Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PetePassword. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Dougweller ( talk) 14:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Please format that article and add a category. If it is copyrighted, it should not be on Wikipedia, let me know and I will delete it. -- W.marsh 17:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to this so forgive me if I've not quite done it right. The piece was supplied by Michael Bowen for this use, and has full permission of the writer, so no copyright problem. Not sure what you mean by format the article. Can I put some pictures up with the article? Is there a limit on numbers/size? Regards Peter
by me and one other editor. I'm guessing you haven't read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, although the bit about scientists not being there makes me wonder if you might simply object to them. In any case, they are basic policy and you need to follow them. Dougweller ( talk) 14:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't even understand what you're talking about. If you mean 'do I object to scientists' no. My point is that there was no science when Native American stories originated, it's part of their culture. If by 'they are basic policy' you mean that without a study, or a science basis, nothing is accepted as legitimate. I find that racist if nothing else. The writer, if she/he knew dogs and wolves, would understand that dogs are very clearly the same species, give or take some manipulating of appearance and some habits. The mere fact there are wolf-dog hybrids proves this. If you know dogs that are closest to wolves [less messing], such as German and Belgian Shepherds and Huskies, you know their wolf characteristics. It's the difference between understanding and theoretically 'knowing'. As for editing, I don't think I'm cut out for it here as I find the whole thing too confusing, would take up far too much of my life just to read and understand everything I need to so as not to upset anyone, and I don't care enough to devote that much of my time. It strikes me as a pretty in-crowd thing, with people who more or less live on Wikipedia; everything turns into a social networking site eventually! But just to master all the codes necessary to use/edit/write is daunting, and the pages full of it along with text are totally confusing to a newbie. My problem remains that I can't read something I disagree with and not want to do something about it. Since my interets are extremely wide, this encompasses a good percentage of Wikipedia contents. So I must learn restraint. When I read that 'it's "thought" that wolf pups were stolen, and I know another scenario ... trouble with this subject is the villification wolves have been served up to justify humans killing them so thoroughly that they were extinct in many countries. From Little Red Riding Hood to the bullshit that comes from the mouths of American ranchers, the wolf isn't so much misunderstood as deliberately villified as a compulsive killer to suit man's real psychopathic nature. That's not in an acceptable encyclopaedic style either. Sorry, don't mean to sound unfriendly, ta for the cookies, mmm, but I'm tired and my brain hurts. Must be my age.
PetePassword ( talk) 20:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm 76, and still fighting the fight I began in the sixties. Can't say I'm impressed with recent generations. PetePassword ( talk) 10:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Dog article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Materialscientist ( talk) 09:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to ASDA. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 14:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of ASDA and have never edited this ASDA page. I don't even have an interest in ASDA and have never sought the page to find out anything. I'm surprised that there even is a page and surprised by there being so much about a supermarket chain. Please sort out the technical bits so you don't accuse someone of something they didn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetePassword ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't find anything so have no idea what it could have been other than a minor grammatical correction which I assume to be OK any time and not subject to all this bureacracy! Since I know nothing about Asda and never have, I doubt it was anything other than a comma or similar, or perhaps the deletion of a repeated word. PetePassword ( talk) 14:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There's no need for [[]] type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- ChiveFungi ( talk) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What disruptive editing? Who are you? What's your mental problem? So I 'may be blocked'l, what, by you? I assume you must be the author of this nonsense on Eurabia, and like every liberal who these days thinks he's in a binary war with the devil, you think it's fine to make threats to anyone who doesn't swallow your little creation, and who you assume our of ignorance you know what they think. What a sad little small-minded bigot. Perhaps I'll find out how to make a complaint about you for your immoderate and unjustified attack on someone who was suggesting IN TALK a perfectly valid suggestion [NOTE SUGGESTION NOT AN EDIT] from personal knowledge, which you clearly don't possess, since the whole piece is opinion and based on nothing much but your political position and bias. I suggest this is no place for someone like you pushing an agenda, or Wikipedia is going to deteriorate into an irrelevent politically biased opinion and unworthy of the term encyclopedia. If you had read what I wrote in entirety and understood it, you would have realised that not only am I not in any way pushing white genocide conspiracy theory [never having even heard of it previously] but was giving an origin for the term. I did not suggest the conspiracy theory usage of the term was in any way justified, in fact, I made no personal political points, I quoted the painter who, long before your claimed origination by someone else, named his painting Eurabia, and explained to me why he had done this and his 'realisation' at the time of shock. He wasn't a conspiracy theorist either, nor racist, and hadf lived and worked in many countries, was married to an Indian woman at one point, and was a totally open-minded, metropolitam American. His observation was objective and not tied in to your little conspiracy theory. Got it? Simple enough for you to understand? PetePassword ( talk) 10:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you take your own advice, 'please stop your disruptive editing' I didn't. 'If you continue to vandalise' I didn't. I wrote only in Talk page, I suggested an edit as the given person supposed to have coined the word is not the first to use it. I offered proof, I in no way said anything that suggests I am a white supremicist, yet that is what you called me merely because it has been used in that way apparently, a fact I was previously unaware of. So don't shoot your gob off on no evidence, OK? You seem to annoy a lot of people, quite a few comments about your attacks and attitude. Perhaps pay attention to those and stop assuming you know everything and everyone who appears to contradict your ego is automatically an ignorant troll. It's your problem sunshine and I've made an official complaint about your manner and attitude. It's people like you who deter anyone from contributing. My submission is valid and proved, your suggestion of who created the word is about someone who USED it. You are conflating the original use by Bowen with a later use by others who may or may not be consiracy theorists, but I'm not and I object strongly to your insult. If you can't edit without being insulting and combative perhaps you should find another hobby.
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PetePassword. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Dougweller ( talk) 14:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Please format that article and add a category. If it is copyrighted, it should not be on Wikipedia, let me know and I will delete it. -- W.marsh 17:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to this so forgive me if I've not quite done it right. The piece was supplied by Michael Bowen for this use, and has full permission of the writer, so no copyright problem. Not sure what you mean by format the article. Can I put some pictures up with the article? Is there a limit on numbers/size? Regards Peter
by me and one other editor. I'm guessing you haven't read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, although the bit about scientists not being there makes me wonder if you might simply object to them. In any case, they are basic policy and you need to follow them. Dougweller ( talk) 14:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't even understand what you're talking about. If you mean 'do I object to scientists' no. My point is that there was no science when Native American stories originated, it's part of their culture. If by 'they are basic policy' you mean that without a study, or a science basis, nothing is accepted as legitimate. I find that racist if nothing else. The writer, if she/he knew dogs and wolves, would understand that dogs are very clearly the same species, give or take some manipulating of appearance and some habits. The mere fact there are wolf-dog hybrids proves this. If you know dogs that are closest to wolves [less messing], such as German and Belgian Shepherds and Huskies, you know their wolf characteristics. It's the difference between understanding and theoretically 'knowing'. As for editing, I don't think I'm cut out for it here as I find the whole thing too confusing, would take up far too much of my life just to read and understand everything I need to so as not to upset anyone, and I don't care enough to devote that much of my time. It strikes me as a pretty in-crowd thing, with people who more or less live on Wikipedia; everything turns into a social networking site eventually! But just to master all the codes necessary to use/edit/write is daunting, and the pages full of it along with text are totally confusing to a newbie. My problem remains that I can't read something I disagree with and not want to do something about it. Since my interets are extremely wide, this encompasses a good percentage of Wikipedia contents. So I must learn restraint. When I read that 'it's "thought" that wolf pups were stolen, and I know another scenario ... trouble with this subject is the villification wolves have been served up to justify humans killing them so thoroughly that they were extinct in many countries. From Little Red Riding Hood to the bullshit that comes from the mouths of American ranchers, the wolf isn't so much misunderstood as deliberately villified as a compulsive killer to suit man's real psychopathic nature. That's not in an acceptable encyclopaedic style either. Sorry, don't mean to sound unfriendly, ta for the cookies, mmm, but I'm tired and my brain hurts. Must be my age.
PetePassword ( talk) 20:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm 76, and still fighting the fight I began in the sixties. Can't say I'm impressed with recent generations. PetePassword ( talk) 10:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Dog article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Materialscientist ( talk) 09:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to ASDA. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 14:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of ASDA and have never edited this ASDA page. I don't even have an interest in ASDA and have never sought the page to find out anything. I'm surprised that there even is a page and surprised by there being so much about a supermarket chain. Please sort out the technical bits so you don't accuse someone of something they didn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetePassword ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't find anything so have no idea what it could have been other than a minor grammatical correction which I assume to be OK any time and not subject to all this bureacracy! Since I know nothing about Asda and never have, I doubt it was anything other than a comma or similar, or perhaps the deletion of a repeated word. PetePassword ( talk) 14:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There's no need for [[]] type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- ChiveFungi ( talk) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What disruptive editing? Who are you? What's your mental problem? So I 'may be blocked'l, what, by you? I assume you must be the author of this nonsense on Eurabia, and like every liberal who these days thinks he's in a binary war with the devil, you think it's fine to make threats to anyone who doesn't swallow your little creation, and who you assume our of ignorance you know what they think. What a sad little small-minded bigot. Perhaps I'll find out how to make a complaint about you for your immoderate and unjustified attack on someone who was suggesting IN TALK a perfectly valid suggestion [NOTE SUGGESTION NOT AN EDIT] from personal knowledge, which you clearly don't possess, since the whole piece is opinion and based on nothing much but your political position and bias. I suggest this is no place for someone like you pushing an agenda, or Wikipedia is going to deteriorate into an irrelevent politically biased opinion and unworthy of the term encyclopedia. If you had read what I wrote in entirety and understood it, you would have realised that not only am I not in any way pushing white genocide conspiracy theory [never having even heard of it previously] but was giving an origin for the term. I did not suggest the conspiracy theory usage of the term was in any way justified, in fact, I made no personal political points, I quoted the painter who, long before your claimed origination by someone else, named his painting Eurabia, and explained to me why he had done this and his 'realisation' at the time of shock. He wasn't a conspiracy theorist either, nor racist, and hadf lived and worked in many countries, was married to an Indian woman at one point, and was a totally open-minded, metropolitam American. His observation was objective and not tied in to your little conspiracy theory. Got it? Simple enough for you to understand? PetePassword ( talk) 10:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you take your own advice, 'please stop your disruptive editing' I didn't. 'If you continue to vandalise' I didn't. I wrote only in Talk page, I suggested an edit as the given person supposed to have coined the word is not the first to use it. I offered proof, I in no way said anything that suggests I am a white supremicist, yet that is what you called me merely because it has been used in that way apparently, a fact I was previously unaware of. So don't shoot your gob off on no evidence, OK? You seem to annoy a lot of people, quite a few comments about your attacks and attitude. Perhaps pay attention to those and stop assuming you know everything and everyone who appears to contradict your ego is automatically an ignorant troll. It's your problem sunshine and I've made an official complaint about your manner and attitude. It's people like you who deter anyone from contributing. My submission is valid and proved, your suggestion of who created the word is about someone who USED it. You are conflating the original use by Bowen with a later use by others who may or may not be consiracy theorists, but I'm not and I object strongly to your insult. If you can't edit without being insulting and combative perhaps you should find another hobby.