Welcome!
Hello, E. Novachek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
SNALWIBMA (
talk -
contribs ) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Jonathan Park, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Park. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:AGF
Please stop accusing other editors of unreasonable conduct. There was nothing "violent" or "baseless" in my contributions to the article on that radio show. I nominated it for deletion because in its original version it looked like rubbish, and I could find no evidence of anything that satisfied WP:notability criteria. I had never heard of it, and a google search turned up nothing of note. It turns out that I was clearly wrong about notability, and I am happy to have been put right, but I was not wrong to challenge you and others to demonstrate it. That's how Wikipedia works. And my personal attitude to creationism has nothing whatever to do with it. OK? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 01:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are not eligible to vote in this election, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by Jan 31-- Tznkai ( talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for warning him. As you might know, vandalism and vandalism "fighting" is an essential component of a project where anyone can edit. The load is divided among users and admins as follows: any good-willing user can warn a vandal, usually using the preformatted messages at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (first "offense" is usually a level 1 or 2 warning, then it goes up for every vandalism they to until level 4). After the user has been warned sufficiently, you can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where the report is usually acted upon in a few minutes. You can have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism for more on that. For now, the user hasn't been asked to stop enough for us to block him. I hope this helps! -- lucasbfr talk 08:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For writing good, encyclopedic character biographies for Jonathan Park, I award you this barnstar! TheAE talk/ sign 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC) |
Regarding this, why did you remove the sub-category? It is correct. Please explain. TheAE talk/ sign 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! It's good to see other Christians around Wikipedia. :) I found out how you got your username ( the last one...). :P God bless you! TheAE talk/ sign 03:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As it was not reporting an error, I've moved it to Talk:Main Page. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mean to post it there. Some silly online encyclopedia did it for me. Besides, the whole main page is an error today, so what's the big deal? E. Novachek ( talk) 15:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but prefacing incivility with the words "with all due respect" does not change the fact that it is incivility. Please remain civil in your interactions on Wikipedia - it's one of our oldest and most important policies. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think insulting another person in that way is unacceptable. As for Main Page - I'm not a huge fan of it, but I don't object violently. I'd be happier if the gags were restricted just to choosing an oddball FA. But I think that it falls far short of vandalism and there's longstanding consensus that it's acceptable, even if said consensus is/was not unanimous. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Those who are in the majority are not always right. Otherwise, the sun would have revolved around the earth before Copernicus. By the way, what sets the standard for unacceptable? Hmmm... maybe the Bible should!!! Huck2012 E. Novachek ( talk) 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't insult him! It was not intended to be a personal comment! What do you have against me, Dweller? E. Novachek ( talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody has anything specific against you. An unprovoked comment telling another user that his userpage is 'a stupid waste of time' is incivility. He had neither insulted your nor your userpage, and his userpage is his own jurisdiction - if you don't like it, you can ignore it, not tell him he's stupid. I understand you're irritated because consensus doesn't support your views about today's Main Page, but that is no reason to rampage through Wikipedia in a bad mood insulting all and sundry. As far as your most recent argument goes, your Copernicus comment is irrelevant, and as Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor an autocracy, the consensus (not unanimous, simply a majority) holds control. If you don't like it, engage in reasoned discussion to garner support and get it changed. The religious text of one religion should not govern any government or non-religiously-centred organisation, least of all Wikipedia. Kindly calm down (maybe have a cup of
tea), or stop editing until tomorrow. —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was taking a little dramatic license with what I said there, I retract that. You called his userpage stupid (which, to be honest, is also insulting him, as he created his userpage and probably likes it the way it is) here. Again, I was also taking a bit of dramatic license with my wording with the "rampage[ing] through Wikipedia in a bad mood insulting all and sundry" line - you were losing your temper in the few different places (at WP:ERRORS, here; and disrupting WP to make a point here (only a minor case, but you don't need to resort to vandalism when you're unhappy with consensus)), being irrational in your arguments and the moderate incivility towards other users that we've already discussed - which was the all and sundry part, as I couldn't find any reason, provocation or connection between you and WHO WAS PHONE (who I might add is a prolific and well respected contributor and vandal-hunter on WP) that would indicate why you attacked him/his userpage like that. I know you were uncomfortable with the changes to the Main Page, but your way of expressing that was a little violent.
- Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed your tea (I might add the first image on that page was taken by me, I think it lends a lovely warm fuzzy feel to the place), and just remember to take a deep breath before getting involved in debates in the future. :)
- If you want to have a say in the design of the April Fools' Main Page in the future, the project is here, where you now have a full year to discuss the content, although the preparations don't usually start until mid-February. Thanks! — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 10:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Would you at all be interested in joining a Christian films work force? If so, please add your name here! We are needing interested users, and I just wondered if you were. Thanks. :) TheAE talk/ sign 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, Jonathan Park is probably the most important page, yes, and I reverted its first ever vandalism... perhaps I should receive some sort of Person of the Year or something? :P Thanks for the note, and thanks for undoing vandalism to the second most important page on the wiki. You get Secondary Person of the Year. =) God bless, American Eagle ( talk) 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
-
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Jonathan Park, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you. -
Please do not assume
ownership of articles such as
Jonathan Park. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.
Your article summary: "Leave this article alone, please.
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Jonathan Park, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered
vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P) 05:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Jonathan Park
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jonathan Park. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Park (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Isn't "reprehensible vandalism" a little strong for what they did?
Fliponymous (
talk) 19:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on
User talk:Byelf2007 were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see
talk page guidelines. Thank you. Also, I've revered and modified the edits by Byelf on the
Government article.--
S. Rich (
talk) 19:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, rats, I always forget that. Sorry. It's been a long time since I was really active here. E. Novachek ( talk) 20:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- No sweat. And now you can delete this note IAW WP:OWNTALK. -- S. Rich ( talk) 20:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
HickoryOughtShirt?4. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Tom Wilson (ice hockey) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Help Desk. Thanks.
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (
talk) 19:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)