User talk:MarsBarsTru
A belated welcome![edit]
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MarsBarsTru. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
May 2012[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Adam Smith, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. waggers (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that you responded to my edit so quickly. My interest is that much greater considering the time that I made the edit, and that every single time I've made this same edit it has been changed back almost immediately. The interest in Smith's religious views seems to touch some people very close to home and yet these same people find it unnecessary to contribute anything significant to either the conversation regarding the topic or to the article itself. Instead, folks such as yourself seem compelled to simply restore a ridiculous unfounded claim and ignore the fact that the primary source, Smith himself, said plenty that contradicts Coase. Since the topic is Smith's religion, and Smith had plenty to say for himself, why then would Coase's opinions, which show less than trivial reasoning for his opinion, be cited on the page in direct contradiction to Smith's stated views? Even more to the point, if a secondary source is to be cited for the article in relation to Smith's religion, then why is it not someone who is a scholar in the appropriate fields of study, such as a theologian or an historian? Instead, we have Coase who is non-religious himself projecting onto Smith with no basis for it.
- Please, talk it up on the discussion page if you wish to change it again, instead of directly changing it back without having a valid reason for doing so. Your instant reversions without discussing the issue are not constructive. MarsBarsTru (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have little interest in this particular subject, but what I did see while carrying out an RC patrol was a user (in this case, you) removing referenced material from a page without an edit summary explaining why. That's why I reverted your edit and placed that message here. If you're removing referenced material in future please be sure to explain why in the edit summary. Thanks, waggers (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- How extensive does my explanation have to be? Will it ultimately qualify the edit? What of the discussion on the talk page? Do I have to make the case for each edit in both my explanation on my edit and on the talk page? What are the 1,2,3s of Wikipedia etiquette that I need to be aware of in this case? Does it matter? Where is the explanation of the restoration edit? Please explain or direct me to where I can read what I need to know in order to qualify my future edits, as using the same standards as those who keep restoring the bogus material isn't quite working for me. MarsBarsTru (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just a simple "See talk page" will do, then passing editors / recent changes patrollers will know where to look for a more detailed explanation. You don't have to repeat the whole discussion in the edit summary every time :) waggers (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:REVTALK for the official explanation. waggers (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- How extensive does my explanation have to be? Will it ultimately qualify the edit? What of the discussion on the talk page? Do I have to make the case for each edit in both my explanation on my edit and on the talk page? What are the 1,2,3s of Wikipedia etiquette that I need to be aware of in this case? Does it matter? Where is the explanation of the restoration edit? Please explain or direct me to where I can read what I need to know in order to qualify my future edits, as using the same standards as those who keep restoring the bogus material isn't quite working for me. MarsBarsTru (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have little interest in this particular subject, but what I did see while carrying out an RC patrol was a user (in this case, you) removing referenced material from a page without an edit summary explaining why. That's why I reverted your edit and placed that message here. If you're removing referenced material in future please be sure to explain why in the edit summary. Thanks, waggers (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Adam Smith with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cst17 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)