Talk:Ergosophy

Not much here
So I rewrote the thing and added sections with sourcing ref/citations etc and a 'see also' of connected information. Mostly now it seems to work. I had never heard of the term before... but it is notable and seems like a fine addition to information on Soddy and also on energy economics thought and theory. skip sievert (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Ergosophy tag being put back on
A tag was put back on this article, that is meant to be taken off under certain conditions that were met... here. Please do not do things like that J.Q. and especially without an edit summary or discussion. The tag said You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. The article was completely redone today with ref/notes, citations, a see also section and external links. skip sievert (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand. The tag had been placed, you then chose to remove it here, and he is allowed to place it on if he feels it still meets criteria for deletion. Though technically you are allowed to again remove it if you "otherwise object to deletion for any reason" as you did, you cannot delete it merely because it was placed on a page after you edited it. Suggest it be placed as WP:AFD with an explanation that delete tag has been removed twice without an explanation given by you as to how you improved the article enough or why you objected. It would also be appreciated if you could abide by WP:AGF as it could been seen as rude by John_Quiggen to be told what to do or not do by someone other than an administrator, and even then he is free to appeal any decision on actions up to arbitration. I will link this comment on the user's talk page so they can decide what to take as the next step in article dispute if they feel you have not addressed the matters of the delete tag appropriately. Datheisen (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about above. The type of tag that was on it said You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. J.Q. followed my edit here and put the tag on again even though I made the stub... if it was even that, into an article. Others have since worked on it. - skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand. It was originally added here. You then removed it without saying why you did so in your edit summary. It needs to be stated that it was taken out and why. John_Quiggen then placed it in here, after which you removed it immediately with no other reason than him putting the deletion tag back on. You fault him for not mentioning it in the edit summary or page discussion whilst you also failed to do so as I mentioned earlier here. It could be considered a violation of policy WP:CIVIL section of general WP:POLICY under identifying > 1.a.
 * I see in many of your contributions you note possible policy and guideline violations to your peers, so I figure it to be a fair public service to offer you the same when another user might be confused by your actions. Cheers. Datheisen (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag had this written on it You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.... so your wrong as to your opinion in general about protocol. John_Quiggen put the tag back despite the fact that the article was completely redone, and it is noted has been worked on by others. I removed it because the reason for it being there was pointless. I removed it originally in a general improvement of the article and the tag was self explanatory, and as I have already said now twice this article tag said this on it You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. You think all this could be a considered a violation of policy WP:CIVIL? It appears you are wiki hounding me now from article to article. Read this please Harassment and please cease and desist. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)