User talk:Bloodleech

Welcome

Welcome!

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please don't mess up nootropic

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Rules#Content_changes

> What you did makes people looking for information not to have information. IE, I do not see how making "nootropic" into something blank results > in providing people with knowledge; rather, DELETING and STARTING an article AGAIN turns knowledge into something like nothing again.

> Anyways, the point is for a "major edit"/ie, deleting and starting an article afresh you need a DISCUSSION and VOTE before proceeding to make > major changes. Otherwise people will RIGHTFULLY panic -- like they ought to in defense-- unless you mean something else by "panic." I mean > orderly panic if not EXTREME defensive of knowledge and sustainment of furthering knowledge and spread of knowledge type of panic. IE, panic > that is more planned is better; however, any panic is "okay" I guess as long as I don't start cursing or something, I suppose.

I received the above complaint in my "messages" but apparently the complainer has left the message anonymously, doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the english language, and has seemed to have missed the point of my edit, which only moved information (from "nootropic" to the new page "cognitive enhancer") and didn't delete any content. The point was to stop the abuse of the word nootropic, which refers to a special class of cognitive enhancers. As the rule quoted by the anonymous source states that changes may be made as long as there are no objections, and since the only objector seems to have a wrong impression that information was deleted, and also since nobody has reverted any of my changes, I'll just have to assume that what I did was a good edit. -bloodleech

Hi Bloodleech! Thank you for your efforts with the article Cognitive enhancer. Unfortunately, an effect was that the article now contradicts itself, first stating that nootropics are something different, then asserting that they are synonymous. For the same reason, it also contradicts the article Nootropics. It was also very confusing that the Cognitive enhancer article had a lot of text talking about nootropics, when the first section explained that they are something different.

On principle, you shouold not copy substancial parts of an article to another one. Not only is this likely to cause confusion, it is also a copyright violation and thus illegal under the laws of many countries.

For a start, could you give a reliable SOURCE for your cognitive enhancer/nootropic distinction? Wikipedia sees it as very important to source statements made here, otherwise people could just write anything, and who could tell the difference between a made-up statment and a well-founded one? (I am not suggesting, of course, that your distinction were made up.)

Secondly, I would strongly suggest that you read some of the pages linked to from the welcome section above, especially the Manual of style. A hint: The lead section of the article (the part above the table of contents) is (or should be) carefully designed – adding paragraphs above it is likely to mess up the whole introduction to the article. When you make major changes to an article, it is a good idea to read it afterwards and see whether it still makes sense, and whether its ideas are still presented in a logical order. Keep in mind that most people who read an article you edited will know much less about the subject than you, and therefore might be easily confused by an article with an unclear structure and presentation of ideas.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Darker Realms

The article Darker Realms has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks significant coverage; no more than trivial mentions in books or reliable online sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar 16:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]