User talk:Tryfonaration

May 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from An Inconvenient Truth. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bennyboyz3000 11:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello, I'm Bonkers The Clown. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Instead of Education without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Instead of Education has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 12:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you will be adding content to the article, with reliable sources, of course, please don't blank pages. A redirect is appropriate to the author's article - obviously because this article has no content and the next best option, is the author's article, were content regarding the book can be expanded on. Thanks, — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 12:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this approach is correct. If everyone followed it, Wikipedia would be filled with redirects to not relevant articles, which would also look like valid links making it harder to spot them and add missing content. I believe it should redirect to a blank page (as do the other books in John Holt's bibliography if you notice). By the way, is there an official Wikipedia guideline for what you are asserting? Thanks, Tryfonaration (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, blanking the article - isn't an approach that can be taken at all. Now, the book is listed in this section of the author's article; and so therefore a redirect to the author's article has merit per this guideline, in particular the point that says, "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." Thank you, — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 13:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With regards to blanking the article, I am sorry, I wasn't aware of such a policy, won't happen again. It looks that you are also right about the guideline since there is a small section talking about the book in John Holt's Biography section, so they can be seen as a supertopic-subtopic pair. Still, maybe there should be a better redirect, directly to this section.Tryfonaration (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be sorry, mistakes happen!
 * I'll do the more specific redirect, now. If you need anything, please drop me a message on my talk page, whenever. As for me, I'm off to bed (1 in the morning, where I am) — Mel bourne Star  ☆ talk 13:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)