User talk:68.0.124.33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 68.0.124.33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Tawker 06:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --68.0.124.33 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Von Neumann syndrome has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow wikipedians,

At first glance, it appears that I deleted a bunch of good, encyclopedic information from the Von Neumann syndrome article.

However, if you look carefully, my edit summary says "(moved everything to von Neumann bottleneck)". That seems "informative" to me. What else could I have said that would have been more informative?

Fortunately, both halves of the move have been reverted, avoiding a potential content fork (WP:CFORK).

I hope my comments at Talk:von Neumann syndrome clarify what I want to do.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I would not label your good-faith edit as vandalism (especially since you correctly explained your intentions in the edit summary), your approach unfortunately still violates Wikipedia conventions. In the Wikipedia-specific section of the move help page, it is stated: "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history." I would encourage you to read that section. Happy editing! CounterFX (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense now. So, I'll try to find a better way to make these improvements ... --68.0.124.33 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi friend

Okay, I see another user has already explained to you about copy/pasting over re-directs. I'll WP:AGF and remove the warning :-) - Have you thought about creating an account? It'd make communication and editing so much easier! :-) ScarianCall me Pat 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coprocessor tuning AfD

You are quite right that an article about a hoax may be acceptable if notable enough, e.g. Ern Malley or the Sokal hoax; but a hoax article, falsehood or nonsense submitted to Wikipedia as fact, is a different matter, and "this article is a hoax", if backed up with evidence, is a good argument for deletion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal fold changes

Please do not edit the article directly if you have questions about an articles accuracy unless you are going to tag the article or change the information. Personal comments should be made on the talk page of an article and not on its main page.Nrswanson (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the vocal fold article is accurate.
So I see no reason to "tag the article or change the information".
I did think the article could be improved by rearranging the information already there, and also adding a little more information.
I don't understand what you mean by "personal comments", since I don't recall any comments that referred to myself or any other particular person or that were directed at any other particular person.
I suspect you are referring to a question I added to the article (invisible to normal readers), so I moved that question to the talk page -- is that what you wanted?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You may be surprised to learn that the "invisible question" is recommended by the Wikipedia manual of style WP:BETTER#Make_omissions_explicit_for_other_editors.
If you strongly feel that sort of thing is inappropriate, please change the manual of style. Thank you.
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)