User talk:Techhead7890

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Convenience Links[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to clarify my statement about having a web link for a reference. It's not needed as you can see here. It's considered a convenience but not a requirement. Otherwise, Wikipedia would essentially be actively condemning all libraries. Just a heads up. OlYellerTalktome 12:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

True, I forgot that offline sources counted as citations, but seeing as though said source is available on the internet at ERO website I thought it was better if someone could dig it up. I'll link this to the page now. Techhead7890 (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemistry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compounds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier[edit]

There is currently a major discussion going on at the Talk:Aircraft carrier page about the article and its organization. It would be helpful if you would stop making major changes to the article, and instead make proposals to the talk page to solicit greater input. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's easier to discuss a stable article than one in [which] major undiscussed changes are being made. While we haven't discussed specifics regarding structure, that is the next phase in discussion. I thought it would be easier for you to suggest changes ,and get input on it, rather than to make your changes now, and then have them completely reworked just a few days later, and you might feel like your work was for nothing. As it is, I do disagree with you structural changes, and I would like you to discuss them first, per WP:BRD. - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Alright - as I've noted, I am not planning to work further on the article, so you may continue your discussion as planned without interference. I however don't see the formal planning or schedule of such work, or even a notice that it is undergoing revision on the talk due to its disorganised nature - at the very least, a heading notice would be nice. As I just stated, I do not plan to further work on the article and I do not care much if they are reverted or reworked during your revisal.
Seeing as though you are interested in discussion, to get some closure on this, if you could please explain more specifically which of these edits (and which of these are "structural changes") are most controversial: the edits I made to the article were over a variety of sections and areas. ::Finally, as per the second message, I trust that the article in its intermediary form is not drastically changing to your restructuring - could you confirm this for me? Thanks, Techhead7890 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the current form is fine for now, but I'll look at it again in the morning. I would like you to participate in the discussion, if you would, especially as you haven't been involved to this point, and so might bring a fresh perspective. In addition, you've obviously given som thought to improve the article, and giving your ideas there might help to keep the discussion moving forward. However, the discussions have been quite long and contentious to this point, so I understand if you'd rather not get involved! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As interesting as the subject is, there are a number of other pages that I am interested in; and to be honest my diplomacy, debate and rhetoric is not what I'm interested in practising on Wikipedia! As for the discussion itself - although I have made edits, as I've stated these are generalised edits and not reflective of any plan or indeed, tailored vision of the page. I also find it relatively hard to find exactly what is the topic-at-debate or what exactly is contentious, and so find it hard to comment further. That all being said I do wish you the best luck in attempting to establish a forward consensus, I know Wikipedia isn't always the nicest of debategrounds out there! Techhead7890 (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aircraft carrier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Claire (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Universal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)