User talk:Keichwa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Keichwa :) Please don't remove stubnotes on small articles. They serve to entice a reader to expand the article, amongst other things.
Thanks :) Dysprosia 11:39, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I think readers do not deserve such a treatment. Readers will see that an article like this one is short - no need to tell them about it. Readers are not that stupid as some one like me and you might think. Thus, please stay away from this "policey" of adding stub notes. --Keichwa 19:24, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-
- I suggest you put this comment on the Wikipedia_talk:The_perfect_stub_article-page. The discussion should be held there. And comments on discussion pages should be on the end of the page. I am interrested in the outcome, because I want to discuss this in the german Wikipedia soon :-) Fantasy 21:25, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- There a pointer already exists. Otherwise, please act on your own. --Keichwa 01:55, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi Keichwa, I did not act because it is your discussion and I was not sure if you like that this is transfered to that page. It was just my opinion that it should be discussed there, but you have to decide, it is your discussion page. :-) Fantasy 09:03, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- No, this one here is not my page. --Keichwa 09:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sorry, but for me user-pages are something that I don't dare to modify. Some kind of "ethics" ;-) Fantasy 09:45, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub suggests that stubnotes exist on stub pages. And it's not an implication of stupidity, it's an invitation to edit, in my opinion. Someone unfamiliar with the Wiki concept may not really believe that s/he can edit the page: the stubnote basically says that they can. Dysprosia 09:15, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- There are already edit buttons; no need to clutter an article. If the reader is too innocent we cannot help (like in real life). It's good to make things easy, but not easier etc. pp. You might get the idea ;) --Keichwa 09:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
-
Hi. I noticed that you had put back the references that I took out of the article on Christoph Martin Wieland. I should have explained my reasons for doing this with the 1911 articles, and I have now done so at the Talk page for that article. Maybe you would like to debate the subject. Deb 14:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
