| Revision as of 01:09, 28 October 2006 editAmber388 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,944 editsm removed needless word from my earlier comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:10, 28 October 2006 edit undoThenatureboy (talk | contribs)88 edits You want to try me? I have both barrels for you.Next edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| Cheers, | Cheers, | ||
| ] 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ] 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| My point has been made. Do not disturb the Master again. | |||
Revision as of 03:10, 28 October 2006
|
Welcome to Misplaced Pages Hello, Thenatureboy, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Misplaced Pages is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over four million articles in a host of languages. The English language Misplaced Pages alone has over one million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site. If you need help see:
Here are a few more good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place |
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Phi Beta Kappa Society on Misplaced Pages! Your test worked, and thank you for reverting or removing it yourself. The best way to do tests in the future would be to use the sandbox. You can look at these pages as well: how to edit a page, the tutorial, and how to write a great article. All of these pages are good places to start. Again, thanks, and we hope that you will like Misplaced Pages. -- Avi 04:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. Apologies for any miscommunication, but when I refer to "vanity" in an edit, I am referring to Misplaced Pages's guideline on the matter. As far as issues of split infinitives go, I am familiar with the MLA's recent granting of their acceptability; nonetheless, as it is a rule that has yet to take hold consistently across the English-speaking world, and as it in no way sacrifices clarity nor is it bad grammar not to split one's infinitive, I opt for sticking with the older grammatical prescription. In doing so, I am trying to bear in mind that the MLA and Bill Bryson are not globally recognized authorities, while English is a very widely spoken language.
With regard to my edits on Granite State Challenge, when I said "it is not unheard of," I meant that it is not unheard of for someone — anyone — to defeat a team single-handedly. The space allowed in the edit summary forced me to be concise, and so I was less clear than I should have been. My point here is that in order to keep Misplaced Pages encyclopedic, editors ought to hold articles of a similar ilk to similar standards. This means that if you're going to mention the incident to which you refer in your GSC edit (despite it being a conflict of interest by Misplaced Pages's standards), all such incidents deserve then to be reported. One might wonder then if every listing every account of every 17 year-old to have a great day behind the buzzer is what Misplaced Pages deems notable. Similarly, you'd have to go into the Misplaced Pages page of every team ever to have won or lost GSC (or any quiz bowl state tournament) and mention the team's W-L record in championship matches.
What it boils down to is this, I think: is the purpose of editing Misplaced Pages to build a better encyclopedia or to make a personal, social, or political point? I realize that these things may not be entirely separable, but I do hope that getting an understanding of the implications of one's edits and the Wikipedian ethos helps.
Finally, I do honestly apologize for at times being overly sweeping and dismissive in my edit summaries; I'll more carefully bear in mind that there are real people behind every edit and entry rather than nameless minions of disinformation. That said, I'm taking a moment or two to redo a small number of my edits, though not all. If other people alter your edits however, do realize that it is not done out of vendetta, but through interpreting a real set of guidelines and a valid notion of what is encyclopedic.
Cheers, Amber388 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
My point has been made. Do not disturb the Master again.