HAHAHAHHAH round 2...I am doing this out of annoyance of my time spent. Ready to be deleted again :)
This is a blatant misuse - See the difference
I spend my time to learn and contribute...I tryt to "Be Bold".
I sift through your forums to understand how to utilize the site to a very functioning degree.
I attempt to spend that knowledge to create a space for people to not only be brilliant in education, but also their creativity.
My efforts = Speedily deleted.
Not only was this stuffed by the red tape....It was speedily deleted...By an admin with a "raygun" page referencing Scientific Equipment from the Video Game Crash Bandicoot... Hmmmm...
Nothing against ray guns or sci-fi, but how does that qualify over anything I posted? When I read through requirements for pages and such...it basically is all grey area. I am curious how many reports have been done on the Crash Bandicoot raygun. this seems like a field that needs some extra dollars for research.
The burn is that there was no communication... No attempt to foster the idea...just a red flag and a click... No effort to further an awesome idea.
There are better ways to do things...Maybe respond...work with page editors...wikipedia has an army of admins...or is it just glorified formatters and spell checkers?. Challenge yourselves...See something worth while and work with it. The idea may need to be caressed a bit to get the formula dialed in, but to just up and delete. Especially when someone is putting in their own concerted effort. Even more so if that effort is intended to better everyone. Wikipedia is a beautiful forum for that, but it doesn't seem like the "Bold" is interesting to this community anymore.
What is wrong with linking and referencing, especially when the page gives you a new perspective on things. To me a more robust picture than your normal wikipedia page. What is the set amount of information that should be typed on a page before linking it to a source? One word?...two?....is it sentences that require reference, names?...all of it?...why type any of it?...If the idea is to collect information, How did I go wrong? I am just trying to extend the reach, with a spice of creativity.
It is another way to look at the same information, which makes the over all quality much richer.
What is the "vision" of wikipedia information? Please make that clear to me. I seem to only read vague articles that say admins do what they feel. This forum is sounding less and less public.
Is it the creativity that is too "Bold".
Other ideas I had, but had not quite learned how to do (I was right around the corner) was adding categories, and referencing at the bottom...The catagories would tie the creative link title to the appropriate area of study and also creating references at the bottom of each persons section.
Ftpftw1981's Wild Ride part deux
editStuff
editSmaller Stuff
editAnnoying much
edit...ehhh I'll stop here I have other things to do....