User talk:TheGreenSaga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, TheGreenSaga, 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!  Kukini 08:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lost edits

Hi, and thanks for your concerns. I assume good faith when new editors make constructive edits, but I do not believe that your edits were improving the overall quality of the article. There are many of us who are trying to bring Lost to a featured article status. All major edits we make to the page are first discussed on the talk page. If you feel that your edits are necessary to make the article better, please feel free to go to the talk page and argue your case. You're free to edit any page on Wikipedia, but it's good etiquette to discuss your planned changes on the talk page first. If you have anymore questions you can reply on my talk page. Thanks! Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stony Brook Press Editorial Board

The Stony Brook Press Editorial Board has been proposed for deletion. Please see WP:NOT for the relevant concerns. NickelShoe 20:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more specific, I was in a hurry, and since I wasn't the one who proposed it, I could really only give you a general link for this particular concern. Basically, they don't think this information is of general interest. They're claiming it violates "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." You could also check out Wikipedia:Notability, which might help.
I see that you removed the prod template. That's okay, but you would have been better off to explain it in your edit summary and put some reasoning on the talk page. Because since you didn't explain why you disagreed, the article was pretty much immediately sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stony Brook Press Editorial Board. There's a discussion going on there about whether it should be kept or not. You'll want to go over there and explain why you think the information should be kept, as you did on my talk page. (Also, make sure to sign your post with ~~~~, that way it's clear who's saying what.)
One thing to consider is that it's not so much an encyclopedia article. It ought to have an introduction that links back to The Stony Brook Press and explains why the list is of interest and stuff. Check out Wikipedia:Guide to layout. You actually might consider merging this information into the article on The Stony Brook Press instead, though I understand why you have it separate for length considerations. Is this information available externally? Could you simply put an external link at The Stony Brook Press for people to look up if they want to do extra research?
Other than that, I don't know really what to tell you. I don't see the information as being particularly important to the encyclopedia, but I don't see the rush to get rid of it. Just make sure to post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stony Brook Press Editorial Board, make some improvements to the article, and post at the deletion discussion again to make sure they know what improvements you've made. NickelShoe 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)