User talk:Dr who1975
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
YES. THE SPACE KEY ON MY LAPTOP IS BROKEN! |
Contents |
[edit] Talk: Goth subculture
Nobody ever told me he was banned. Zazaban (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I did not see that. Zazaban (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IMDb
It's not a 'badsource'. It's really a more complicated one, factoring in time sensitivity and subject of citation. For movies that came out already ,IMDb's a great source for the credits. for movies not out yet, it's rarely a good source for much at all. Anything particularly important you'd need sources for, you should be able to find elsewhere, from more reliable sources. It's sort of like using WP for a source in a term paper. You don't; you use it as a jumping off point to find better sources and more info. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deaths in 2008
You need to provide an external verifiable reference for this death, otherwise it will just be removed. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 01:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I know you and trust you. "I would hardly stake my wikipedia career on something untrue" is good enough for me, but because of WP:V and WP:BLP, it has to be there. Over to you. --Rodhullandemu 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk: Goth subculture
Thanks for asking. But I see you already have done it yourself. I would have agreed anyway, but what's the point asking this when you already decided you would revert them in any case no matter what my reply would be? I understand your reasons, but I feel a little bit offended that you did it without even waiting for my reply. Anyway I'm fine with it, but I would have prefered doing it myself. On a side note how about blocking this IP, instead of constantly deleting his contributions on and on?Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hillary article
The Hillary main article is a high-profile, FAC-level article that has some long-established conventions for formatting and for succinctness of contents. Long quotes and other digressions belong in the campaign article. The main article is tight on space and additions have to be phrased as succinctly as possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You've already made two non-sensical edits, one that put VP speculation into 2001 and one that doubled the size of the article. I'm willing to assume good faith, but in all honesty this is not the article to be learning how to edit on.... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We all make edit screw-ups, but when there's major political news like tonight is when these articles get huge spikes in readership (check http://stats.grok.se/ a few days from now) and it's important to set our best foot forward. Also, study big articles like this for their style and usage and content conventions, before trying to make changes to them. I would do the same if I were to want to edit the Doctor Who article, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Naming of Census Articles
I have opened a discussion at Talk:United States Census, 2000#Requested move about renaming all the year-specific US Census articles. I see that you are active on many of the articles, so I am requesting your input.
