User talk:Paladin Hammer

Hello Paladin Hammer, and Welcome to Wik.ipedia.Pro! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the . Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! VanTucky Talk 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wik.ipedia.Pro Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wik.ipedia.Pro Community Portal Follow Wik.ipedia.Pro etiquette Practice civility

I did take the picture myself, at the British Museum, where the "sign" said it was "probably vandalized by Christians" (can't remember the rest of the explanation, it was over a year ago). I don't know if it was one or multiple people, or how the vandalism was done, and I doubt anyone does. This may be of interest to you, though, and should be the citation you're looking for. You might want to try asking on the reference desks for more information about the Dunbar robbery. Cheers, and welcome. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put out a call to the other longterm editors of this article to address unsourced material. This is bad timing to eliminate statements from this article and I'd like to ask you to hold off until after the Beijing Olympics.

Due to the current unrest in Tibet, the Tibet editors are swamped. Buried. Overwhelmed. We are experiencing an unprecedented amount of interest in Tibet, and an unprecedented number of new Chinese editors who have an anti-Tibet education (for example, just to keep one word, "invasion," in an article on the People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951), I was required to produce ten citations to demonstrate that most of the world considered it an invasion). Progress is slow on all Tibet articles right now.

The two groups are so polarized at the moment that the Talk pages are time-consuming battlegrounds where it is extremely difficult to achieve consensus. There is an ongoing assertion that Tibet welcomes the PRC. There is an assertion that the Dalai Lama does not lead the Tibetan independence movement. There is an assertion that the Dalai Lama is associated with neo-Nazis and funded by the CIA. Multiple Tibet-related articles are in the midst of controversy over issues of bias. There have been aggressive tactics used on Tibet editors where they have had to call in other editors for help to avoid vague sweeping unnamed changes, and many, many fierce attacks on the western press as being biased so that even CNN and other sources that are usually considered reliable are being challenged. Because of the perceived bias of the western press, pro-PRC editors view wiki as an opportunity to present their point of view. The views of other countries regarding Tibet's sovereignty have been summarily removed simply because they were posted on a website.In some cases Tibet editors have had to fight false accusations of self-published material that were then accused of being irrelevant because they were written by white guys. Progress is slow in achieving consensus even on sources.

The bias furor is on both sides. Even the names of many Tibet related articles are under hot debate. Progress is slow in determining even the names of articles.

You'll note that all of these challenges have occured since the March 14, 2008 riots in Tibet. I could find more Tibet articles that are in contention, but please let the controversy settle down. We're stretched too thin and good material could easily be removed. Longchenpa (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea, thank you. I'm not against having the PRC input, it should be part of our effort, but yes, "flamewar" is a pretty good description of what's happening with many of the Tibet articles. It's not building constructive, informative articles. Longchenpa (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have on your page some "cheats" for tagging. Might I recommend "<nowiki>" This will make your

{ {Unreferenced} } <-- Place on any article that completely lacks sources. Just delete the spaces between 
the first set of "{" and the second set of "}"

into

{{Unreferenced}} <-- Place on any article that completely lacks sources.

. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making the same point. Otherwise it's best just to make the case on the talk page, but I understand why you'd ask. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]