User talk:Simon123: Difference between revisions

Archives

/Archive 1

Hi, any chance you could clarify the 2nd sentence in the Unitised insurance fund article? What do you mean by "British Isles offshore jurisdictions". Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that. Is this type of fund a particularly British fund? In particular, which offshore financial centers typically offer this fund? It's difficult to find references. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you get the time, would it make more sense to list the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands rather than say British Isles offshore - or does Dublin get used for this sort of stuff? --HighKing (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have removed my NPOV tag several times for no apparent reason. Have you read the article? I'm sorry but I can't see any Zanu-PF replies or information vaguely supporting him. However, it gets a lot worse because a lot of this article is simply written in a tone which is unbelievably anti-Mugabe. People can get this kind of information in their newspapers. The current media situtaion in and around Zimbabwe isn't helping us to formulate an article which is NPOV, but we need to adress the situation of neutrality. Besides, there is already a discussion which has been going on for some time which proves that the tag is accurate as the NPOV IS DISPUTED on the discussion page. Even if there was no problem with it, you will still have to wait until the DISPUTE IS RESOLVED before removing the tag as if nothing was wrong. "Marxist one-party regime"? I don't think so. We are dealing with some kind of sock-puppetry of the MDC, or perhaps someone who believes everything that is written in the newspapers. WP:Zim must deal with this problem before it gets massively out of hand.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about swearing as I have already tried to suggest. But in no way does Robert Mugabe lead a "marxist one party regime". He is social democratic but not marxist. If he was officially marxist would he be leading a parliamentary democracy? (as far as we are concerned the fact that it his legitimacy is in question is irrelevent) Mugabe has not declared himself as in any way communist and follows democratic practices. You seem to suggest that I will not be using "RELIABLE sources for my arguments. What do you quite mean by this word "reliable". (yes I have read the page, before you start saying I'm a newbie with no brains.) Do you mean anti-Mugabe? I think you do:(. [1] This quite clearly illustrates that the media bias around Zimbabwe is being purpotrated by Western media as well as the state-run media. The problem is that we do not read the state-owned media because we see it as "propaganda", whilst we read gladly the media which told us that Native Americans were savages, Blacks should always be slaves, the Golf of Tonkin incident, and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If you read the article you would notice that it talks about "international" (i.e. Western) reaction to Mugabe's actions, while never ever giving a reply from Mugabe sympathizers. The only reply I can find is one which says that Tsvangirai deserved to be beaten, perhaps to portray them as brutal. PS - I will copy and paste this into the discussion.

By the way, I am not the only person on the discussion page who wishes to have a NPOV tag. As I said, this marks a DISPUTE, and there is quite clearly a dispute since before I placed a NPOV tag there.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]