Re: Intelligent Design. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Ck lostsword 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Intelligent Design. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Ck lostsword 19:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I'm glad you're interested to know why we deleted your entry. An underlying principal of Wikipedia is called neutral point of view, and this is especially important for controversial topics such as Intelligent Design. Although I am sure that the site is pro-ID, it is also anti-Darwinism, and this violates the Neutral Point of View Rule: how would you feel if someone put an 'ID sucks' link on the Darwin pages? The link could be regarded as offensive by some Darwinists, and is in definite and strong support of ID. Keep trying anyway, and Be Bold!. Also, it is regarded as courtesy if once anything is delted or reverted, you leave it like that and start a discussion on the relevant talk page. It is very important to go with the consensus. Thanks. Ck lostsword 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. Only a couple of points this time. I watch both pages as I feel that they are both likely to be vandalised or to break other, similar rules. However, I agree with you that there should be some reference to alternative theories - perhaps a link to the ID or creationist sections of wikipedia. This should be discussed on the evolution talk page - it is not up to me, but to the consensus by the editors of that article.
I assume that you are strongly affiliated with the 'evolution sucks' site, and linking to it on the pages could be seen as advertising - another rule of wikipedia. If other users consider that site to be of appropriate relevance to the articles, that is fine, but if you are strongly linked to the site it is recommended that you do not mention it. (As a slight aside, it is more likely to be included if phrases such as "[lets make sure this] crap called evolution gets flushed down the crapper" were less prevalent.) Nonetheless, feel free to comment on the appropriate talk pages if you feel it is necessary. Thanks for your time (again!) Ck lostsword 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Because it is your opinion, it is worth a try. I might look later to give you some support. :D. (Although I am still a fairly new user, so I might not be all that much help). You could read the Starting a new page guide and the Deletion Poilcy for info about whether you could create an article about the site, but deleters tend to be fairly strict about things like this - again, it could be construed as advertising. If you believe that the article is acceptable and they attempt to delete it, be preprared to fight your corner! Good luck. Ck lostsword 18:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, things are looking fairly grim with regard to the evolution page. There are a large number of trolls on that article who refuse to listen to other's opinions (if you try reading up the talk page, this becomes clear). I have tried a mediatory apporach to diffuse things a bit, but it is clear that this is not going to work. It is much simpler just to leave them to their own devices. In their replies to your comment, they ridicule your ideas, and this should not be the state on a wikipedia page. It is, perhaps, best for the moment to leave them to their own devices; certainly adopting a confrontational stance will elicit an extremely negative response to them. In the immortal words of Internet Troll hunters: 'Please do not feed the trolls.' It might be preferable to pursue other projects for the time being. Ck lostsword 19:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Sorry for the time between messages. I hope that your experiences on the Evolution page have not soured you to the Wikipedia program: such exchanges only occur fairly infrequently. There are, of course, the admins if you wish to continue with your cause, but they are only likely to mildly reprimand your opponents on the talk page, as it is your page that they are discussing and this is generally frowned upon in the wikipedia community. In the mean time, good luck, keep editing, and Be Bold!. Ck l o stsw o rd| queta! 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please refreain from making more reverts to the article or you may be banned.
Thank you for your kind words. I'm happy that today finds you in such fine spirits. Cheers! Guettarda 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Doug, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you haven't received the official welcome message, so I'll post it below.
I see you were having some trouble with some links being reverted. Here's a link to Wikipedia's External Link policy, giving guidelines on what should and should not be included. I can tell you from experience that most of the articles I'm interested in suffer from "link creep": people keep coming in and adding every single link they think will be relevant, until the article is just a tangled mess of links and not useful as an article as well. So a lot of us have "itchy trigger fingers" about links, especially from new folks, because we never know if you're just here to promote a site you're interested in or not.
Again, welcome to Wikipedia. If you feel there's any way I can help you, feel free to contact me on my talk page. You might also like to check out my user page. You can create one yourself, by the way, if you choose to stick around a while.
Here's the "official" welcome message. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Dougp59, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links to help you get started:
- 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doug
I'd like to put up Noah's Ark as a candidate for featured article. Since you've taken a recent interest in it, I thought you might like to have another look to see if there are any further tweaks you'd like to make to that end. My aim is to achiev an article both complete, and balanced. I recognise that I have personal biases - who doesn't? - and that's why I want your input. Cheers PiCo 12:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: Intelligent Design. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Ck lostsword 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Intelligent Design. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Ck lostsword 19:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I'm glad you're interested to know why we deleted your entry. An underlying principal of Wikipedia is called neutral point of view, and this is especially important for controversial topics such as Intelligent Design. Although I am sure that the site is pro-ID, it is also anti-Darwinism, and this violates the Neutral Point of View Rule: how would you feel if someone put an 'ID sucks' link on the Darwin pages? The link could be regarded as offensive by some Darwinists, and is in definite and strong support of ID. Keep trying anyway, and Be Bold!. Also, it is regarded as courtesy if once anything is delted or reverted, you leave it like that and start a discussion on the relevant talk page. It is very important to go with the consensus. Thanks. Ck lostsword 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. Only a couple of points this time. I watch both pages as I feel that they are both likely to be vandalised or to break other, similar rules. However, I agree with you that there should be some reference to alternative theories - perhaps a link to the ID or creationist sections of wikipedia. This should be discussed on the evolution talk page - it is not up to me, but to the consensus by the editors of that article.
I assume that you are strongly affiliated with the 'evolution sucks' site, and linking to it on the pages could be seen as advertising - another rule of wikipedia. If other users consider that site to be of appropriate relevance to the articles, that is fine, but if you are strongly linked to the site it is recommended that you do not mention it. (As a slight aside, it is more likely to be included if phrases such as "[lets make sure this] crap called evolution gets flushed down the crapper" were less prevalent.) Nonetheless, feel free to comment on the appropriate talk pages if you feel it is necessary. Thanks for your time (again!) Ck lostsword 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Because it is your opinion, it is worth a try. I might look later to give you some support. :D. (Although I am still a fairly new user, so I might not be all that much help). You could read the Starting a new page guide and the Deletion Poilcy for info about whether you could create an article about the site, but deleters tend to be fairly strict about things like this - again, it could be construed as advertising. If you believe that the article is acceptable and they attempt to delete it, be preprared to fight your corner! Good luck. Ck lostsword 18:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, things are looking fairly grim with regard to the evolution page. There are a large number of trolls on that article who refuse to listen to other's opinions (if you try reading up the talk page, this becomes clear). I have tried a mediatory apporach to diffuse things a bit, but it is clear that this is not going to work. It is much simpler just to leave them to their own devices. In their replies to your comment, they ridicule your ideas, and this should not be the state on a wikipedia page. It is, perhaps, best for the moment to leave them to their own devices; certainly adopting a confrontational stance will elicit an extremely negative response to them. In the immortal words of Internet Troll hunters: 'Please do not feed the trolls.' It might be preferable to pursue other projects for the time being. Ck lostsword 19:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Sorry for the time between messages. I hope that your experiences on the Evolution page have not soured you to the Wikipedia program: such exchanges only occur fairly infrequently. There are, of course, the admins if you wish to continue with your cause, but they are only likely to mildly reprimand your opponents on the talk page, as it is your page that they are discussing and this is generally frowned upon in the wikipedia community. In the mean time, good luck, keep editing, and Be Bold!. Ck l o stsw o rd| queta! 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please refreain from making more reverts to the article or you may be banned.
Thank you for your kind words. I'm happy that today finds you in such fine spirits. Cheers! Guettarda 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Doug, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you haven't received the official welcome message, so I'll post it below.
I see you were having some trouble with some links being reverted. Here's a link to Wikipedia's External Link policy, giving guidelines on what should and should not be included. I can tell you from experience that most of the articles I'm interested in suffer from "link creep": people keep coming in and adding every single link they think will be relevant, until the article is just a tangled mess of links and not useful as an article as well. So a lot of us have "itchy trigger fingers" about links, especially from new folks, because we never know if you're just here to promote a site you're interested in or not.
Again, welcome to Wikipedia. If you feel there's any way I can help you, feel free to contact me on my talk page. You might also like to check out my user page. You can create one yourself, by the way, if you choose to stick around a while.
Here's the "official" welcome message. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Dougp59, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links to help you get started:
- 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doug
I'd like to put up Noah's Ark as a candidate for featured article. Since you've taken a recent interest in it, I thought you might like to have another look to see if there are any further tweaks you'd like to make to that end. My aim is to achiev an article both complete, and balanced. I recognise that I have personal biases - who doesn't? - and that's why I want your input. Cheers PiCo 12:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)