User talk:Smart Ways

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Thanks for welcoming me! Smart Ways (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Links
User:Smart Ways/ABCD

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How to use charts for your own pages
Simply copy the chart from a site you like between the {| and the |}. The titles lines start with ! - you will need to change these to follow your chart makeup. Delete all the lines from the |- to right before the |}. Now create your data with a first line like this: |- bgcolor="blue" This will create a blue background for the entire line. Now create the actual data with one line for each column (there is another way, but this is the easiest).

Thanks it.

Remember, the easiest part is to cut and past a chart from another page.

Good Luck. user:mnw2000 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

US Democratic Party Primary Superdelegate Controversies 2008
Another editor has added the  template to the article US Democratic Party Primary Superdelegate Controversies 2008, 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) 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New Article
I'm wondering if it might be better to work on your new article on superdelegate controversies on a subpage instead of a live article.

At this point the article is a target for people to say it should be deleted. If it was on a subpage, you should be able to work on it without that pressure. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(I see you are new here. Do you know how to create a subpage? If not, let me know. It's easy. )

PS The real key to this is, are there reports in reliable sources about superdelegate controversies? I'm not in the USA so I have no sense of this.

Sheila Jackson Lee
I see that you are new here. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. For one, Assume good faith. Don't accuse people of making politically motivated edits. Also, note that the statement that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is not found anywhere in Wikipedia's guidelines. The guidelines for article content require Verifiability and reliable sources, which we had in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content Also, note that there is a rule against reverting/undoing someone's edits 3 times. So please discuss this here or on that Talk Page before doing it again. - Maximusveritas (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think "I see that your new here" should be used to attempt to discredit my contributions. Additionally, although I have clearly not "been here" as long as you seem to have, I'm sure that the "assume good faith" policy is not meant to be used as an excuse to hide behind when making politically motivated edits.  Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the incident that went on where I was accused by this unnamed troublemaker with Off Wikipedia action such as having my IP Address tracked and my identity published.
 * I'm going to stick my nose in here where it is probably not wanted. I didn't get the impression that Maximusveritas was trying to discredit your contributions to article "content". I think he or she was objecting to you accusing him or her of making edits for political purposes.
 * Aside from the rudeness factor, and going against the Wikipedia "Assume good faith" policy, I think there are a couple more reasons not to make such an accusation.
 * 1) Have you evidence or was it a shot in the dark? (A rhetorical question, though Maximusveritas might well ask the question but not as a rhetorical one.)
 * 2) IT DOESN'T MATTER. If an editor makes an edit that says (par exemple) that candidate X is the best candidate for the U.S. Congress since Davy Crockett, they are expected to provide support for that statement in reliable sources. If they don't provide that support, the edit should not stay in the article. It doesn't matter whether the editor is the campaign manager of candidate X or the person in the whole U.S.A. who is most disinterested in politics.  (Same thing applies if the edit says X is the worst candidate for the U.S. Congress since Davy Crockett.)  Wanderer57 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No need for an apology, but it is appreciated anyway. Looking back at your previous edits, I see that you've removed similar sentences (without the booing incident of course) from other articles and probably just figured this was another case of that.  And I'm sorry to hear that you were threatened in that manner.  That kind of thing is definitely not allowed here.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit
Thank you! I assume you were referring to the superdelegate issue awhile back?  Grsz  talk  02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yeah, I was.  By the way, when I want to respond to something someone writes on my Discussion Page, should I do it here or on their page? Smart Ways (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Garcia
Hi; I noticed your recent edits to Michael Garcia. However, I believe that you've removed content that's important for a complete article. I believe that it is important to mention Garcia's resignation in the lead of the article, as it is one of the major highlights of his career; as WP:LEAD states:
 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any."

I believe that his resignation definitely merits inclusion in the lead. Additionally, I feel like it's appropriate to mention Garcia's abortive run for the state senate (and, therefore, how that was ultimately resolved in the wake of his resignation. I'm very much inclined to re-add those sections of the article. If you disagree, or see a way these things could be phrased more fairly, I'd welcome discussing it. Thanks! -- Sethant (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)