User talk:Vjillh

Re: whitewater edits

Hi Vjillh,

My specific "undo" was when you changed the dates on the top tags, such as {{Expand|date=May 2007}}. Those are supposed to document how long the article has suffered from the condition being flagged; you don't change the date, but eventually when the article is improved you remove the tag entirely.

Regarding citing references in general, there are several different formats people use; the one I use is a little non-standard but gets the information across.

Regarding editing Wikipedia in general, the best place to start is Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia and proceed on from there, with Wikipedia:How to edit a page covering the markup fundamentals. Wikipedia:Citing sources discusses the different citing styles.

Hope this helps ... Wasted Time R 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help - this is a bit of a test, just to see if you get this comment... i'm not seeing at the moment how to get back to your 'talk' page.

i didn't plan to make so many edits, but i can see i'm hooked, so i guess i'd better educate myself

thanks again

No problem, many Wikipedians respond to comments on the same page, so as to keep everything together. As for getting hooked, it's very easy, hence my username! Wasted Time R 00:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the links - very helpful... i'm wondering if it's ok to remove some of the 'problems' listed on the page - like: 'expand/references/contradictions/disputed/inchoerent' i think the article looks pretty good now, can i remove a tag like that if i think it's been corrected?

I would leave the tags on. The article still has a lot of issues as I see it. You've done a lot of work on the Hale aspect (however more citations need to be added), but several other aspects are still not covered well, including the Madison Guaranty failure, the role of Castle Grande, the Foster documents removal question, the Hillary billing records from Rose Law Firm, shakeups at the Treasury Department as fallout from the initial investigations, origins of Starr's appointment and criticisms of Judge David Sentelle, a clearer explanation of how Jones/Lewinsky got included under this IC umbrella, and some other things I'm sure I'm not thinking of. Also if you look in Talk:Whitewater (controversy), twice User:Kingturtle has posed lists of questions that the article doesn't make clear; those need to be addressed too. Wasted Time R 10:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pete Brewton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pete Brewton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Brewton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]