User talk:The Talking Toaster
Hi! It looks like you're trying to move one or more pages. However, please stop doing that this way - the new name of the page might be good, but Wikipedia has another procedure for moving pages. Look at Help:Renaming (moving) a page: you need to use the move tab, and not cut and paste. Cut and paste moves don't take the edit history with them and thus violate the GFDL copyright terms. Also, in some cases, when the move might be controversial, you might first want to discuss the move on the article's talk page. If a move is not possible because a page with the new name already exists, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks! mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
If you'd done a requested move for your move of Depth of focus to Depth of focus (photography), it would not have gained consensus; you did it anyway, which is not good, but it does mean that you need to leave Depth of focus redirected to the article, to support the existing 250 links. You can't just hijack an article's name and make a disambig page out of it. Now, we need to repair this and put it back as it was. You're a pain when you cause us such extra work. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- sorry, I made a mistake, it was in the process of being fixed though when you noticed it if that makes you feel better...?The Talking Toaster (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, you've made it hard to fix; now that you edited Depth of focus, we can't simply undo the move. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good, thanks for helping the admin fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with to Sulfonamide (medicine), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. 20:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the steroid article. I understand where you are coming from and it is important to be accurate. At the same time, the lead needs to be understood by a wide audience and the first paragraph needs to be kept drop dead simple. Readers have previously complained about the lead (see Talk:Steroid#WP:OBVIOUS), and I have rewritten the lead serval time to make it as accessible as possible. Defining is a steroid as "more simply a modified gonane" is definitely not simple. The article later discusses in more detail steroid nomenclature. But this needs to be minimized in the lead so that we don't lose readers. Finally, it also must be stated early why the subject of the article is important. IMHO the previous version fulfilled these objectives and therefore I have restored the previous version. Boghog (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies, I thought that was simpler, my bad.The Talking Toaster (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Praxeology, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please, whatever your personal views are, they do not belong in Wikipedia. S. Rich (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have re-added with sources, as you asked.The Talking Toaster (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Does your source use the term pseudoscience to describe praxeology? If so, the best way to present is with a quote from the article in the footnote. But putting this in the lede is inappropriate. If you can get a consensus from other editors for such and edit, that would be fine. At present, though, your POV is at play.--S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Praxeology are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Also, TTT, you scatter your comments throughout the talk page rather than posing at the bottom. In one case you added new comments right below the section heading, above earlier comments. As a result, readers can't follow what you are driving at, let alone find what you are suggesting in terms of improving the article. S. Rich (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"Also, TTT, you scatter your comments throughout the talk page rather than posing at the bottom."
... I posted multiple replies, each to a different thread in the page, if that's what you mean. The only case of "scatter", if I am not mistaken, is discussed below.
"In one case you added new comments right below the section heading, above earlier comments."
That was actually an accident; I didn't see the replies, and just responded. I noticed after, but didn't bother changing because I didn't think anyone would care. Clearly I was wrong, and won't do it again.The Talking Toaster (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was moving the misplaced comment, and noticed it exactly duplicated what you wrote below. A better procedure would be to make a short comment following the subject comment with something like "please see my comments below". It is improper to repeat the same thing over and over again. See WP:MULTI for guidance.
- In any event, I removed it -- besides being a duplicate, it was addressing a 4 year old comment. With this in mind, it appears that you were not seeking to improve the article.
- When indenting the various comments I noticed that you actually posted the remarks a third time. Will you remove it please, or shall I?
- Please follow good practice. We do want to consider your suggestions for improving the article, even if you mix in your criticisms of praxeology itself. --S. Rich (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- TTT, I went ahead and removed 2 of the 3 identical posts. Please review to make sure you are addressing the particular editors/comments you have concerns about. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)