Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) at 21:46, 29 January 2008 (→Re: Uh, "non-standard formatting"?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Trading card - my bad

Sorry about that! I was doing recent changes patrol, and at this time of day, there's a hell of a lot of vandalism; looking at your edit I just saw a load of content removed from the top of the page, and the capitalised edit summary, I was a bit trigger-happy and rollbacked your edit, but then I realised I balls-up and reverted back. Keep editing, you're doing well! EJF (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha... thanks! I don't have the stamina to patrol RC, so I'm glad you're doing it :P Lumberjake (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphan articles

It's great that you are working on orphan articles, but you should not link to them just to link to them. When you do add a link, it should be appropriate for the section. For example, the link you added to Dave Astels in Extreme Programming‎'s See Also section is not appropriate. The See Also section usually contains links to other topical articles and generally not people unless that person who integral to that topic's development. So taking that example, Dave Astels would be only linked if he was the first to propose Extreme Programming. A better link for Dave Astels would be in the RSpec article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Uh, "non-standard formatting"?

Re your message: Yes, the format you added was not the usual standard for all of the other day articles. While I understand your concern, you should discuss such a change with the community and gain a consensus before making such a wide scale change. Additionally, the comment you added to May 15's warning about inserting non-notable people, while certainly true, was not appropriate. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)