User talk:Imelda54

Breaking Dawn

Hey, a few notes. First of all, do not put comments on the article page itself. That's what the talk page is for. Secondly, don't just put "according to a fan". You need sources, and just quoting fans isn't encyclopedic. Thirdly, no, "criticisms" do NOT mean having both positives and negatives. "Criticisms" are just negative. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was enrolled in an honors English course in high school. Criticism, in that context, is similar to critique. That is how my English teacher explained it to us. Of course, this was over 35 years ago.

In the vernacular, criticism is negative.

Well?

The World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary

Criticism 1. disapproval, faultfinding

Criticism 2. the making of judgements; approving or disapproving; analysis of merits and fault

Gee,I guess my honors English teacher and I are correct.

Criticisms, anyone? If you choose to be supercilious, please make sure that you are accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imelda54 (talk • contribs) 22:13, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

I suggest typing in a more paragraph oriented way, as it facilitates easy reading and following of discussions. Criticisms sections on Wikipedia (although discouraged) are for negative critiques only. Perhaps the WBE defines it as +/-, but the word criticisms has a strong negative connotation. Also, anytime you post on a talk page, even your own, please sign your posts by typing four tildes...~~~~. This enables other users to not only easily see who posted something, but also what time it was posted. If you have any questions about using Wikipedia, feel free to ask on my talk page (see my signature) or on the Help Desk. There are many users out there happy to give support. DaRkAgE7 _[Talk] 06:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Edits and Providing Summaries

First of all, thank you for your work to improve the Breaking Dawn article. In regards to your numerous recent edits, please provide a summary of the changes you are making- it makes it much easier for other editors to keep tabs on the article. It can be something as simple as "reword for clarity." Also, anytime you revert edits, it is especially necessary to provide an edit summary, because if you don't say why you're reverting something you could easily start an edit war. Again, feel free to ask if you have any questions. DaRkAgE7 _[Talk] 07:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]