User talk:KyleRGiggs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. Thank you.
For older comments, please see:
- Recent Archive (27.1.2007 ~ )
Contents |
[edit] NBA WikiProject Newsletter
 |
 |
|
| The NBA WikiProject Newsletter | ||
|
|
||
Project and league news:
|
Featured NBA articles of the week: |
|
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
[edit] NBA WikiProject May Newsletter
|
|
 |
| The NBA WikiProject Newsletter | ||
|
|
||
|
|
Magic Johnson has been chosen to be our very first Collaboration of the Month article. Although this is article is already a Good Article, it still can be improved. The goal is to improve this article by the end of May so that it can be nominated for Featured Article status. In particular, free-use images should be found for the article, all Manual of Style guidelines should be followed, and a neutral point of view should be maintained throughout the article. If there is anything you can do to improve the article, then please help out. |
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
[edit] no i wasn't
HI, I am a newbie.. but you said my edition to Champions League 2007-08 is vandalism.. I dun get it. Why? Maybe just same IP? Thanks. MiszaBot III (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-->
[edit] WikiProject National Basketball Association June 2008 Newsletter
 The Wikipedia:WikiProject NBA Newsletter |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
There are now 106 members of WikiProject NBA! Welcome to the 4 new members that joined during the month of May:
If you are interested in editing article related to the NBA, please add your name to the member list, if you have not already.
|
Last month's Collaboration of the Month, Magic Johnson was a great success. A total of 560 edits were made to the article during the month of May, and the article was eventually nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. Although the article was not promoted, it was significantly improved through the work of many editors. This month's Collaboration of the Month is Steve Nash. Although this is article is already a Good Article, it still can be improved. In particular, all prose should conform to Featured Article standards, all statements should be verified, and the text should be in a neutral point of view. If there is anything you can do to improve the article, then please help out.
 The Collaborator of the Month is given to the editor with the most number of substantial, beneficial edits to the article chosen as the Collaboration of the Month. This month's Collaborator of the Month award goes to Chensiyuan (talk · contribs). Although he had previously helped Magic Johnson to became a Good article, he made literally hundreds of edits during the month of May. For his contributions, he is rewarded with the NBA Collaborator of the Month Award. However, all beneficial edits made by any editor was a help. Other members of the project that contributed to the article include:
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. |
||||||
|
|||||||
The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.
[edit] Premier League 08-09 Managerial changes
I apologise to say it, but I have to say that I think you're wrong that a discussion would stop these reverts. If you check the edit history, the revert war started because an unregistered user just walked in and made an edit, and took offence when it was reverted, rightly or wrongly. In my experience with unregistered users, especially ones willing to spend two or three hours reverting their changes, they pay no attention whatsoever to discussion pages, either because they don't know they are there or because they don't care. The user Krollkroll almost certainly is this unregistered user registering because he was threatened with banning for vandalism and wanted to protect himself. The simple fact is that it's pscyhology - someone makes an edit then sees their work undone. They are unhappy about it and don't know (or in some cases, care) how Wikipedia works, and so they refuse to see their work undone, and undo changes made because they want their work to remain. Discussion points are beside the point, their only interest is leaving their mark in Wikipedia and not seeing other people remove it.
Now, I will heed your words. If it hasn't already been done then I'll go now and make a discussion. But if I were a betting man, I'd put £1000 on my edit - which I will make after the talk page discussion - being reverted by a user who hasn't made any comment in the discussion protecting his actions. I apologise for my aggressive tone - it's not really aimed at you, but at the farsity of this and the knowledge that this discussion page will make no difference, unless I get luck...I mean, unless the situation changes and that user doesn't return to continue the edit war. I'd be interested to see PeeJay's comments on this matter, out of curiosity, but that's beside the point. Falastur2 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
