User talk:Inglettv

Welcome!

Hello, Inglettv, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

October 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Rachael Ray, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on the Rachael Ray talk page about your edits which keep being reverted. Please do not add them again with discussing them first. --Megaboz (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the number of Wikipedia guidelines - there are certainly quite a lot of them! I felt that your additions focused too much on that site, and not enough on Rachael Ray. However, if the number of Rachael Ray critics has significantly declined, then that probably is worth noting in the article. Maybe the solution is to just add an additional sentence stating that the membership of the site has declined since then without getting into issues relating to the site moderator. The other thing is finding a reliable source for the number of participants in the site - that would help verify the decline in criticism.

Relating to the 1900 number, I'm not actually sure where that figure came from. I read the NY Time article which was used as a source, and it only mentioned 1000 members. I've changed the article, so now it too only mentions 1000 members. --Megaboz (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]