User talk:Ionesco

La Guerre de la Marmotte


User comment:

I refer to the plot of Groundhog's day, as a most striking example. Why do you completely edit out, not to say erase, good bits of others built from immemorial time to put in a single shot stuff of your own? which is arguably of much less quality. Is that your understanding of work in community? Just come, delete everything and start anew the way *you* feel it? I understand the liberty of others to edit, but the way you kill everything, it does not look like editing to me.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and anyone can revert an article back if they feel my content is wrong, inappropriate, or of lower quality than what it replaced. I stand by what I wrote, but I recoginize the ability of others to change it, that after all, is the entire point of Wikipedia.

Thanks for your input, anonymous user! Ionesco 17:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

p.s. Please use the discussion page for future editorial comment, that is what it is there for.

Not only you completely discard work of others but you do so in a way which makes it awkward to revert back, namely flooding the history with half a dozain inputs. I do not deny that in the whole, some are not valuable, like the 'reaction' paragraph you added. I do not feel it my duty to work hard to leave those valuable inputs while restoring the better older part that you thought would be better if written by you. Therefore I shall content to tell you that while you bring some good stuff, it is a pity you feel okay at the same time to overwrite many people's work who arrived at a consensus with some quite personal considerations.

In the spirit of the movie we are discussing, I have reverted much of the old text back. I have gotten rid of some of the text which seemed oddly phrased to me ( ...love with his beloved). I still think mine was the better, (save some truly bad jokes,) but it simply isn't important enough to upset anybody over. That one paragraph was the only major change I found to revert. If there is anything else in there you personally consider should be changed back, I invite you to do it, my anonymous friend.

Ionesco 02:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image:Baechle eins.jpg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 00:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Captain Phil.jpg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 09:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Happy Trigger Finger
Hi. Please wait at least a few minutes after an article has been created to delete it. I was putting in the proper links, and saved my article only to find you had deleted it. I don't think waiting ten minutes or so be such a bad idea. My $0.02. Ionesco 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Through use of the preview button, there's no reason your article can't be ready in the initial edit.  Feel free to recreate it in a state that's ready for Wikipedia!  BTW, if you let me know which article it was that was deleted, I can respond to your comment better.  Thanks! - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Preview button
Howdy! After our first interaction (above), I didn't hear back from you, but did a little looking and noticed something. You appear to make a number of contiguous edits to the same pages in short succession, and looking closer I saw that it appears as if you're not using your preview button to its full potential. I'd like to suggest that you preview your changes before committing a save, as it will save you grief in the future (because people won't delete a half-formed article you're writing, for one, as I noted above) and will also reduce the load on the server. It's considered good wiki-etiquette to avoid rapid-fire fixing edits and to try and "get it right the first time" through use of preview. This is just a friendly suggestion, I hope you'll consider it. You are, of course, under no obligation to change your habits, but doing so might engender a bit more good will from fellow editors and members of the community. Best regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2
Hmm, I'm really not sure how I could stop it, what happened was some of the book titles had some very very commonly used vulgar words (numerous times), We have been tweaking that filter (making it harder and harder to trigger), I'll take an in-depth look to see what I can do. -- Tawker 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Novels Collaboration of the Month
You supported Moby-Dick, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Moby-Dick in popular culture
I've nominated Moby-Dick in popular culture, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Moby-Dick in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Moby-Dick in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Moby-Dick in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jay32183 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)