User talk:空

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 空. 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
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name 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 Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome!  KJ  &#171;Click Here&#187; 04:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi. Thought the call for external support articles provided by the link which I appended greatly enhanced and explained this material.
 * No. It does not. While external links may have some relevance (at the end of an article, you'll note), Wikipedia's guidelines discourage the addition of links to articles with little to no added value : the difference between MK4, MK7 and others is already clearly explained, complete with picture. I won't deny the Wikipedia article could use a little rewriting and clarifying, but your article, placed at the end of the introduction, merely promotes the point of view of Dr. Kate Rheaume-Bleue, with no scientific evidence added. Said point of view is already discussed in paragraph "Dietary sources and adequate intake". You may read External links for a more comprehensive explanation regarding Wikipedia's guidelines. Regards, 空 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect Treecat Wars
Hello. I see that you've blanked the page with the rationale that the page needed a stand-alone article. While I have no opinion on this issue, please be noted that blanking a page is not tantamount to a deletion, and that the article would have shown as a blue link whether it was blanked or not. If you wish to delete a page, please nominate the page for deletions under either WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD. However, in this case, it will be better to keep the current article but add material to establish a stand-alone article. I've restored the redirect for now, until the material would be added. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks.  KJ  &#171;Click Here&#187; 05:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Kkj11210,
 * My blanking was meant as a request for a deletion - the redirect as it stands is in the way of an article (someone who wants to add info, but doesn't know WP as well as I do, would find it difficult to edit the redirect, because, well, it redirects to an article section). It restricts editing to confirmed wikipedians. I haven't read the book, or else I would have done it myself. Regards, 空 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think blanking is allowed for that reason. Blanking is only taken as a request for deletion under the speedy deletion criterion WP:G7, only if you're the sole contributor of substantial content to the page. In this case, instead of deleting the article, I suggest that you make a request for a stand-alone article, by asking either a related Wikiproject page or asking an editor who seems to be editing on similar topics. I suggest you don't take this to RFD, solely for the reason that there's no real reason for deletions. Cheers.  KJ  &#171;Click Here&#187; 12:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)