User talk:Lancemurdoch

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello Lancemurdoch, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for all your contributions. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them: If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * MediaWiki User's Guide
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

&mdash;Noldoaran (Talk) 05:47, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Excellent work so far!
Excellent work so far! You've removed quite a large amount of propaganda in a short period of time. 172 00:29, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is best to cite a little more than "NPOV" when deleting large chunks of information. "NPOV" is completely unconvincing. Try using the talk page to justify your edits when you see yourself reverted. --Jiang 04:19, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Leave him alone, Jiang. He's doing us a great service by trimming off so much mindless dross. There's no need to be burdened with defending every change, however minor. If someone objects to his changes, then discussion can proceed. 172 05:36, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not suggesting that every edit be justified on the talk page - only edits that end up reverted. However, providing more explanation in the summary field than simply "NPOV" would put some more sense into your major deletions of data. --Jiang 07:21, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry 172, I agree with Jiang here. Some of LM's edits have been good (like deleting terrorist) but others are more problematic. Lance: through your comments on Talk pages and edit summaries, you make abundantly clear where your sympathies lie -- which is your good right. However, it is causing a lot of people who don't share your beliefs to look very closely at your edits. Personally, I think by wearing your ideology on your sleeve, you are being uneccessarily confrontational; from a stricly utilitarian point of view, it is counterproductive, and it may mean you get burnt out here more quickly than most. In any case, you must take the time to justify deletions like:
 * During this era, Shining Path used tactics that included conscription of children, forced labor, executions by stoning and throat-slitting (ostensibly to save bullets), destruction of the electricity infrastructure, indiscrimate bombings, and targeted assassinations of political opponents.
 * from the Shining Path article. I realize it is extra work and it is a nuisance when the system is slow. On non-controversial text it isn't so important, but you are choosing to edit controversial subjects, so more communication is required. -- Viajero 12:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support
I saw your comment on my website. Thank you so much for your support. Every little bit counts. You are absolutly right about our strike helping all American workers. I am begin to worry that Safeway CEO Steve Burd will succeed in his goal of breaking the union, but I will stay out until the very end. It is weird to be on strike longer than I've been working ;-) &mdash;Noldoaran (Talk) 01:55, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden
Please assist me in keeping the Osama bin Laden page from defining Al Qaeda as a terrorist group. As far as I know, no courts have found bin Laden guilty of terrorism. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Mel Gibson
Thanks for the clarification on "Middle America" vs. "conservative" in Mel Gibson. People tend to forget that the Midwest is the birthplace of the U.S. progressive movement. Davodd 03:28, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Robespierre
Thanks for your recent edits on Robespierre. I think what you are doing is exactly what the article needs. Much better than the wholesale deletion of paragraphs that I reverted. -- Jmabel 20:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

communist government
I note your dispute of neutrality addition to the communist government article. How many would the communist dictatorships have to enslave and murder before you would permit disclosure? As you see it the article is quite watered down. Fred Bauder 21:01, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

September 11 terrorist attack
Even though you may be right, I think moving "September 11 terrorist attack" to "September 11 attack" may hurt a lot of feelings and would have been better discussed. I am from Spain, so that matters not so much to me as to many other people. Just for your consideration. Pfortuny 20:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez
Hi, about Hugo Chavez, I'm not sure it's best to remove that text. Certainly, almost all national leaders are controversial. However, there are two arguments for allowing the removed text:
 * 1) Isn't that controversy an integral part of his record as President of Venezuela? The article on George W. Bush notes controversies, both in his policies (e.g. protests against Iraq) and in his personal life (e.g. drunk driving)
 * 2) Chavez is seen by some as more controversial than other leaders.

Support of zionism and racism
Thanks for your note at my talk page. Unfortunately, it's obvious that zionism and racism still have support among Americans, who generally dominate this encyclopedia. Here in Europe, zionism is widely considered "politically uncorrect" nowadays, even by many conservatives, not the other way round. Btw, seems like a funny guy, this User:Pellaken. You may have noticed his ridiculous attack on both you and me at the Village pump. / Zw

Socialism
OK, so I know you were unhappy with the state of the Socialism article 5-6 weeks ago. I've done a lot of editing since then. Please take a look. I believe it is a much better article now. I'd be interested in your opinion. --Jmabel 08:59, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The business and economics forum
Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them. --mydogategodshat 19:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)