User talk:Yanksox: Difference between revisions
An Oath of Sincerity |
Daveydweeb (talk | contribs) Wikibreak |
||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
If my article contributions are decided to be kept on the Wikipedia network, yes it will make disgruntled people angrier, but it will be providing an invaluable resource that has hitherto been lacked by internet 3'rd party sources. The quality of the material that I have added to Wikipedia is outstanding, and the lack of proficiency by users demanding deletion is not a substantial reason to delete the information. There will always be users tha have a problem, or want to discredit controversial information, but if the information in question is retained a great step will be taken to squash unsubstantial stereotpes about a technology that is extremely straight forward, consistent with the laws of electrolysis, and definetly consistent with the laws of physics. The blatent arrogance that users have to discredit such rationally written information should not impact the availability of information to users that actually have interest or care about the subject at hand. The attacks against my contributions are out of malance, and I don't even think they actually read the articles. I strong urge that before deletion the entire article be read in depth by either yourself or a coexisting administrator. If the article is read in depth it will prove clear as to why the material should remain on the Wikipedia network. [[User:Nseidm1|Noah Seidman]] 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
If my article contributions are decided to be kept on the Wikipedia network, yes it will make disgruntled people angrier, but it will be providing an invaluable resource that has hitherto been lacked by internet 3'rd party sources. The quality of the material that I have added to Wikipedia is outstanding, and the lack of proficiency by users demanding deletion is not a substantial reason to delete the information. There will always be users tha have a problem, or want to discredit controversial information, but if the information in question is retained a great step will be taken to squash unsubstantial stereotpes about a technology that is extremely straight forward, consistent with the laws of electrolysis, and definetly consistent with the laws of physics. The blatent arrogance that users have to discredit such rationally written information should not impact the availability of information to users that actually have interest or care about the subject at hand. The attacks against my contributions are out of malance, and I don't even think they actually read the articles. I strong urge that before deletion the entire article be read in depth by either yourself or a coexisting administrator. If the article is read in depth it will prove clear as to why the material should remain on the Wikipedia network. [[User:Nseidm1|Noah Seidman]] 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Wikibreak == |
|||
Oh, hey, it's no problem about the Wikibreak -- I'm happy to see you back, though, and thanks for the comments at the admin coaching page. I've still been active while you were away, but I didn't come up with any particular questions to ask you, and (AFAIK) there have been no more incidents to ask for help with. :) [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>[[User:Daveydweeb|b]] (<small><sup>[[User talk:Daveydweeb|'''chat''']]</sup>/<sub>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Daveydweeb 2|'''review!''']]</sub></small>) 03:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:37, 23 November 2006
 |
Since I am an admin, you can and should track all of my actions. This is my desk, where you can check all this stuff out. |
No barnstars please.
I've been really rouge lately, so don't worry.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11
MLB All-Stars categories
Hello YankSox. Thanks for let me know about you. I'm sorry to say that some people thinks that all American and National Leagues All-Stars should be deleted and merged into their parents. I would favour keeping both categories. I find categories useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. You know what? Finally, all Dates in Baseball articles were deleted because some wiki users don't see baseball history by date as notable or useful. I think is a shame to just threw away all this hard work. Now, is the turn for the All-Stars cats. It could be a bad precedent for future projects. In any event, could you have a look at MLB All-Stars categories for deletion? Please think about this and let me know what you think. Thanks. MusiCitizen 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yanksox. The proposal is not to delete the American and National League All-Start categories, it is to delete the subcategories by year and merge the contents into the two parent categories. The team rosters should be listed in individual articles about each all star game. This is happening in articles such as 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Listing this in an article adds the possibility of annotating the information with positions and other stats. Making categories out of this information clutters up articles such as Hank Aaron. If the information is in articles, it would MORE useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 20th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point...
There is an ancient Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China." youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. Just wanted to inform you that my article was edited to include information pertaining to the artists participation in a nationwide song writing competition, in which he placed in the top 10. According the the criterion, that qualifies the article as a legitimate addition to the website. If any other further editing is needed, feel free to let me know. Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.
Thank you soo much
Thank you for your kind welcome message. I was affraid that my additions were unwelcome as many users have been un-profanely attacking me. I will continue to add my knowlege in an un-biased fasion to various Wikipedia pages. I promise to maintain compliance and only add secondarily sourceable material and otherwise independantly verifiable information. It pleases me to take part in the Wikipedia project.
A Disheartening Issue
User "Pjacobi" has marked all of my contributions for "deletion debate". I have no issue conducting a debate on whether an article should be deleted or not, but there are no rational nor constructive arguments for the deletion of any of my article contributions. If a user has an issue with my additions they should change the sentence structure, or add information to the article, not mark it for deletion. Frankly I don't think he can understand my complex writing style, for if he did he would realize that my sentences convey rational and verifiable information.
I am an autohority on the subjects that I have contributed to. I have been involved for years on a College level and have recently unconvered that Wikipedia had pages on the subject matter. I was soo disheartened with the state of the pages that I felt in necessary to contribute, and what do I get, irrational attacks by unproficient users.
I guess what I am asking for is a little special attention to my contributions, and especially the deletion debates on various articles. I feel that all attacks agains me, and my contributions are irrational and unsubstantial. Everything I add is straight forward and logical. Thank you for your attention. Noah Seidman 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
An Oath of Sincerity
If my article contributions are decided to be kept on the Wikipedia network, yes it will make disgruntled people angrier, but it will be providing an invaluable resource that has hitherto been lacked by internet 3'rd party sources. The quality of the material that I have added to Wikipedia is outstanding, and the lack of proficiency by users demanding deletion is not a substantial reason to delete the information. There will always be users tha have a problem, or want to discredit controversial information, but if the information in question is retained a great step will be taken to squash unsubstantial stereotpes about a technology that is extremely straight forward, consistent with the laws of electrolysis, and definetly consistent with the laws of physics. The blatent arrogance that users have to discredit such rationally written information should not impact the availability of information to users that actually have interest or care about the subject at hand. The attacks against my contributions are out of malance, and I don't even think they actually read the articles. I strong urge that before deletion the entire article be read in depth by either yourself or a coexisting administrator. If the article is read in depth it will prove clear as to why the material should remain on the Wikipedia network. Noah Seidman 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Oh, hey, it's no problem about the Wikibreak -- I'm happy to see you back, though, and thanks for the comments at the admin coaching page. I've still been active while you were away, but I didn't come up with any particular questions to ask you, and (AFAIK) there have been no more incidents to ask for help with. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)