User talk:Squashy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Squashy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 00:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
PS I thought I'd welcome you, even though you appear to know your way around here! JFW | T@lk
Contents |
[edit] thanks
thanks! Squashy 15:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wimbledon Windmill
No, no problem w/ the windmill edit - I've made a few minor changes to your edits (or to the original content in response to your edits), but nothing major.
--Tomandlu 21:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Welfare
I say go for it. Andrew Levine 00:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Contingent work
I'm afraid that this article was deleted after an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contingent work); if you think that it should be created, you need to go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- AfD (or VfD as they were then) votes aren't about content, but about the existence of an article. If content is a problem, it should be improved; if the Wikipedia community judges that there shouldn't be an article at all, it votes in an AfD to delete it. As I said, the correct course of action, if you think that there's a case for reversing that decision, is to request undeletion, not to create the article again.
- I went to the article in order to retrieve the text for you, and discovered that you'd in fact simply recreated it. Please stop doing that, and take the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I see that you started discussing this at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but then recreated the page without waiting for a response. That won't help your cause. While you're waiting for discussion and a result, it's perfectly OK for you to continue working on the copy in your own User space, and to ask for comments and help on it (my own comment is that it seems to contain rather a lot of original research, and that more citations are needed). If consensus is that the AfD vote can be set aside, then you can copy the article to the main namespace. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I should stress that I have no particular objection to your article. The problem is that there have been many cases in which an article, objectionable for political, religious, or other reasons (often racist, etc.), has been voted for deletion, only to be recreated (with new text); the usual claim is that, because it's new text, it's not covered by the AfD. The response to that sort of thing is the one I've given above: that an AfD isn't about the specific content (though that might also be awful), but about the article itself. In this case, I realise of course that the situation is very different — but if we're going to enforce the rules in one case, we must do so in all. Assuming that the article's undeleted, good luck with it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- In fact there have been cases of the sort I've mentioned in which the delay has been considerable. Sometimes organisations are involved (Stormfront and other far-right organisations, for example), rather than individuals, which makes for a slightly more cunning approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Request for edit summary
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 23% for major edits and 21% for minor edits. (Based on the last 137 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)
This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 13:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prozac Nation
Hi Squashy! Per your comment on the talk page, I hunted down a quote from Elizabeth Wurtzel that might be useful. I added it to the article and encourage you to check it out. Cheers, Her Pegship 05:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
