User talk:DGaw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, DGaw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your post like I did by using 4 tildes (~~~~), which will leave your username and time you posted the comment.
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Simplified Ruleset
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial, which can be very useful later.
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Glossary
- Check out Redwolf24's Bootcamp! Redwolf is a very friendly user, and this page might prove useful to you.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Wikipedia is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
Happy editing! Mysekurity 01:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Env. record
Hi, I've reverted "crit." to "record," in order to make the edit consistent with the Environmental Record Task Force. We want to keep this consistent across the encyclopedia.Benzocane 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi. I understand your concern. The goal of the TF is not only to add criticism--if you want to add "positive" information about the relevant entry, and such information exists, please do so. Not all the records are critical--they just contain the most relevant information. If the task force adopts the language you suggest, then there will be an NPOV risk; as is, the language invites editors to add all relevant information no matter if it constitutes criticism or praise. Please think beyond this particular entry--the ERTF is well established and involves tens of editors. Administratively, we need consistency across headings. Again, I understand your concern and share it--I just think "record" is less of an advocacy risk than criticism. I appreciate your engagement and I'm happy, of course, to discuss this further. Perhaps we should move our conversation to the ERTF page? Thanks! Benzocane 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Terri-Rae Elmer
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Terri-Rae Elmer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rtphokie (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
