User talk:Arodb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fingerprinting

I did a major revision of the fingerprint article to introduce the controversial aspect of this practice. I attempted this last August 2006, and was continuously reverted. The article before this revision had not included any of the inherent limitations of the practice.

See fingerprint talk page for more detail.

I sincerely hope the practitioners can cooperate in producing a balanced, accurate and acceptable articleArodb 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


If the article is "now a P.R. piece by the Fingerprint Professional Association", then you really ought to mark the article with an NPOV tag until it's brought up to spec. I say "if" because I haven't taken the time to find your old version in the archives and compare it to the current article, and given my current situation, I'm not likely to have that time in the near future, even though I suspect I would agree with you if I did. But YOU are already in a position to make that judgment call.... ClairSamoht 02:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Arodb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 00:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome again, and resp

(Sorry for the delay in resp.) Like i said, welcome again to wikipedia! I'm happy you've discovered what i agree is a great thing, and i encourage your participation. Thx for your note to me, and the good work on the Precautionary Principle. A few quickie resps:

  • Re your blog: don't take it personally, it's just that a blog is never going to be a good citation, since it's just your copy-paste of a text from elsewhere, and there's no telling if it's been altered. My advice (from a not-so-beginner to a beginner) is to think of a paper encyclopedia, except when it comes to how much room there is to work with. In this case, would an encyclopedia reference someone's personal notes? No, it'd go behind the notes to the place the notes were taken from. Make sense? Have you looked at things like this?: Wikipedia:Citing_sources, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, etc.
  • The summary was great, as i remember. But in resp and advice again (i hope that's welcome; don't mean to be overbearing. You seem to be asking/open...) i don't sweat the details. I see myself as primarily a wp reader, who supports/pays back by editing the problems i come across -- which is a LOT. I've never yet gotten into the details; i leave that up to the greater consensus. I just focus on things that are pretty clear cut and either easy or important.
  • Re gentle: tho i really support and practice Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, i'd advise you to prepare yourself for a nip or two, and don't take it personally.

Ok! See ya round, and hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phrases based on stereotypes

Hi, you may have figured this out since feburary, but please talk to people on their talk pages, not their userpages.

Secondly, you can give Articles For Deletion a shot, but look at the other articles there and how they are being voted on to decide how to best make your case. Lotusduck 13:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)