User talk:Gkochanowsky

Hi, I was interested in your thoughts in "supernatural" talk pages, and I have posted some thoughts there under your own. What do you think? Also done a fair bit of editing on the first pars. My feeling is that these questions are important ones in philosophy and logic, but I am not a professional in either of those fields. --Myles325a 05:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New comments go at the bottom.

Please stop putting your comments at the top of the pseudophilosophy talk page. You may think that what you have to say is more important or insightful than the other comments, but that doesn't give you right to move it to the top of the page. You are not special. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule regarding the order of comments on the discussion page. They are comments. But if you are so convinced that order matters then why are you deleting my comment rather than moving it? Gkochanowsky (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating the talk page guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guidline not a rule. In any case your editing is extreme. If you are convinced that it should go to the bottom then move it there. Don't delete it! Gkochanowsky (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards. Also, please see WP:GUIDELINE#Official policy articles. While the term guideline implies that it's less official and a bit more likely to have exceptions, you should still have a good reason for not posting at the bottom as the guideline recommends (and as is practically ubiquitous standard practice and consensus). To tell the truth, I don't see such a reason in this case. |dorftrottel |talk 13:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. |dorftrottel |talk 17:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're right again and I owe you an apology. The link was issued only after the fourth and final removal of your comment, and you didn't re-post it after that. |dorftrottel |talk 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he did re-post it afterwards. [1]. I provided the link to the guidelines as soon as he asked for it. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupting.

To avoid another dispute, I thought I should inform you that interrupting (as you have done to Rick Norwood here [2]) is also a violation of the talk page guidelines. I'll it to you to sort out. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing (which I associate with the word "interrupt") has a very specific meaning, and a good-faithed reply, even if it's organised somewhat differently from what the Talk page guidelines recommend, is certainly not "disruptive" in that sense.

The guidelines do indeed recommend posting below the previous post you are replying to (not in between), so as to prevent the discussion from getting cluttered up. Other editors can follow it easier if everybody posts below the last post. However, looking at the archives, there don't seem to be many users currently interested in the talk page debate. So, to cut to the chase: if Misodoctakleidist takes issue of not strictly following that particular aspect of the guidelines (to post below, not in between other posts) because he has an interest in following the debate and replying, he should say so directly. Blindly following all aspects of the guidelines (or demanding that others do so, for that matter), when the reason for that guideline in the first place is not present, appears unnecessarily forbidding.

That said, again, yes, Talk page guidelines do indeed recommend posting below to preserve readability, but since it currently seems to be a debate between only you and Rick Norwood, I'd recommend simply asking him, e.g. at the beginning of your next post there, whether he (or anyone else) minds using that addhoc, aspect-oriented posting style. It shouldn't be used on more actively used talk pages, but if it's really only the two of you and you both agree to use that discussion posting style, ignore the rule. If someone takes issue of that, not because it's "against the rules", but because they can't make head and tails of the discussion, they will let Rick Norwood and you know sooner or later. Rules serve a purpose; while some purposes are generally present (e.g. opening a new discussion thread at the bottom is always the best idea), some are not (discussion format is one of those imo). |dorftrottel |talk 13:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a "rule" then you are quite right. Perhaps the "guidelines" should be renamed "rules". However I am all for getting along, and if another editor would like me to do things differently all they need do is ask. If any editor takes offence at the placement of my comments I would be glad to change them as long as they recognize that the spirit if the not the "rule" of wikipedia allows other editors to edit. Gkochanowsky (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "KGB defectors"

A page you created, KGB defectors, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Oliver202 (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been re-submitted for deletion. It's truly without merit, offering no perspective nor background information. If you feel there is a need for having a list of names, the relevant sections of articles such as KGB and Cold War are appropriate. The Gnome (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Application programming interface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SDK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]