User talk:Cynical/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cynical. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome message
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type Cynical (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use Cynical 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck! This unsigned message was left by Meelar Cynical 12:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
European Union Olympic medals count for 2004
Hi there,
I wonder would you consider reversing your decision to delete this article. I have substantially rewritten it. A united EU team is not going to happen. I've discussed potential EU co-operation towards the olympics, and kept the table. I believe the table is valid, for us Europeans/EUians to see how the area has fared as a whole. Please comment on my talk page if you still feel the article should be deleted.
I put this on WP:VFD, schools need to be notable to merit inclusion. Essentially this means notable alumni. All the best in everything else though. Dunc|☺ 12:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Violetriga discussion
NB: This is NOT a vote in Requests for adminship/Violetriga, it WAS my neutrality vote, however I moved it here to allow people to read the points explored without cluttering the vote page Decent amount of edits, and seems to have enough focus on a specific category (well I dunno if health is an official wp category but ya know what I mean), rather than some people who seem to pick rubbish articles from obscure categories just to boost their edit count. However userpage is sorely lacking- seems to be more of an attempt at 'look at me, I edit stuff' than any sort of explanation as to why he/she deserves to be an admin. Plus starting a slanging match with non-registered users is not the kind of defense wikipedia really needs is it? IMHO, not admin material but:
- I don't know the wikipedian personally, and character is as important for an admin as tangible stuff
- Decent edit history, even if it is over-publicised
Abstaining for those two reasons, but erring on the negative side of neutrality--Cynical 21:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Each of your points are valid, though I will try to explain each part. My user page is more for my reference of work done that anything else, though yes I'm also proud to show what I have added. It's far from a decent edit history because I feel that I only deserve to show major contributions. I still plan to expand it at some point but find it much more interesting to contribute things to the main namespace than think of what to write about myself. As for the anon argument I agree that parts of it were badly handled but I feel that I fell rather short of a "slanging match", more removing the content of a terrorist-obsessed anon that refused to register. Anything you would like to know please feel free to come along to my talk page, and many thanks to the kind comments above. violet/riga (t) 23:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)