User talk:68.236.121.54: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

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.

@@ 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
-::I have no issue with your comments.  I agree, there is a group of people out there who vehemently oppose Agenda 21 and see it as a UN plot to destroy property rights.  The objections that some editors have on here in removing the oppossing viewpoint is that they see an issue with something called Wikipedia Neutral Point of View and specifically with Wikipedia Weight within NPOV. They question whether the objections are wide enough to  rise to a level that merits inclusion in the Wikipedia.  The objection I had was that in previous versions, only the disagreement with Agenda 21 was noted and onlly for the United States  but there is clearly quite a bit of support in the United States which was not covered.  It was a violation of WP WEIGHT so I added the supporting viewpoints from several countries, the location where the UN grades the progess towards Agenda 21, and I cleaned up the dissenting section to only include reliable sources WP: Reliable Sources. At the moment someone removed any dissent coverage.  I neither support nor object to that edit.  Overall, this is a charged topic and we're going to see contentious edits and we have to be careful that we don't violate Wikipedia's rules on Current Events WP: Current Events -- the wikipedia is not a journal or a journalistic source.  It's supposed to be cannon for just the facts and sometimes it's hard with these politically active topics to keep objectivity - political actors and cabals are present here.  I'm trying to be fair in my edits and respect the boldness of others.  Feel free to "be bold" and edit just please try to read up on the various rules on here that way your edits won't be removed by what we call WikiLawyering on here - make edits and back them with clear rationale.  Let's make it better.  [[User:Justanonymous|Justanonymous]] ([[User talk:Justanonymous|talk]]) 15:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)