User talk:Rach.thukral/Archive/2010

Welcome!
Hello, Rach.thukral, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Steve slater, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I 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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Harry the Dog WOOF  12:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Steve slater
A tag has been placed on Steve slater requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Steve Slater has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://twitter.com/SteveSlaterF1. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve Slater
Please read the many articles on How to edit Wikipedia before doing any further work. Your intentions are good, but you need to understand what is suitable or not for an encyclopedia, and how to edit and mark up pages properly. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Learn to edit well, then criticize
Hi. Firstly, who are these "many"? And how many times have I done this? Hyperbolic untrue statements as the one you made just make you look petty and ignorant. Secondly, take a look at the comments up this page from this one. You have been criticized already for poor editing and for fundamentally not understanding what Wikipedia is. Go and read some of the WP:MoS, and never, never, never leave comments on other people's talk pages without signing them. Also, read WP:BRD. You will see that the proper mechanism for dealing with an edit of yours that has been reverted is to discuss first, not simply revert the reversion as you did. Third, I did give a reason. It is in the edit summary on the History page. I always leave edit summaries so people know what I do and why. You, on the other hand, do not. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and if you want to criticize someone I very strongly suggest that you don't go and perform precisely the act that you are critical of! Finally, Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia designed to be an interesting read for someone not familiar with the subject matter. We are not a fan site. We are not a cruft repository. I know that there are plenty of hopeless editors who seem to think that just because they can type something out then it needs to be included. This isn't true. In an article such as Mercedes GP a boring, tedious, dull litany of "and then they went to this race and finished here, and then they went to another race and finished there, this was followed by another race where they finished blah blah blah blah ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad tedium" simply makes the article worse. Why do you want to bore people to death? In summary, your edits are boring and use very poor English. Rather than try and rescue a dead duck, I reverted. Why do you expect to be able to add poor quality material here and for it to survive? Are you expecting other editors to waste their time, their volunteer time, their recreational time, in following you around and cleaning up your garbage?  Pyrop e  12:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rachit, you need to actually read what you write. Your precise comments were "many users including me don't like your attitude of removing F1 results from pages updated by us. I don't understand the need of removing F1 results from pages of various drivers and teams. Can you please tell a Reason why you do so. If you remove the results from various pages, what will you be left to update?". Now re-read my comments above and relate the two. You may well have a good knowledge of Formula One, but this isn't a site for simply regurgitating what you know. It bears repeating, so I shall, that Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia that is intended for both informing and entertaining (entertaining being just as important) members of the general public. People who likely have no previous knowledge of the subject that you are presenting. In the long run precise details of a particular race, unless they are momentous (controversies, milestones, serious accidents, etc.), are spurious in an article such as that. Just look at the mess that Scuderia Ferrari is in at the moment. Do you think anyone with only a passing interest in Formula One will bother to read all that? No, of course they won't. Why? Because after a while it just gets dull. The biggest problem we have in WP:F1 is that because a lot of teenage boys with, let's face it, questionable social skills are interested in Formula One we do tend to attract a huge quantity of fancruft. I'd dearly like to take a hatchet to the Scuderia Ferrari page and try to generate something readable, but I know I'd be fighting a losing battle. The topic is simply too high profile and is popular with zealots who can't tell when they are boring: "Oh I disagree, if you want to understand the history of Ferarri in Formula One it is absolutely vital that you know Fernando Alonso had a bit of a sniffle in first practice for the Australian Grand Prix!" Finally, I would again just point your attention to the top of this page where another editor has helpfully placed a few links to some very useful guidance pages. If you are serious about contributing constructively to Wikipedia I suggest you spend a couple of of hours relaxing and reading through them. Also, by "signing" a comment I mean that you use four tildas ( ~ ) at the end of your comment. The Wiki software then does the rest, date stamps it, and provides links to your home and talk pages, like this...  Pyrop e  15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)
Welcome. – Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (July)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (August)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  15:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September)
-- Midgrid  (talk)  20:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (October)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)
-- Midgrid  (talk)  00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)