Talk:Kim Wilkie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Portal	Kim Wilkie is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Hi Adam Carr, you reverted my edits of this page and said "revert wikification of common nouns, which is ugly and contrary to policy" I was wondering if you would be so kind as to link me to the particular policy page where it mentions that this is contrary to policy, as I looked on various pages and couldn't find this exact information. It would help me a great deal and help me save my time and others in the future. :) Thanks for reading.

"A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert," - [1]

I have never claimed to be nice. I don't know where the policy pages are but I have been told several times that there is a policy against excessive wikification. But even if there isn't a policy I will revert excessive wikification. Wikifying common words is ugly and distracting to readers. Adam 00:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam, for your response. I would appreciate a direct link to a policy page in the future if I'm being told that my edits were somehow against policy, it's only fair. :) Perhaps you have never claimed to be nice, but I never assumed or suggested that you were! :) I just pointed out something from a Wikipedia page above. It's nice to be nice to other members, after all, no man is an island. :) I appreciate the time taken in your response and will try in future edits of pages to not add what you call "excessive wikification" though until informed by a policy page I would be inclined to think of this as an opinion and a matter of taste. Your amusing example of excessive wikification is a little extreme, but I do see the point. I was not adding internal links to Wikipedia pages that didn't exist but only to pages that did exist, to help the reader. By all means, revert any "excessive wikifications" if you feel they are correct and an admin or someone in the know has confirmed this as policy. I however am nice, and appreciate those who are nice to me in return. It's nice to be nice. :) Edit: and I don't see how farmer and prison compare to words like is and to --Demonslave 20:13, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)