User talk:Subbevil

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); 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! --Pharos 17:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I like your comment on the main page discussion about the realities of Canada. An unfortunately large portion of Canadians don't know anything about true Canadian history, or how recently things like residential schools had continued for (which leads to a blind eye to many current issues, such as the prevalence of racism in our lovely "multicultural" state). Too much nationalism is bad for reality. FireWorks 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Synergy, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- - Wolfkeeper 03:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well, it seems to me that the Synergy page already fails the 'constructive' test as it doesn't meet even a modest standard of writing. Despite a bit of 'snark' in my revisions, they would likely pass the standards of a seventh grade research project, and are thus more 'constructive' than an article that begins by stating that "A synergy is where..." The funny thing is that my revisions could easily be changed to reflect a more "neutral" (though, given its comical uselessness, I don't think any description of "synergy" that doesn't openly mock it is particularly neutral) tone while still avoiding the mind-numbingly bad writing currently present. I restate my commitment to changing it until it's written better; I invite you to follow my lead and show a similar commitment to quality and "constructive" revisions :). Subbevil (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)