Talk:Betrayal of trust: Difference between revisions
From BoyWiki
Created page with "This article needs some ''very serious'' reworking. It is amazing that BoyWiki allows articles which are so poorly written to remain in mainspace. ~~~~" |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Cleanup required== | |||
This article needs some ''very serious'' reworking. It is amazing that BoyWiki allows articles which are so poorly written to remain in mainspace. [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 05:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | This article needs some ''very serious'' reworking. It is amazing that BoyWiki allows articles which are so poorly written to remain in mainspace. [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 05:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
:1. If you have an issue with an article please add the appropriate page tag. 2. You Wrote it. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|50 px|link=Etenne]] 12:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: | |||
::Hmm... perhaps you notice that I have been a little bit busy creating/editing articles over the past 24 hours? If you look at the "Recent changes" page, perhaps you will see what I mean... I was up all night, working on all these articles. I happened on the Betrayal of trust article, noticed it was poorly done, and left that comment. (I was ''very'' tired at that point.) It seems clear why the article is such a mess--I cut and pasted from several sources, then included other information, but never went back to fix it (I went offline not long after I started the article, remember?.) Because it is so poorly done, I assumed that you-know-who did it, so I left that comment. My bad... [[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Like many articles on BoyWiki that were written by current users... I just assume that the authors will go back and improve them when they have time. However, that does not mean that I will never take a week (at some point in the future) and review everything from A to Z and start purging stuff that have structural issues or no historic value and have not been worked on if a long, long time. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png|50 px|link=Etenne]] 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: | |||
::::I understand your concerns. It seems to me that if an article has "structural issues" but ''still'' contains good information that ''another way'' of handling the problem (instead of deleting the article) would be to ''fix'' the structural issues, don't you think? | |||
::::Uh, you say you might "start purging stuff"--isn't that almost like a threat or something? I was wondering, have you ever read the book by Dale Carnegie, ''How to win friends and influence people''? It's very interesting. In fact, you can read it here: | |||
:::::http://www.keepandshare.com/doc18/8621/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-by-dale-carnegie-pdf-5-1-meg?da=y | |||
::::[[User:User4|User4]] ([[User talk:User4|talk]]) 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:42, 11 April 2016
Cleanup required
This article needs some very serious reworking. It is amazing that BoyWiki allows articles which are so poorly written to remain in mainspace. User4 (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- 1. If you have an issue with an article please add the appropriate page tag. 2. You Wrote it. --Etenne
12:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC) -
- Hmm... perhaps you notice that I have been a little bit busy creating/editing articles over the past 24 hours? If you look at the "Recent changes" page, perhaps you will see what I mean... I was up all night, working on all these articles. I happened on the Betrayal of trust article, noticed it was poorly done, and left that comment. (I was very tired at that point.) It seems clear why the article is such a mess--I cut and pasted from several sources, then included other information, but never went back to fix it (I went offline not long after I started the article, remember?.) Because it is so poorly done, I assumed that you-know-who did it, so I left that comment. My bad... User4 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like many articles on BoyWiki that were written by current users... I just assume that the authors will go back and improve them when they have time. However, that does not mean that I will never take a week (at some point in the future) and review everything from A to Z and start purging stuff that have structural issues or no historic value and have not been worked on if a long, long time. --Etenne 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like many articles on BoyWiki that were written by current users... I just assume that the authors will go back and improve them when they have time. However, that does not mean that I will never take a week (at some point in the future) and review everything from A to Z and start purging stuff that have structural issues or no historic value and have not been worked on if a long, long time. --Etenne
- Hmm... perhaps you notice that I have been a little bit busy creating/editing articles over the past 24 hours? If you look at the "Recent changes" page, perhaps you will see what I mean... I was up all night, working on all these articles. I happened on the Betrayal of trust article, noticed it was poorly done, and left that comment. (I was very tired at that point.) It seems clear why the article is such a mess--I cut and pasted from several sources, then included other information, but never went back to fix it (I went offline not long after I started the article, remember?.) Because it is so poorly done, I assumed that you-know-who did it, so I left that comment. My bad... User4 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I understand your concerns. It seems to me that if an article has "structural issues" but still contains good information that another way of handling the problem (instead of deleting the article) would be to fix the structural issues, don't you think?
- Uh, you say you might "start purging stuff"--isn't that almost like a threat or something? I was wondering, have you ever read the book by Dale Carnegie, How to win friends and influence people? It's very interesting. In fact, you can read it here:
- User4 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
