User talk:Goesgolf20

Please do not make major edits like you did with Central obesity without discussion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given enough reason for the move. We use article's talk page, regards. Goesgolf20 (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you discuss this issue. You keep trying to create this page after it was agreed upon to use the term abdominal obesity --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdominal fat is different from abdominal obesity, just like fat and obesity. Continue discussion in article talk page, not user talk page. Regards. Goesgolf20 (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

I think there is some confusion about how this process works. The delete tag is not removed until a consensus is reached. And that consensus is determined by a third party. You can argue your point on the talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out article text[edit]

Suppressing article text by commenting it out (as you did at Subcutaneous fat [1]) is not generally accepted practice on Wikipedia. If there are questions about material it is better to tag it, raise questions on the talk page, or move material to the talk page for improvement. Hiding it with comments doesn't make it obvious that there is material needing attention, or what the problems are. Zodon (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed section. It was just unreferenced rant. Goesgolf20 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While technically you are correct that any unreferenced material may be removed, you might wish to consider being more specific in challenging material and indicating specifically what you feel needs citation (e.g. using fact tags) and allowing reasonable time for sources to be added before removing it. WP:BURDEN

While one can remove material just because it is unreferenced, courtesy and prudence may suggest a more cooperative approach of clearly indicating what is actually of questionable verifiability, and reserve immediate removal for instances where there is a specific reason (based on policy) for removal. (Gibberish, vandalism, undue weight, etc.) Zodon (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no offense i found you hardly courteous nor prudent nor cooperative in your blind "undo"s. Goesgolf20 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No discourtesy intended. They were not blind, in addition to explaining in the edit summaries, I tried to let you know here about what I understand to be common usage, and raise the question on the article's talk page to get details about what was being questioned.

You might also want to be aware of WP:BRD. Zodon (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]