User talk:Zawl

Speedy deletion nomination of Gene Noble

Hello Rizhopper,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gene Noble for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ueutyi (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Daft Punk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 16:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

INDEX and NOEDITSECTION

You gave no edit summary on your revert here. __INDEX__ has no effect in article space, and __NOEDITSECTION__ is rather abnormal in an article. Was there some reason for the revert? Alsee (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: Hey there! I reverted your edits because you enabled the "edit section" on the articles. If that is enabled, there will be more vandalism because it'll make them notice the edit buttons. It is not encouraged to allow potential IP vandalism on high importance articles like Martin Garrix. One can click on the edit source button on the top if they want to edit so "edit section" will not be necessary. Do not take it the wrong way but I think "edit section" should remain disabled to reduce vandalism. I do not see the importance of it being enabled as it doesn't bother anyone so why do you mess with it? -Rizhopper^{(Talk to me!)} 13:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I certainly enjoy his music, but I hope you'll forgive me (grin) for not considering it a "high importance article" compared to articles like United States, Malaysia and Barack Obama. (All of which do have section edit links).

If the idea is that it would reduce vandalism then an RFC could be opened at Village pump (proposals) to have all articles default to NOEDITSECTION mode. If it got consensus then we'd submit a Phabricator request for WikimediaFoundation programmers to change the software default. I don't think it would get consensus though. Most editors find it helpful to be able to open a single section in the editor, and we explicitly do want to encourage people to notice and try the edit links. That's how we get new editors.

Individual pages generally shouldn't have non-default settings unless there's some reason specific to that page. It can be confusing when someone tries to click the link and it's strangely missing. Alsee (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I waited for a reply from you, but now I see you're adding even more NOEDITSECTION[1] after I explained why it was inappropriate. Please stop. You can see here that it does create confusion, and you can see here an entire discussion objecting to Visual Editor having any option at all to add these unwanted changes. Alsee (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)