User talk:Kitabel

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience!  RT |  Talk  21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to convince me that this is a waste of my time - it's working.

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Jons63 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Jons63 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is cute-n-precious. There are, literally, hundreds of pages containing this material - in addition to his book. If I link to them - you'll attack me for that. If I quote them - you'll attack me for that. If I quote, but do not attributer it - you'll attack me for that.

It appears that policy here is to permit accurate but injurious material to appear only if the subject is Pol Pot, &c.? Perhaps it's beyond your competence to perceive that permitting the content to remain as current is perpetrating a fraud on not only your readers, but the voting public? Or do you rely on Sens. Clinton or McCain to make a public comment that Obama is, in the legal sense, a bastard, and let the voters decide whether this fact, and Obama's omission of same, is relevant to their selection - rather than you?

Perhaps it might be more useful to abandon this pretense of encouraging knowledge, and instead formally defer to the current political climate - since it has the same effect?

Desaxe
Another editor has added the  template to the article Desaxe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What phenomenal conceit. Considering all the fawning, servile adulatory "articles" (purely subjective remarks) you find quite acceptable, why is a bit of actual hard science so difficult to digest? Answer: you have not one person on staff who has the slightest comprehension of the above subject matter. If I "improve it", it will become even more opaque to your faux-journalistes.

Bit of a logic problem as well: your cautionary message warns me not to delete it... but you'll delete it anyway. If your point is (rather blatantly) "we do whatever we want", did you suppose your choice of circular logic would obscure it?

Your editorial policy is, quite simply, a hissy fit.

But, please, pay no attention - continue to suppress and confound those attempting to spend their own time improving what was, at least in concept, a good idea. Now... not so much.

Policy advice
I see above that you've had some of your work squashed by other editors and admins. I've looked at your contributions and I can see that you've got a lot to offer here. I have some pieces of advice that may help you and will almost certainly frustrate you.

Regarding edits, your contributions appear well-informed and authoritative, but I don't see any citations of references. Even if you are the world's authority on a subject, your edits must be supportable and supported by sources to stand the test of the deletionists and exclusionists. They can comfortably and reasonably fall back on WP:OR, which is the Wikipedia policy against "original research". Your edit may be based on years of experience or personal research, but it is effectively "original research" if you cannot provide a source and cite it for each paragraph or statement that you add. It doesn't seem fair, but that is a compromise that has been made to handle conflicts over truly contentious disagreements of fact. I recommend that you browse the WP:OR policy.

Regarding deletions, you are not as powerless as you think you might be. An authoritative notice, like the one above, may sound like your hard work is getting flushed down the crapper, but that is not necessarily the case. If you read the WP:prod policy, you can challenge the deletion and if it comes to a debate, you can comment ("vote" is not the right word, as majority does not rule) and you can attempt to address "Delete" nominations. Note that in these discussions, the policies of WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not only enforced, they are simply good ideas for better persuasion. Even if you lose the delete proposal, you can ask the deleting admin to give you a copy of the text of the deleted article to preserve as a subpage on your user page. There you can work on it to address some of the issues that led to its deletion. This is the process that I went through with the Boss Hoss article. It got deleted at least twice, I requested the last version, worked it up to address the complaints and now it's a much better article.

A lot of the above advice is appropriately applicable to any edit wars or other conflicts that you might run into. Basically, be nice. If someone pisses you off, cool off, post a question to their talk page that doesn't attack them, and work towards a solution. If they are a jerk, ask an admin (or me, I'm not an admin and never plan to be) for how to proceed. You are not powerless to the whims of admins or "more tenured" editors. &mdash;BozoTheScary (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Harley-Davidson engine timeline
I saw some of your changes to the timeline and they don't agree with all of the sources on that page. However, the sources don't agree with each other either. Do you know of an authoritative source for these dates? What do you think of using a different color for parts of each timeline that are in dispute between sources? &mdash;BozoTheScary (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Formatting numbers
Thanks for adding information to Harley Davidson. Unfortunately your edits don't comply with the manual of style for numbers (WP:MOSNUM). All numbers should be separated from units of measure by a non breaking space - &amp;nbsp; - example 750&amp;nbsp;cc. As for bore/stroke measurements, it is quite useful to use the convert template e.g.  75.5 x  which would give you the following 75.5 x. Any questions, just ask. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Flathead engine constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  The Mi ke •Wassup doc? 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bore pitch for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bore pitch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bore pitch until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)