Difference between revisions 34910 and 34917 on enwiki

< previous diff
next diff >
User:24.150.61.63
Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):

*[[Jane Goodall]]
⏎
*[[Bonobo]]
*[[Eco-villages]]
*[[Greens]]
⏎
*[[Four Pillars of the Green Party]]
⏎
*[[Great ape]]
*[[Greens]]
*[[Jane Goodall]]


----

the user in question:  you don't seem too "reluctant", you are reversing careful rewrites without reading them apparently in defiance of protocol.

This one I edited first time without knowing the rules:
*[[Four Pillars of the Green Party]]
(contracted; show full)contribute to an article in an encyclopedia (I mean, if it is really important to you and you are serious), why not do a little ''research'' rather than just rely on your memory of a TV show or popular magazine?  In general, I would not count on National Geographic specials to be 'state of the art."  Anyway, how would you know -- unless you have done additional research.  And if you have done additional research, please rely on it! SR

----
''24.150.61.63 deleted 
most of the above, and replaced it with the following:''
----
Zundark sez: Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):

*[[Jane Goodall]]
*[[Bonobo]]
*[[Eco-villages]]
*[[Greens]]
(contracted; show full)

You have a body, you live in an ecology, and without both you'd be dead.  So I kind of resent being told that it's "BIASED" to bring up body and ecology issues in an encyclopedia entry, or quote things (like the origin of female breasts) that are not controversial.  Just how long have you dudes been here hacking?