User talk:Whippersnapper1
Comment[edit]
Uh, this whippersnapper1 is obviously trashing the page. Really, calling someone a "mouthpiece for the ultra hard right Israeli lobby" and claiming she wants to subordinate US interests to that of Israel.... Even if you believe that, do you honestly think that is proper neutral language for wikipedia? Why not just caller her a baby eating nazi, while you're at it. Douche.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.248.67 (talk • contribs)
- I only quoted from the newspaper. Haaretz is a respected Israeli publication. It said she was a supporter of Israel. Since I quoted from the article, "The Israel Lobby" it seemed appropriate to give an example that was as recent as the last few days, i.e. 3 days ago. Your quote above doesn't appear in my addition to the page. If you want to quote please don't make one up. Also you meant to type "Why not just call her ...", not, as you did "Why not just caller her..." Finaly, please don't hyperventilate and start calling me names. Why would you make up something and put it in quotes when anyone can look at the page and see it's not there. Am I missing something?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippersnapper1 (talk • contribs)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Israeli-occupied territories. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." Wikifan12345, it's ok to trash my work but alright for anonymous people to write diatribes full of lies about my work. Are you a Wikifan or a fan to paid Congressional hacks and or certain lobbies that try to stifle debate in this country. Whippersnapper1 11:48, 22 March 2009
- You caught me. I am a paid congressional hack. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop adding material which does not mention Shelley Berkley to her article - it is a violation of WP:SYNTH - a policy you need to read. You may believe that it is wrong of Berkley or inappropriate of her to support certain actions, but unless some reliable source has made that argument, explicitly saying "Shelly Berkeley should not have supported X because Y" - you can't make that argument yourself. You can't combine one source that says "Shelly Berkeley supported X", with another source that says 'X is bad' to push the conclusion "Shelly Berkeley should not have supported X " . NoCal100 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you recently changed era style on Stone ship with the reasoning being you couldn't understand BCE and CE. If you click on the heading of this post, you can read about how era styles are used across Wikipedia articles. Cheers. TylerBurden (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- I took your advice and it seems excessively complicated to me. Apparently if you are uncertain of dating you throw in BCE and CE. It isn't something that a layman, the people an encyclopedia is aimed at, would easily get their head around. It seems unduly complicated. People shouldn't have to learn a new way of dating the past and go back and forth between various chronology systems depending on whatever. IMP. Wiedersehen. Whippersnapper1 (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- As you can see both BC and AD as well as BCE and CE are valid, it just depends whichever is orginally used for the article. Since people use both, if there wasn't a bit of a system in place to keep some consistency people would just go back and forth all the time changing it to the version they are used to. It's the same situation with different English varieties on articles, a Brit will often change American spelling to British and vice-versa, so a similar manual of style is used for that when it comes to subjects not specifically related to them. You have to keep in mind these are both commonly used styles and what is easy for you would be as alien to others as BCE and CE is for you. It might not be optimal but I can see the reason for it being that way. Either way, your edit was clearly in good faith and I didn't wanna be an asshole about it, now you know. TylerBurden (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm old and people my age don't use language like that in conversations like this. But as I said I'm old. Thank you for your good faith. Bye Whippersnapper1 (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- As you can see both BC and AD as well as BCE and CE are valid, it just depends whichever is orginally used for the article. Since people use both, if there wasn't a bit of a system in place to keep some consistency people would just go back and forth all the time changing it to the version they are used to. It's the same situation with different English varieties on articles, a Brit will often change American spelling to British and vice-versa, so a similar manual of style is used for that when it comes to subjects not specifically related to them. You have to keep in mind these are both commonly used styles and what is easy for you would be as alien to others as BCE and CE is for you. It might not be optimal but I can see the reason for it being that way. Either way, your edit was clearly in good faith and I didn't wanna be an asshole about it, now you know. TylerBurden (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)