User talk:Midwest Peace

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello Midwest Peace! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Citing sources Neutral Point of View Describing points of view Attribution Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Etiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Resolving disputes
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Tools Village pump

Edit Summary Request[edit]

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that the tags speak for themselves. I always put Prod tag so people will know just be looking at the history that it's been tried. Do you really think it is necessary to give an edit summary when putting in a reliablesources or notability tag? Midwest Peace (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is in best practice to use the edit summary field. This is especially the case when tagging so many things for deletion, as the logic used for such tags should at least be in the edit summary, if not on the talk page. Best, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, if I put "Prod tag" in the edit summary and explanatory text in the Prod template, why should I also put the same text in the edit summary? Experienced editors all know that Prod tag means "this article is on a non-notable topic," right? If people are unaware of what "Prod tag" means, perhaps I should put "proposed for deletion" instead? Midwest Peace (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do as you like, but know that tagging myriad articles as not notable does not inherently make them not notable. I do prefer your use of the prod tag over your earlier use of Speedy delete tag for articles that have been around for a while with a number of different editors working on them. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Edge[edit]

Hello Midwest Peace! I noticed you tagged the article From the Edge for deletion because it was "limited to 500 copies". However you seemed to have missed the fact that the only thing about the article which specified the album was limited was a vinyl pressing, not the CD pressing, which received a much wider pressing. Please be careful to note such things when you go on your next mass-tag-rampage thanx! --AlexOvShaolin 03:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Mobile Suit AfD[edit]

Thank you for your offer to help ameliorate the conflict on that page. User Jtrainor and I have a history of seldom agreeing on anything. Any policy points that I wished to make have already been offered by other editors, and so I do not intend to have any further presence on that page. I was just offended by the insulting manner in which Jtrainor threw around the unsupported and unverifialbe statement "nom did not read the article" - although I probably should have voiced my concerns in a different manner. GundamsRus (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're only 'unsupportable and unverifiable' if you didn't read what the nom said compared to the contents of the article. Jtrainor (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]