User talk:ArcAngel: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 0001 - 09/27/06 to 02/29/08 Archive 0002 - March, 2008 Archive 0003 - April, 2008 Archive 0004 - May, 2008 Archive 0005 - June to December, 2008

Thanks for your enthusiasm, but please don't welcome new users until they have made edits. This is because big flashy messages can be slightly scary, and a message that opens with 'Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia.' can be considered patronising. Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, well you should tell the other guy also who's doing the same thing I am. ArcAngel (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Sir, I don't understand why I9 canno't edit an article on the french novelist Adrien Goetz. My text is very respectfull and nothing is wrong. I found all my informations on some french site. Thanks for your answer and excuse my so bad english Jprof92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprof92 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2009 User Truco's reasoning was already addressed with the addition of four reliable source refs. Please examine those before summarily reverting. Thank you!208.120.7.152 (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message, but there's no need for an apology. I've seen other wrestling edits get much more heated. That's why I stuck to the videogame page; if I tried to add the exact same material to the Triple H page, I'd bet the battle would rage until Columbus Day. Anyway, thanks!208.120.7.152 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your name recently appear in my watchlist. Welcome back. :) Acalamari 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks A! Feels great to be back.  ;) ArcAngel (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please quit reverting ALL of my edits? I know those two with Grand theft auto San Andreas and Grand Theft Auto IV were kinda redundant, but my edit to mouse was actually pretty good and same with GTA 2. Just because I made one or two bad edits does NOT mean you get to revert all of them. Be reasonable and use some common sense.--Steve Harkness (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While some of your edits repeated information, others didn't improve the article. We'll see how others see your mouse edit since you seem to think it's good. ArcAngel (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but not all of my edits were bad. There were two or three good edits. You see, I am learning something here. Yes it is a good edit though as well as two or three others. --Steve Harkness (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Grand Theft Auto 2 still repeats information found in the first sentence. How can you consider that to be a good edit? ArcAngel (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just specifying what I was talking about in that sentence, also check out my other edits. It may however not be that good of an edit really. --Steve Harkness (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way, but if other editors thought your other edits were good, then they would have reverted yours back. This is a learning process for sure. Not all of my edits have stood - especially my first ones. Feel free to keep experimenting and over time you will get a feel for "what's right" and what isn't. ArcAngel (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mixtape is mentioned in the article and I was just about to add the tracklisting. Please remove the tag, you are rather to quick for me. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag will stay - all I could find on it were torrent download links, therefore this article fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will notify the original uploader. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to know your opinion on this:

• With so few edits to AFD, I feel this candidate needs more experience in this area to properly get a feel for that area

  How would you quantify experience in an AFD? Would you look at it purely from an editcountitis point of view or perhaps from the strength of arguments and the power of reasoning to drive home the point?

Regards. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, quality cannot overcome quantity, but one needs quantity to gain the needed experience to get the error-free quality required of the area. Someone who has around 100 edits (as RP does) in AFD would not be as suited as someone with say, 500 edits. I myself have 278 AFD edits, yet I feel I am still learning the process. ArcAngel (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Would you be willing to go through RPs AFD contributions and give him constructive feedback if you think he is lacking something for error-free quality at AFDs? [Personally, I think running Wikipedia "error free" is a myth.] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]