User talk:Smartguy777
Important! Read this now!
If I post on your talk page, please reply on your talk page. If you post on this talk page, I will reply on this talk page. If I post on an articles talk page, please reply on the articles talk page. Thanks. Smartguy777 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC).
What annoys me on Wikipedia talk pages
Do you know what annoys me most on Wikipedia talk pages? It's when people request changes that they are perfectly capable of making themselves! If they want it changed so much, why don't they do it themselves? A word of wisdom to those who are reading this page: don't request it, just do it! (Unless it's a locked page that only sysops can edit, in which case you may ask one politely to change it for you.)Smartguy777 (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realise that that is exactly what talk pages are made for. Smartguy777 (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relating to the Guatemala article: Not Sure if you changed it but it's changed now, either that or I didn't see the flaw. Please respond! Jashhagl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me, but in future could you please answer in the talk page I posted the message in? I will be watching it. Smartguy777 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC).
RFA thanks
Meggie Cleary
Hi - How was my edit vandalism? I removed some POV literary analysis that doesn't belong there and was poorly expressed to boot. Please explain, and be more careful with your edit summaries. I've further edited the piece which was very poorly written, repetitive, and didn't take note that the character is not only in a tv film. Tvoz |talk 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain why that paragraph doesn't belong there. It contributed to the article just as much as all the paragraphs do. Thanks. Smartguy777 (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
- OK - this is what I removed: Meggie Cleary is one of the most poignant of characters in television film, conveying life's vast range of human emotions. As a young girl, Meggie was forced to grow up and see life as an adult, rather than to develop into that passage of life, in a normal sense. First, she is a character in a book, which was made into a tv mini series - but the character was developed in a book, so the opening doesn't make sense. Next, "one of the most poignant" - who says? It just represents someone's random opinion and interpretation of the character. There were no citations, no indication of whose opinion it is. If a published piece made the point, by a professional critic or journalist, then we could include it with proper citation, but this wasn't that. "Conveying life's vast range of human emotions" - what does this mean? Who says so? And the rest was poorly written as well - "develop into that passage of life, in a normal sense"? Poorly expressed -not clear what it means, and anyway, whose observation is this? This is a stub, but it needs to be written as an encyclopedia article - the rest of the piece has problems too, some of which I fixed, like a lot of unneeded repetition - but this end was unsalvagable. So that's why I removed it. I hope this clarifies it for you - I appreciate that you are trying to monitor edits and prevent vandalism, but I think you need to be more careful when you say "possible vandalism" in an edit summary - I gave an explanation in mine when I removed it ("lit-crit" means literary criticism, which is ok if it is sourced, but not ok if it's just someone's random thought), and there really was no call for it to be labeled as possible vandalism. Cheers. Tvoz |talk 06:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't know what lit-crit means. Smartguy777 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
- OK - this is what I removed: Meggie Cleary is one of the most poignant of characters in television film, conveying life's vast range of human emotions. As a young girl, Meggie was forced to grow up and see life as an adult, rather than to develop into that passage of life, in a normal sense. First, she is a character in a book, which was made into a tv mini series - but the character was developed in a book, so the opening doesn't make sense. Next, "one of the most poignant" - who says? It just represents someone's random opinion and interpretation of the character. There were no citations, no indication of whose opinion it is. If a published piece made the point, by a professional critic or journalist, then we could include it with proper citation, but this wasn't that. "Conveying life's vast range of human emotions" - what does this mean? Who says so? And the rest was poorly written as well - "develop into that passage of life, in a normal sense"? Poorly expressed -not clear what it means, and anyway, whose observation is this? This is a stub, but it needs to be written as an encyclopedia article - the rest of the piece has problems too, some of which I fixed, like a lot of unneeded repetition - but this end was unsalvagable. So that's why I removed it. I hope this clarifies it for you - I appreciate that you are trying to monitor edits and prevent vandalism, but I think you need to be more careful when you say "possible vandalism" in an edit summary - I gave an explanation in mine when I removed it ("lit-crit" means literary criticism, which is ok if it is sourced, but not ok if it's just someone's random thought), and there really was no call for it to be labeled as possible vandalism. Cheers. Tvoz |talk 06:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)