User talk:Barraki: Difference between revisions
HPW |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
That's true, but unfortunately isn't the point. I have made a few edits there, but it is clear the coverage is generally not a patch on what is here. It would be impossible for just a few people to do the work needed to bring it up to the standard here. The other difficulty I saw was that while I did write a couple of articles, two people (and there aren't many editors) observed that my articles looked awfully like the ones on wikipedia. Well, of course they did, I wrote them. So, the issue is whether to argue about fine points for improving an already pretty good set of articles here, or start from scratch. On the whole there may be an interesting month ahead, but then the massive rewites begin. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
That's true, but unfortunately isn't the point. I have made a few edits there, but it is clear the coverage is generally not a patch on what is here. It would be impossible for just a few people to do the work needed to bring it up to the standard here. The other difficulty I saw was that while I did write a couple of articles, two people (and there aren't many editors) observed that my articles looked awfully like the ones on wikipedia. Well, of course they did, I wrote them. So, the issue is whether to argue about fine points for improving an already pretty good set of articles here, or start from scratch. On the whole there may be an interesting month ahead, but then the massive rewites begin. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Colleague == |
|||
please can you contact me at |
|||
boubaker_karem@yahoo.com |
|||
?? |
|||
thank you |
|||
Revision as of 15:13, 7 August 2007
Manga Kids article
Their article refers to him as the sixth because Jeremie counts as one of the first five. They're a reliable source. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Wardrobe malfunction. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Yamla 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
A-spot
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article A-spot, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tmtoulouse 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
U-spot
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article U-spot, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tmtoulouse 19:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
HPW
That's true, but unfortunately isn't the point. I have made a few edits there, but it is clear the coverage is generally not a patch on what is here. It would be impossible for just a few people to do the work needed to bring it up to the standard here. The other difficulty I saw was that while I did write a couple of articles, two people (and there aren't many editors) observed that my articles looked awfully like the ones on wikipedia. Well, of course they did, I wrote them. So, the issue is whether to argue about fine points for improving an already pretty good set of articles here, or start from scratch. On the whole there may be an interesting month ahead, but then the massive rewites begin. Sandpiper 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Colleague
please can you contact me at boubaker_karem@yahoo.com ?? thank you