've already done it. Good effort. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiversity-t has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template is as useless as the project itself. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]