Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GabrielVelasquez (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 30 December 2007 (→What are you doing?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Editing policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
I have just read the editing policy and feel encouraged that I am on the right track.
"Improve"
-GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not have to link to the entire URL if the link is from Misplaced Pages. Entering ]in the code will link to this: Misplaced Pages:Editing policy too.

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, GabrielVelasquez, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Zginder 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Here is a link to learn how to work with photos. Picture tutorial If you need more help feel free to notify me. Zginder 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Please stop messing with the sections at Talk:Gliese 581 c. de Bivort 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you insane? I was obvious what was being done. You even deleted the complete explanation of what was going on and the consensus to get away with what you did. There was nothing deleted. There is a horrible amound of redundant talk distributed all over. This was only a sort. I will spend another full day if I have to to restructure the 57+ plus entries into something more coherent and less contractictory and redundant. Nothing has been or will be deleted, I was in the middle of this and it took me all day and I was almost done. You have no idea. I swear. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A dissuasion page is generally not reared to be easy to read. Zginder 14:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Generally," what are you implying. I don't see the issue. Are you saying it's okay for it to be difficult to read a discussion page, and okay for it to be ridiculously redundant and convoluted, even when someone can do something about it, even when the structure is right there in the article (content menu) itself . I can appreciate the free expression and artistic processes, but there is a limit to how much chaos I can stand for ("Improve"). I does no harm that I can think of (can you?) and it will only benefit the discussion in the long run. It should have been done long before me. - 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic to me that he said "the sections" when there were none. That's what I was adding. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a friendly reminder about NPA and Civility. :) - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical formulae

If I were you, I would use sourced values whenever possible. Very simple calculations such as orbital periods based on semimajor axes in the Solar System should be OK. If you're going to rearrange astronomical formulae, you should know exactly what you're doing.

I have no doubt that BlueEarth's contributions are honest, but he is clearly lacking the knowledge needed (I confess, I too have been guilty for that sometimes myself...). The calculations he has done have been either pure speculation or just nonsensical. Worse, he kept readding them. Good-willing, but clueless editors are one reason why haven't been as active as before. I'm sad to hear that Dr. Submillimeter has gone, but it is also very worrying that he's just one in a long list of professional contributors who have got enough.--— JyriL 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)