User talk:Tervan

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

Hello, Tervan, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Teahouse logo
Hello! Tervan, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi Tervan,

Thanks for your edits to Liberal, but as that's a disambiguation page, it should really only contain minimal information to help readers find the actual article that they're looking for. MOS:DAB describes how disambiguation pages are supposed to look. I can understand why you added the info, though, because that page was already way out-of-scope. I've cleaned up a little but it needs more. Anyway, if you've got info to add, you can add it to the pages linked at Liberal.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adrian
I was thinking the same after I made the edit. That page seems like a bad place to collect information about liberalism in different countries. I decided to correct the wrong information first and see how to clean up the page later. --Tervan (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes I think that was a good edit. Linking to all the parties via Liberal Party helps keep the page sane and removes the arbitrariness of listing some parties but not others. I think it's a tricky disambiguation page because a reader might not know exactly what they mean by "liberal", so the page needs a little more explanation than is typical for a disambiguation page. I've made a few more tweaks myself, hopefully explained in the edit summary: [1]. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I wonder if you've seen the latest additions to the Parthenogenesis page. You removed an "out-of-the-blue" Jesus part from the page, and subsequently there have been edits to further de-emphasize that material. There is now a big chunk of material that I suspect might not have been added if that older text were still there. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on what can be done to stabilize that page in a way that suits everyone as much as possible; my best suggestion is to revert to before your edit, which at least seemed to be fairly stable for a while. (Ugh!) Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure what you are suggesting about the talk page, we can't alter what other people have written there, only respond to it. It's a weird situation, clearly with two very different points of view involved, where it is very difficult to guess how stable a version will be. I think that the current hatnote "For the Christian dogma ..." is too subtle for people to notice, and that there needs to be a clear explanation of why that isn't the biological situation, but it is, as you pointed out, very difficult to find a place on the page for that explanation to sit. I'm out of ideas. (I do think that the wording within that little paragraph was good though.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)