User talk:Mookrit

Welcome
Hello Mookrit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up!

-- Paul foord (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Help me
I have a dispute with another author over this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs

My main contentions are: 1. The IPA is a libertarian, not a conservative, thinktank. This means they generally adhere to the views of classical liberals like Adam Smith. 2. The IPA does not support the complete abolition of occupation health and safety laws. 3. The IPA does not support doing away with trade unions completely from the workplace. Rather, they advocate for an end to special privledges granted to unions by government.

As a new user, I'm unsure how to go about ensuring a more neutral article is written? I'm not really familiar with using the coding on Wikipedia.

It may difficult to classify something as libertarian, conservative, or neoliberal. Such a classification can be controversial or inaccurate. First prize would be to have a source/reference on this like maybe the IPA's website if it mentions it, or input from an expert on that sort of thing. Second prize would be some kind of consensus or compromise. You are doing the right and positive thing to bring it up for discussion on the talk page of the article. Generally if you feel strongly about this you can be bold and go ahead and make whatever changes in the article and back those changes up on the talk page in a nice way. Generally however, if people do disagree with you, they might revert the changes, and at that point it becomes tricky because then if you revert their changes again it can become "edit warring" which is strongly frowned upon, so generally you can get away with one change before anyone gets upset. The other thing you can do is place the following template at the top of the section: Template:Underdiscussion (by pasting at the top of the section) This will bring up a message to invite users to discuss these issues on the talk page of the article to bring some consensus. (Note: You can read more about Consensus at WP:CONSENSUS where it says "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.". So in a nutshell: Make the changes you think are appropriate as long as you have read and listened to everyone's opinions and think you are justified, provide references wherever you can as this can greatly help your cause, and be open to discussion on the talk page, and outline your rationale behind your changes on the talk page in case anybody disagrees, and finally, if people do revert/undo your changes, don't panic, try talk them and try reach some kind of consensus/compromise). After all that if you're still stuck, ask for help again, talk to an admin, or follow the dispute resolution process, especially the "Request for comment" process. Rfwoolf (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Mookrit
 * Hi again Mookrit. Just thinking some more about the libertarian, conservative, neloiberal classification. I think that's something that might blend into being considered Point-Of-View (POV). Your point of view is X, someone else's point of view is Y, and that's why unless there is consensus you will have to try get references to verify and back up your claims, like press articles describing the organisation as some political classification. If no such references can be found, and no consensus can be found either, then as a compromise some of these POVs should be eliminated. I hope that clears things up a bit Rfwoolf (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Rgds, --86.138.217.202 (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)