User talk:Kitabel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as you did to desaxe. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] February 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. RT | Talk 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're trying to convince me that this is a waste of my time - it's working.
[edit] March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Barack Obama, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Jons63 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Barack Obama. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Jons63 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This is cute-n-precious. There are, literally, hundreds of pages containing this material - in addition to his book. If I link to them - you'll attack me for that. If I quote them - you'll attack me for that. If I quote, but do not attributer it - you'll attack me for that.
It appears that policy here is to permit accurate but injurious material to appear only if the subject is Pol Pot, &c.? Perhaps it's beyond your competence to perceive that permitting the content to remain as current is perpetrating a fraud on not only your readers, but the voting public? Or do you rely on Sens. Clinton or McCain to make a public comment that Obama is, in the legal sense, a bastard, and let the voters decide whether this fact, and Obama's omission of same, is relevant to their selection - rather than you?
Perhaps it might be more useful to abandon this pretense of encouraging knowledge, and instead formally defer to the current political climate - since it has the same effect?
[edit] Desaxe
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Desaxe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What phenomenal conceit. Considering all the fawning, servile adulatory "articles" (purely subjective remarks) you find quite acceptable, why is a bit of actual hard science so difficult to digest? Answer: you have not one person on staff who has the slightest comprehension of the above subject matter. If I "improve it", it will become even more opaque to your faux-journalistes.
Bit of a logic problem as well: your cautionary message warns me not to delete it... but you'll delete it anyway. If your point is (rather blatantly) "we do whatever we want", did you suppose your choice of circular logic would obscure it?
Your editorial policy is, quite simply, a hissy fit.
But, please, pay no attention - continue to suppress and confound those attempting to spend their own time improving what was, at least in concept, a good idea. Now... not so much.
