User talk:Nick-D/Thoughts

Comments

Sounds interesting! - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was right - It is intersting. I like your point on IP ediding, especially the way you phrased it. To bad it's "Non-negotiable"!

One line under "The bad" is confusing: "I've seen what are obviously unjustified complaints against admins be taken seriously at the atmosphere at WP:AN can at times descend into witch hunts." It seems to be missing some words in the middle of the main ideas. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'at the atmosphere' should have read 'and the atmosphere' ;) Hopefully it makes a bit more sense now! Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does! I think i read it that way the first time through. I d things like that myself all the time! - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts page provides a good, commendable, summary. Reflects quite a number of my own thoughts back when I was attempting to contribute, discuss etc. Romaioi (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(the following was originally posted by 142.33.84.17 (talk · contribs) on the main page) Response...Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, credible or otherwise. That you label it as one demonstrates that either you do not know what Wikipedia is, or what an encyclopedia is (or both, I suppose). An encyclopedia is a forum for the enunciation of general knowledge, and virtually all Wikipedia articles fail to meet that criteria; the subject is either too specific to warrant inclusion (at least as a separate article), or is of no intellectual value. An encyclopedia would not have articles on, just from looking at the front page as of right now, a hot air balloon crash somewhere or an album released by some band. If Wikipedia were an encyclopedia, it would have the standards for inclusion of an encyclopedia, and the vast majority of its articles would be deleted without a second thought.