User talk:Wallie
Welcome!
Hello, Wallie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
|
|
Napoleon article
Wallie, I have to say that I agree with User:FayssalF that your edits to the Napoleon article are inappropriate in tone for the encyclopedia. The question of whether one person is a better strategist or better commander than another is inherently subjective. If you really think there is an overwhelming historical consensus to support your viewpoint, please cite references.
Also, you should note that you are coming close to violating the three-revert rule. I have seen people get banned from editing for this, so I wanted to be sure you were aware of it. This isn't meant as a threat; I'm not an admin, I don't have power to ban anyone, and I don't want to see you get banned. I do have a lot of interest in the Napoleon article and would like to see you help improve it, but I think it is time to go in a different direction than you have so far. --Russ Blau (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the citation to the article criticizing Napoleon's legacy. We don't want an article that glorifies Bonaparte; nor do we want one that trashes him. We want to present the whole picture. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Categories created by you
Hi, I've just noticed that you've created Category:Famous people and Category:Heroic people. As you yourself have noted, these are subject to controversy. Also, they are not objective. The very fact that an article abt a person stays on Wikepedia means that the person is notable (if not famous). Again heroic is loaded with connotations. Also, you mention that leaders should not be mentioned but you mention Mandela but wrongly say that Gandhi is the lone exception. If you look at the categories on these two pages, you will find that all of them are objective. You'd also realise that the categories that you created would not stand in face of intense scrutiny. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, especially considering that these are but early days for you on wikepedia, I request you to exercise circumspection as well in creating such categories. I suggest that you list them at WP:CFD before someone else does it; That would also send a signal about how fast a learner you are. Thanks a ton, enjoy ur stay on the Wikipedia -- Gurubrahma 09:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Of course there will be controversy. And anyone is more than welcome to alter these suggestions. I have just started the ball rolling. I only gave Ghandhi as an example of a leader. I never meant that he was the only candidare. I was just trying to avoid all the famous people becoming heroic too. (They often call themselves heroic). Mandella is of course a leader too. Of course, I would expect people to add lots of new names, and remove some, if they don't think they suitable. I expect a lot of names, but not 'thousands' I hope. I have also tried to be objective. Maybe Audie Murphy is a bit cheeky, and someone might remove him... that's OK. Wallie 09:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
You love everybody?
Do you love TOBY? --SPUI (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sure I do. Wallie 09:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)