User talk:Raidelaide: Difference between revisions
Danimations (talk | contribs) |
Danimations (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
After revisiting your contribs I can still see no evidence that your interest in contributing to this encyclopedia extends beyond the one article: [[Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission]]. I am concerned that your contributions thus far to the encyclopedia have been dominated by subtraction of swathes of referenced content, which should have been individually appraised and in most cases, I would argue, moved rather than removed from the encyclopedia entirely. |
After revisiting your contribs I can still see no evidence that your interest in contributing to this encyclopedia extends beyond the one article: [[Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission]]. I am concerned that your contributions thus far to the encyclopedia have been dominated by subtraction of swathes of referenced content, which should have been individually appraised and in most cases, I would argue, moved rather than removed from the encyclopedia entirely. |
||
Your eagerness to remove the [[WP:SPA]] tag placed beside your comments on the article's talk page is also concerning, since it was and continues to be an accurate description of your wikipedia contributions to date and therefore the status of your account. This is not unwarranted "personal tagging" but an accurate description of your account's status at the time you made those comments. Will you be expanding the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article at all in the future, or any others? You haven't touched the article for a couple of weeks now (since the mass deletions) and the Commission's website has been updated and the RC has been referred to by a number of different parties in media reports in the intervening period. I hope that you will be assisting the expansion of the article in the future. |
Your eagerness to remove the [[WP:SPA]] tag placed beside your comments on the article's talk page is also concerning, since it was and continues to be an accurate description of your wikipedia contributions to date and therefore the status of your account. This is not unwarranted "personal tagging" but an accurate description of your account's status at the time you made those comments. Will you be expanding the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article at all in the future, or any others? You haven't touched the article for a couple of weeks now (since the mass deletions) and the Commission's website has been updated and the RC has been referred to by a number of different parties in media reports in the intervening period. I hope that you will be assisting the expansion of the article (and others) in the future. |
||
--[[User:Danimations|Danimations]] ([[User talk:Danimations|talk]]) 05:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
--[[User:Danimations|Danimations]] ([[User talk:Danimations|talk]]) 05:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:10, 29 August 2015
General chit-chat
What else are you interested in, besides the law and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, Raidelaide? --Danimations (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
—
The legal stuff is a big part, although I'm interested in South Australian heritage and important events in it's history. This Royal Commission is a rather interesting part of SA's history.
What are your interests? It looks like you're quite interested in Nuclear and Uranium mining in South Australia. --Raidelaide (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
—
I'm interested in history, law, energy, environment, politics- in no particular order and often in combination. --Danimations (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
SPA tag and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article focus
Thanks for your note over on my talk page, Raidelaide. I'm reposting and expanding upon my response here.
After revisiting your contribs I can still see no evidence that your interest in contributing to this encyclopedia extends beyond the one article: Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. I am concerned that your contributions thus far to the encyclopedia have been dominated by subtraction of swathes of referenced content, which should have been individually appraised and in most cases, I would argue, moved rather than removed from the encyclopedia entirely.
Your eagerness to remove the WP:SPA tag placed beside your comments on the article's talk page is also concerning, since it was and continues to be an accurate description of your wikipedia contributions to date and therefore the status of your account. This is not unwarranted "personal tagging" but an accurate description of your account's status at the time you made those comments. Will you be expanding the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article at all in the future, or any others? You haven't touched the article for a couple of weeks now (since the mass deletions) and the Commission's website has been updated and the RC has been referred to by a number of different parties in media reports in the intervening period. I hope that you will be assisting the expansion of the article (and others) in the future. --Danimations (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)