User talk:AmberAlert1713
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello World! -AmberAlert1713 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Howdy. -Earth 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] "Spelling corrections" in Homosexuality article
Hi. I think a lot of people would much prefer you didn't treat changes from British to US spelling as "corrections". garik 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation
Hello! I noticed that your edit to Homosexuality, and wanted to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies (though I ask you not to change all my spelling :)). Wanna join? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that is how we spell travellers and not how we spell diametrically. You got a spelling error and a conventional word. :) Anyway, add your name here and you're in! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome!
Hi, AmberAlert1713, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
:) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kill Bill
I'm afraid I have no idea what "out of universe" means, but I can give you a little history on the article. When I started contributing, it mostly consisted of the Volume 1 and Volume 2 summary sections (called something different then). They looked to have been thrown together by an enthusiastic fan, and they were a grammatical mess, so I rewrote them. But this subject attracts an enormous number of fan edits (especially following a TV airing), so they grew to the point where people were complaining there was no concise plot summary. That was when I added the current Plot section. I try to keep that section free of too many details, or it gets to be redundant with the other sections.
Since you indicated you are a n00b or something, my advice would be to stick to value-adding stuff: well-researched and -referenced new material that is relevent to the subject. I always wanted to add some favorable quotes to the Criticism section, as it reads a little negative now, but I never go around to it. Rewriting other people's text, except for flagrant grammatical boo-boos, is a losing proposition. Not only does it risk pissing them off, but it usually comes out worse, a blend of two styles. And it is pointless to try to shorten the article by deleting a sentence here and there from reasonably well-written text, when new trivia comes in a paragraph at a time. I don't know why people obsess on the length anyway--this isn't paper, after all.
In addition to questionable fanstuff and length obsessors, you have the f%#)$^#@ taggers who are always complaining how this has no reference (but never provide one) or that isn't "encyclopedic", or something is different from the way other movie articles are structured. If it gets to be too much--and if you have a sense of humor--you may prefer Uncyclopedia, where people are less anal. Gaohoyt 00:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SatyrBot 04:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)