![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
My bad, I'm a frequent editor of FFXIclopedia and that's not part of our wiki software. Just trying to pass some time while the wiki is down. I'll remember this for future use of adding templates to talk pages. Thanks :) -- Charitwo 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not sure if the Entrepreneurial Society or David Audretsch should be deleted. David Audretsch is a renowned economist and there is no information about him on wikipedia.
Cheers JPawan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPawan ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 April 2007.
Well, this is the first time I ever tried to put something in Wikipedia and I agree that the Entrepreneurial Society needs to be changed and made neutral. But why the article on "David Audretsch"? If there is something that is not neutral, can I change and have the "speedy deletion" tag removed from it? JPawan 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Many Thanks
without making a big deal about it or unduly upsetting a very fine and well-meaning editor by making any direct comments that might lead the editor to think that anyone had at all questioned their particular methodology we would be grateful if an opinion could be given on how to most properly approach an "activist" type bio
for instance: how many afternoon discussion groups led, or "chalk-talks" given should actually be listed; should the underlying notability of the groups referenced be taken into account; and things like that
perhaps a comparison could be done with another activist who is a "know quantity", for instance the internationally know and unimpeachably notable Robyn Ochs and the more local Sheela Lambert would be a useful idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.187.203 ( talk) 04:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Dear miss, we know that padding/inflating a resume is a regrettable but common fact of life in these times. However we were rather startled when the subject of the article, a person all of us were at least marginally acquainted with, began to boast that her importance was such that she rated an article on Wikipedia.
Out of curiosity people began to look up her bio and given what was personally known about various entries, people were, to say the least, "surprised" at what they found. A little more research revealed that what seems to have happened is that her resume was handed to someone who did not know her very well, but is the type of good-hearted person who tend to always think the best of everyone. This person then simply added in the data provided by the subject of the article without casting a critical eye on it.
The article's subject has recently made herself a rather big fish in our little, primarily academic pond. And further she has recently on two subjects proven herself to be nothing if not relentless and vindictive. So any indication she received that someone was not totally on board with her program would result in a witch-hunt that we would rather not experience.
While it would be difficult, not to mention revealing of some people's identities, to go through each and every sentence and point out the difference between an overly positive spin and reality, perhaps these few examples would give you an idea of why we are expressing our concern here: Bi Mental Health Professionals Association is really only a yahoo group with 35 members, Bi Women of All Colors is monthly brunch & chat group group with 78 members not all active, and so it goes. A good, helpful but not overly significant memo becomes a major study, a nice, informative talk given to a hand-full of middle managers becomes a large-scale presentation, attendance with others at various meetings becomes a leadership position, yadda, yadda, yadda. In our opinion this is the pattern at work throughout the entire article. This is all we are saying.
Please see talk page. Why flag this for speedy deletion? Did you not read the GEPR ref, http://www.gepr.net/mofram.html ? Started this as a stub, with significant citation (GEPR) showing importance & significance, anticipating more contributions by other WP authors. Gekritzl 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it doesn't really do much — it was just supposed to be a fix for some problems I had with wikipedia's searchbox, mainly the fact that it shows an annoying search screen on non existent pages. It's not very user friendly — every code is made in markup inside the search, for example: foo|g will google it, foo|gw will google wikipedia, foo|contribs goes to foo's contribs, foo|edit edit's foo, foo|hist goes to foo's history, etc.. I have no idea why it messes up other scripts, all it changes is the "action" html variable in the search form. GeorgeMoney ( talk) 21:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've already written to you about earlier problems with a revision war. I just wanted to point out that a while ago I added something different to the wiki page that I felt was completely neutral and totally appropriate. You can find the history comparison here. Perhaps if you read this source, you will see that in fact I am correct about this. I would like to submit the user responsible to a special page so something can be done about this guy. The user seems to be revising a lot without warrant. See his talk page for further reference.
A few articles on the users talk page:
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steinizethat ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 21 June 2007.
Do you follow Zamorak? ATROCITY1313 (Contact me)
Whilst I appreciate your notification to me, I have absolutely no idea what in the hell you are talking about, because I made absolutely no changes at all in any way to the text of that page, all I did was take some of the words on it and link them to the proper article on the Runescape Wiki for ppl who wish to find out about those things in more detail.......... sooooooooo......... yeah......... but......... whatever floats your boat..... Loismustdie231 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why you marked Zaro Aga with G1. G1 criteria states the following:
- Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "i9da7gy98sdygida%£U%ETDFHc8vda097tt{%£^O&£^IEUyrhgietysbvd}TYu{og;d", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.
- Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever
Zaro Aga was one of the longest living guys in the history. Thanks. BillyGee
Sorry about screwing up on the page but I dont want to get banned, and didnt know I was doing things wrong. I was making pages ahead of them then adding the info. So how do I get warnings taken away? Cause some other guy gave me my last warning. ( X9draven9x 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
Thanks alot man, I didnt mean to keep breaking the rules and didnt know I was when I was doing that. I made another band a wiki before and made the pages without having all the info in them first so they wouldnt be a dead link. But thanks again. ( X9draven9x 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
By the way, I looked up Wikipedia's policy on fancruft, and found that you are completely wrong in every way. Wikipedia has absolutely no policy against fancruft. That is a common misconception brought about by the people who think there should be a policy against it, or think there is and prefer it that way. Sorry for proving you wrong.....-- Loismustdie231 04:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I filled it out as a stub. Is it okay now? -- WilliamRoper 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you tag this as spam?-- P4k 05:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)