User talk:Wikirpg

A belated welcome[edit]

Hello, Wikirpg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few important links:

If you need further help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, post a question at the Help Desk, or ask me.

Again, welcome! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User subpages[edit]

You created articles Wikirpg/Art in Action Wikirpg/Art in Action, Waterperry, which are improper names for articles in the main article namespace. I assumed you meant to make user subpages out of them so I moved them to User:Wikirpg/Art in Action and User:Wikirpg/Art in Action, Waterperry. Note that you need the User: prefix to identify these pages in links, so you ought to add it to the links on your main user page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Goffin[edit]

Where did you get this info?: It was his The Realm of Art that contributed to Leon MacLaren turning to philosophy; Goffin later presented the early public philosophy lectures for the School of Economic Science. Please see WP:Verifiability. Please let us know your source in the Peter Goffin article, or on its talk page. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citations. When did Goffin present "the early public philosophy lectures"? It would be good to include the dates. Please note that punctuation always goes before the ref tag. If this information about Goffin is important, why not mention it in the MacLaren article? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Art in Action Hi Wikirpg I have seen your reversions of Sannacott's edits and your note to him. Please justify this and explain what in particular you are objecting to. As far as I can see, Sannacott was bringing this page up to date. wikirpg (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that the paragraph in question, and its verifiable reference, was unilaterally ripped out by Sannacott more than once without discussion. That does not characterise bringing something "up to date" as you describe it. That characterizes vandalism, which Wikiepdia takes extremely seriously. As such, your depiction of Sannacott's edits are conspicuous and will be included in any vandalism alert if I make one. That said, Sannacott has since made a compromise edit more in keeping with Wikipedia's ethos of collegiality, so we have stepped back from the brink for the time being. -Roberthall7 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]