User talk:Faedra: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Deleted pages== |
==Deleted pages== |
||
Hi. The page Early National Socialism/draft was deleted several months ago by a consensus vote. You "reconstructed" this deleted page and put it back on wikipedia as European National Socialism. Please do not resurrect pages that have been deleted without first conducting a vote to "undelete" the article. Please see [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Early_National_Socialism/draft]] for the earlier debate on why that page was inappropriate for wikipedia. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 16:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
Hi. The page Early National Socialism/draft was deleted several months ago by a consensus vote. You "reconstructed" this deleted page and put it back on wikipedia as European National Socialism. Please do not resurrect pages that have been deleted without first conducting a vote to "undelete" the article. Please see [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Early_National_Socialism/draft]] for the earlier debate on why that page was inappropriate for wikipedia. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 16:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
Arrogant, am I? Faedra, you have a nerve. For months now, I have been following behind you clearing up your messes. I have tried really hard to be patient, and to give you encouragement and advice, to enable you to bring your contributions up to a reasonable standard. OK, so you can't spell or punctuate - no one is blaming you for the shortcomings of your education. But the sad fact remains that you can't be bothered to improve. You continue to ignore all the guidelines and agreed conventions that other people have gone to the trouble to create. You say other people suffer from "a failure to comprehend content provided freely to people less inclined to research important topics". What on earth is that rambling, incoherent phrase supposed to mean? The person who is not inclined to research is ''you''. If you had any comprehension of the word, you would recognise that spewing out garbled, often inaccurate "facts" and quotations does not represent research at all, and merely demonstrates your ability to copy things out of books. Anyone can do that, Faedra, and frankly a five-year-old could probably do it better than you do. If you want to experiment, why not do it on a piece of paper so that you can get it at least half-right before you publish it to all and sundry. Sorry to have to mention these home truths, but I'm tired of giving you second, third and fourth chances. [[User:Deb|Deb]] 20:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:10, 11 October 2004
Ref: Personal profile of contributor Faedra
I consider myself to have made sufficient contributions to this website to be entitled to make a general critism of its methods and some of its members, for now this opinion is found at:
I am not so preoccupied that I fail to notice failings around this website, and wish them to be addressed. I am not bothered if my contributions are unwelcomed but would appreciate it if someone would tell me so. I thought perhaps some one might appreciate my imput, but it is not compulsion.
Of related interest:
redirects : replace the content of the page with "#REDIRECT [[Name of new page]]".
Talking in ALL CAPITALS is considered shouting on the internet and rude. Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lord Warden
No problem. It's always nice to see people with an interest in British history here. Proteus (Talk) 08:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Deleted pages
Hi. The page Early National Socialism/draft was deleted several months ago by a consensus vote. You "reconstructed" this deleted page and put it back on wikipedia as European National Socialism. Please do not resurrect pages that have been deleted without first conducting a vote to "undelete" the article. Please see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Early_National_Socialism/draft for the earlier debate on why that page was inappropriate for wikipedia. AndyL 16:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Arrogant, am I? Faedra, you have a nerve. For months now, I have been following behind you clearing up your messes. I have tried really hard to be patient, and to give you encouragement and advice, to enable you to bring your contributions up to a reasonable standard. OK, so you can't spell or punctuate - no one is blaming you for the shortcomings of your education. But the sad fact remains that you can't be bothered to improve. You continue to ignore all the guidelines and agreed conventions that other people have gone to the trouble to create. You say other people suffer from "a failure to comprehend content provided freely to people less inclined to research important topics". What on earth is that rambling, incoherent phrase supposed to mean? The person who is not inclined to research is you. If you had any comprehension of the word, you would recognise that spewing out garbled, often inaccurate "facts" and quotations does not represent research at all, and merely demonstrates your ability to copy things out of books. Anyone can do that, Faedra, and frankly a five-year-old could probably do it better than you do. If you want to experiment, why not do it on a piece of paper so that you can get it at least half-right before you publish it to all and sundry. Sorry to have to mention these home truths, but I'm tired of giving you second, third and fourth chances. Deb 20:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)