User talk:Promsan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome! to Wikipedia!

Hello Promsan, this is Exir Kamalabadi, and I hope that you are having fun with Wikipedia. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Don't be afraid. Be bold! If you do something wrong, there is always someone who will clean up the mess.

Here are some links that you may find helpful:

Here are also some tips that you might find useful:

Finally, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page when you need help!

Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T'rima kasih

Thank you for adding id:Allah Anak to God the Son.

Tuhan memberkati Alastair Haines (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK-US Heterologues A-Z

"The protocol for adding words or meanings to this list is to post them in the talk area with supporting evidence if requested; all entries and edits must be discussed and agreed first. Please follow the style used in existing entries. Failure to adhere to protocol or Wikiquette will result in deletion of edits. Edit warfare or deletion warfare will not be tolerated and may result in Blocking of a disruptive User or even a request for page protection; please view the Wikipedia Page Protection Policy for more details. Having said all that, contributors are very, very welcome!"

While you are, like anyone else, very free to create pages, this sounds rather as if you consider this to be "your" page and that editors must obey "your" rules. I'm afraid that we don't work that way on Wikipedia. You have no right to post your opinion in this way and no right to delete edits if they don't agree with a non-standard process that you have imposed. -- Necrothesp 13:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

But see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The phrasing of your paragraph very much suggested that you regarded this article as your own and would delete edits that had not been discussed first. This has never been Wikipedia policy to my knowledge. It is a freely edited encyclopaedia. People can delete edits if they have good reason to do so, but not just because they have not been previously discussed. If it were the case that every edit had to be discussed, then Wikipedia would not grow very fast! "All entries and edits must be discussed and agreed first", you say. Which Wikipedia policy states this? The justification you quote is a suggestion for people unsure about their edits, not an instruction as to how edits must be made.

Nobody said you were a newcomer, but you have recently started editing the British/American word pages, which is what's relevant. Nobody has set themselves up as a self-appointed administrator on these pages, but you must understand that some of us have been editing them for a fair time and seen many of these exact same additions come and go before. So it is indeed "tiresome", to use your own word, when somebody suddenly comes along and starts editing the list to meet their own agenda and objects when others re-edit to meet the criteria that have been established not by any one individual but by general consensus and usage over time. -- Necrothesp 15:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree that all Wikipedia entries should be discussed first, and neither, I suspect, would many other editors. We currently have 748,512 articles, many of them constantly updated. Do you think we would have anywhere near this number if every single edit had to be discussed prior to its inclusion? Most editors would lose interest rather rapidly, I suspect. But that is not, I'm pleased to say, Wikipedia policy. -- Necrothesp 21:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My hazy recollection of this discussion was that I was being accused of doing what my accuser was actually doing. My response was to leave him to it and do a page that had different criteria for the entries rather than indulge in assymetric debate (i.e. I would simply be perptually told I was wrong by my accuser and none of my proposals would ever be more than humoured). The "heterologue" page (which is not "mine", I just created it) has a different remit to "his" page; and so he has no business dictating what should be on it, especially as a pretext to saying that it's some kind of vanity page and a duplicate in order to get it deleted.

Anyway, thankfully I don't have the time to expend on wikipaedia. I have concluded that wikipedia is of very limited value and it's english section is inevitably dominated by americans and cybertrolls: it's far from being the best place to get your info (and the updating is pretty unreliable too).It takes one to know one

I agree with the above. Where is this alleged Wikipedia policy of placing edits on the talk page? Nonsense. Well done for publishing it as soon as poss. and not keeping it for yourself. But now you must accept the article here as the "master" version, copy it off each time you want to do off-line edits and be prepared for edit conflicts.
Also, I hope you have worked out by now that we pefer singular titles. Eg. homograph not homographs. -- RHaworth 01:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Scottish Wikipedians' notice board

Since joining Wikipedia recently I have learnt an awful lot, and one of those things is the value of teamwork. It has become increasingly apparent to me that there are absolutely tons of people out there devoted to editing the Scottish articles, but we communicate only haphazardly. To begin to attempt to remedy this, I have initiated a notice board for all Scoto-fans!

You can find it using this shortcut: WP:SCOWNB (yes, I know that it ain't very "short", but our nordic neighbours had first call on WP:SWNB).

Please sign up and post notices, or at least Watch the page.--Mais oui! 15:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our forum

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of British words not widely used in the United States, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Oo7565 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biological imperatives and Biological imperative

Hello. I have recommended Biological imperatives (an article that you created) for deletion because it is (excluding a few minor edits) a verbatim copy of Biological imperative. As for the article itself, some of your contributions to it appear to be original research, as indicated by the phrase "I argue that...". Please note that Wikipedia's policy is not to include original research (see the policy page here).

If you have any concerns, please feel free to reply on my talk page. Robin S 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)