Knowledge

User talk:Teapeat

Source 📝

73:
warred away and claimed as 'primary sources'. Older, out of date tertiary sources are repeatedly claimed to be more reliable than later secondary sources, and tertiary sources and unrelated sources are used far beyond their reasonable range. The presumption of the editors, at best, is that there's one view on this chemical, that they have it, and that they can remove anything that disagrees with their view, and write the Knowledge to state that.
300: 158: 212: 263:
and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion
39:
and not cast so many aspersions at your fellow editors there? I understand your concerns about the sources, and I may agree with you on some of your points, but the insults directed the other editors there can actually get in the way of improving the sourcing. If you have issues with an editor,
72:
Frankly, I'm being revert warred into the ground, and I no longer have any reason at this point to assume good faith. Every edit is extremely heavily slanted, cherry picked or based on completely unreliable sources.. that are being claimed as reliable. When I add reliable sources they get revert
324:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
328:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
244:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read 114:. 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 178: 78:
When I complain about it, they twist the words in the article subtly to still give the same false impression, but without any attempt at all at achieving true balance.
40:
take it the editor's User Talk, as I see you have already... please don't continue the attack on an editor at an article Talk page. Content disputes can be taken to
320: 309: 241: 201: 139: 183: 268:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 135: 164: 149: 221: 126:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
249: 131: 265: 191: 313: 228: 173: 337: 279: 187: 176:
guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at
127: 333: 275: 103: 94: 36: 123: 107: 122:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 67:
I wish I could, it's not just about sources, there's systematic misrepresentation going on.
53: 245: 119: 111: 115: 41: 79: 17: 240:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under 305: 290: 264:
tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
260: 237: 205: 46: 220:
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
44:, behavior disputes to other venues, ANI is one as you have brought up. 255:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may
35:
Hi Teapeat, could I ask you to please stay focused on the sources at
341: 283: 195: 143: 87: 61: 25: 110:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge
270: 210: 172:. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the 304:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
308:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to
102:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 16:Retired, I'm not going to put up with this crap. 242:section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion 218: 8: 168:, which you created, has been nominated for 321:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lion lights 165:Category:Recipients of the Langley Medal 150:Category:Recipients of the Langley Medal 222:the guide to writing your first article 7: 310:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 266:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 227:You may want to consider using the 14: 318:The article will be discussed at 152:has been nominated for discussion 128:review the candidates' statements 298: 156: 134:. For the Election committee, 104:Arbitration Committee election 95:ArbCom elections are now open! 1: 144:14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC) 231:to help you create articles. 88:20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 62:19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 342:18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 284:17:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 250:Knowledge:FAQ/Organizations 196:03:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 130:and submit your choices on 357: 136:MediaWiki message delivery 236:A tag has been placed on 184:categories for discussion 312:or whether it should be 83: 26:15:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC) 21: 252:for more information. 271:deleting administrator 257:contest the nomination 246:the guidelines on spam 233: 215: 214: 108:Arbitration Committee 179:the category's entry 112:arbitration process 216: 124:arbitration policy 261:visiting the page 186:page. Thank you. 37:Talk:Tea tree oil 31:Talk:Tea tree oil 348: 302: 301: 273: 213: 188:RevelationDirect 160: 159: 60: 58: 51: 356: 355: 351: 350: 349: 347: 346: 345: 331: 303: 299: 295: 269: 234: 211: 209: 202:Speedy deletion 161: 157: 154: 132:the voting page 98: 54: 47: 45: 33: 12: 11: 5: 354: 352: 297: 296: 294: 289:Nomination of 287: 229:Article Wizard 217: 208: 204:nomination of 199: 174:categorization 155: 153: 147: 101: 97: 92: 91: 90: 75: 74: 69: 68: 32: 29: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 353: 344: 343: 339: 335: 334:Lavalizard101 330: 326: 323: 322: 315: 311: 307: 292: 288: 286: 285: 281: 277: 276:Lavalizard101 272: 267: 262: 258: 253: 251: 247: 243: 239: 232: 230: 225: 223: 207: 203: 200: 198: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 180: 175: 171: 167: 166: 151: 148: 146: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 96: 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 76: 71: 70: 66: 65: 64: 63: 59: 57: 52: 50: 43: 38: 30: 28: 27: 23: 19: 332: 327: 319: 317: 293:for deletion 256: 254: 235: 226: 219: 177: 169: 163: 162: 99: 55: 48: 34: 15: 306:Lion lights 291:Lion lights 238:Lion lights 206:Lion lights 120:topic bans 116:site bans 170:deletion 314:deleted 182:on the 80:Teapeat 18:Teapeat 106:. The 42:WP:DRN 338:talk 280:talk 274:. 248:and 192:talk 140:talk 84:talk 22:talk 259:by 100:Hi, 49:Zad 340:) 316:. 282:) 194:) 142:) 118:, 86:) 56:68 24:) 336:( 278:( 224:. 190:( 138:( 82:( 20:(

Index

Teapeat
talk
15:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Tea tree oil
WP:DRN
Zad
68
19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Teapeat
talk
20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Arbitration Committee election
Arbitration Committee
arbitration process
site bans
topic bans
arbitration policy
review the candidates' statements
the voting page
MediaWiki message delivery
talk
14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the Langley Medal
Category:Recipients of the Langley Medal
categorization
the category's entry
categories for discussion
RevelationDirect
talk

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.