User talk:Robbiecee2

Welcome!

Hello, Robbiecee2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Make cat 05:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Hello, I'm Makecat. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Sexual disorders, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Make cat 05:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may read Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion to know how to nominate a redirect page for deletion. And using Twinkle is much easier to do it, see Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#XfD (deletion discussions) for details. Thank you. --Make cat 05:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Citing sources

Robbiecee2, you have to make sure to cite things like this. But we are not supposed to link like this, unless its in an infobox or the External links section (see WP:External links). On my talk page, I pointed out WP:Original research. That policy is based on our WP:Verifiability policy. Take the time to read the policies and guidelines linked in the Welcome! section on your talk page, and the ones I have provided you with, to familiarize yourself with the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. You will learn how to cite sources by reading the WP:citing sources page, the Wikipedia:Citation templates page, and by just looking at how how sources are formatted within articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what I've done incorrectly. Robbiecee2 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about what you don't understand. I noted how we are supposed to cite sources and how we are not, that we don't rely on our original research because of the WP:Verifiability policy...and I advised you to "Take the time to read the policies and guidelines linked in the Welcome! section on your talk page, and the ones I have provided you with, to familiarize yourself with the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work." Did you not go to these pages? If you want to edit here successfully, you are going to have to learn how you are supposed to edit here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between the first link and the second link? I feel as though I'm not going to be able to do anything on here until I do exactly what you want me to do and the way you want me to do it. And I'm taking your advice on the reading, I wasn't confused about that part. Robbiecee2 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first link shows that you added material without supporting it with a reliable source. The second link shows that you linked to a source in the way that we link external links. Linking like that should only be done for infoboxes and External links sections. And it's not about what I want you to do, but about what Wikipedia says or advises us to do. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing.

Welcome

Robbiecee2, it's nice to see a new user willing to jump straight into controversial articles like Pedophilia and Ephebophilia. I've reverted your change that made pedophilia a paraphilia. I think you will find that there is some disagreement on that and such a change should be discussed on the talk page (although look through the archives first). I notice your account was registered a couple of years ago but unused until now. I guess you were just waiting for the right time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you change it to say "some consider it to be a paraphilia" rather than simply deleting it? Yes I've just started editing and am trying to get used to it, however I'm finding it's more hassle to me than it's worth to try and help develop the articles.

Note: who would say that pedophilia is not a paraphilia? From my knowledge, pedophilia is a paraphilia. As it is in the DSM-IV Robbiecee2 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not my area of interest, but see the talk page archives, as I suggested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know much about it then don't change it because I can't find anywhere where it says that pedophilia is not a paraphilia. Also how do people track changes on here like how would I be notified that someone has posted on my talk page or something? Robbiecee2 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pedophilia is considered a paraphilia by most experts on the topic of pedophilia. But the paraphilia aspect is already mentioned in the lead. No need for it to come so early on in the lead. And, Robbiecee2, remember to keep in mind what I stated to you in the section above this one.

As for keeping track of changes, see WP:WATCHLIST. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on what you said earlier. Robbiecee2 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Greenwood Academy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Irvine and Springside

Joan Sturgeon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cunninghame South

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIXED