Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
that were true, then you would be more about disability-access-barrier-modification, than about vengeful deletion, or so inclined to despise anyone who would ask f/ anything that you are not familiar with.
I had come to this page in order to look for a template to request a wikipedian[s] to more fully explain their cryptic cyclopædia encyclopædia definition.
[[ hopiakutaPlease do
sign your
communiqué.
~~
T
hank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 01:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The search does continue.
[[ hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué. ~~ T hank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The
discussion is very important.
The reason that I had gone here is to search f/ a template.
I do, hereby, request a "please do explain further" template, so as to ensure that that message can be easily sent.
For now, I do suppose that I would employ template : clarify; but, I would prefer the above variation, & template : explain does not have much.
They do, as well, call me "friend", which can be, ironically, worse than most any other insult.
None of you know my face, personally; I do not know your face, nor your telephone-number: I am not your friend, thus far.
If any of you would ever want to be my friend, & f/ me to be your friend, then that is acceptable; however, it is not true, hitherto.
Whereas, the overwhelming verdict is that I am a "disruptive vandal", I shall, now, begin to earn that stripe; three years of trying it politely has not achieved any access, thus far.
If you do really, truly, need a "disruptive vandal", which is what I am in advertently, then what do you think that I might create by intent?
[[ hopiakutaPlease do
sign your
communiqué.
~~
T
hank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I like this essay. On the other hand this reminded me that we cannot make synthesis that is not supported by reliable sources in articles, so it may perhaps be a good idea to also mention the situations where this applies (i.e. in communications between users about content, or on user talk pages about issues, this seems like a most appropriate skill). Vulgarization/popularization in articles is also very nice, but should still support the conclusions of sources in this case. 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
that were true, then you would be more about disability-access-barrier-modification, than about vengeful deletion, or so inclined to despise anyone who would ask f/ anything that you are not familiar with.
I had come to this page in order to look for a template to request a wikipedian[s] to more fully explain their cryptic cyclopædia encyclopædia definition.
[[ hopiakutaPlease do
sign your
communiqué.
~~
T
hank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 01:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The search does continue.
[[ hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué. ~~ T hank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The
discussion is very important.
The reason that I had gone here is to search f/ a template.
I do, hereby, request a "please do explain further" template, so as to ensure that that message can be easily sent.
For now, I do suppose that I would employ template : clarify; but, I would prefer the above variation, & template : explain does not have much.
They do, as well, call me "friend", which can be, ironically, worse than most any other insult.
None of you know my face, personally; I do not know your face, nor your telephone-number: I am not your friend, thus far.
If any of you would ever want to be my friend, & f/ me to be your friend, then that is acceptable; however, it is not true, hitherto.
Whereas, the overwhelming verdict is that I am a "disruptive vandal", I shall, now, begin to earn that stripe; three years of trying it politely has not achieved any access, thus far.
If you do really, truly, need a "disruptive vandal", which is what I am in advertently, then what do you think that I might create by intent?
[[ hopiakutaPlease do
sign your
communiqué.
~~
T
hank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I like this essay. On the other hand this reminded me that we cannot make synthesis that is not supported by reliable sources in articles, so it may perhaps be a good idea to also mention the situations where this applies (i.e. in communications between users about content, or on user talk pages about issues, this seems like a most appropriate skill). Vulgarization/popularization in articles is also very nice, but should still support the conclusions of sources in this case. 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)