User talk:68.236.121.54: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Blanked IP talk}} |
|||
== May 2012 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Hello, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/68.236.121.54|your contributions]] to [[Wikipedia]]. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, [[:Ray Lyman Wilbur]]. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying [[Help:Talk page|talk page]]. If you post your comments there, other [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|editors]] working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-talkinarticle --> ''I am moving your comment to the article's talk page: [[Talk:Ray Lyman Wilbur]].'' [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 17:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:''If this is a [[closed proxy|shared IP address]], and you didn't make the edit, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> |
|||
== Agenda 21 == |
|||
You posed a question on the agenda 21 talk page but that talk page is not for general discussion on agenda 21. There are all kinds o protocols on here regarding what is appropriate in different pages. Your question is complex. Agenda 21 is all about sustainability. It could be argued that golf courses waste water and are inefficient use of land. So agenda 21 would not ban golf courses, but someone or a group might make a case regarding how sustainable a golf courses are and agenda 21 might be backup or help guide their decisions....who knows....the best answer i have is " maybe". Bu it would be a local group of people that would lobby for or against something like that. as an aside I love to golf and I prefer golf courses that integrate into the local ecology of a region vs just trying to make it be like Scotland in the Sahara bu that's just me....anyway, good luck and welcome to Wikipedia.--[[User:Justanonymous|Justanonymous]] ([[User talk:Justanonymous|talk]]) 23:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I think you could make a case that since agenda 21 is a popular, or semi popular topic among right wing republicans (for want of a better term - if you want to replace right wing republican with a less charged term, no problem) it seems that a encyclopedia article on agenda 21 would cover how it is percieved (thats basic, right) and in that discussion, the right wing fantasys about the KGB/CIA/rothschild/soros world conspiracy would fit |
|||
:Further, that people seem to be *misquoting* the document is relevant; i agree that it is vague and you could argue that golf courses fit under unsustainable, but I believe people are quoting the document, which is an error |
|||
Latest revision as of 14:43, 28 September 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.