User talk:AcheronSS

Hello, AcheronSS, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for registering an account.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay.


	Introduction 5 The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help Tips	How to write a great article Manual of Style Be Bold Assume Good faith Get adopted

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC.
You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced

Angry Mastodons made me lol. It just so happens that I've done something of the sort.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Been a registered for awhile but I keep forgetting my login, dunno why they don't use an email-only version.

In my opinion the circle article is inept(I would call it gloopy) compared to some of its older versions, and it gets reverted frequently by an aggressive editor. The talk page doesn't seem to get much attention, and I have no idea how to go about getting it "right." A great deal many people want to learn from these pages and they seem to have been sterilized by aggressive editing with a biased sense of what should be available or included. I would like to see much of the current article forked to a disambiguation with "parts of a circle" as one of the talk contributors requested, with the main article being dominantly geometry with excerpts spliced in that diverge so that the article itself is like a directory for ideas instead of a demonstration explicitly; this would match both the intent and the nature of the subject, even though it could lead to a Dr. Frankenblog.

So, even though I like this idea, I don't even know where to start.

For all I can tell you have made no significant edits to the article itself, and your only edit to the talk page was to a thread stale for four years. That may indeed have been overlooked. And what was suggested regarding the "parts of a circle" was not, for all I can tell, a new disambiguation page but rather a new section of the current article. I'd say that has been resolved through the "teminology" section, which shortly explains the various "parts". If you want to propose radical changes to the article, please add a new section to the talk page to make your case.

I'm not sure what "aggressive editor" you refer to; please provide a diff for a revert you consider inappropriate. In January the only editor who reverted more than once was Materialscientist; two of those reversals were obvious vandalism, and the third seemed appropriate to me, too. Again, if you disagree with another's actions on the article, the talk page would be the place to explain your reasons. Huon (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for responding. I'm still very new at this, and really I have no idea what is expected.AcheronSS (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]