User talk:Encyclopedia91

Contact me here. Please don't be rude. Thank you very much! Encyclopedia91 (talk)

Welcome!

Hello, Encyclopedia91, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! TFD (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!! Encyclopedia91 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for content added to articles

Welcome. You need sources for additions to articles. Also, note that the term conservative is controversial, as explained in the article. TFD (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. got it. still learning the ropes around here. Encyclopedia91 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful tip

Something you're doing appears to be making non-letter characters be replaced with the coding that produces them - for example, at Pro-life, replacing a forward slash with "%2F." This has the effect of breaking citations that rely on those specific characters - if you take a look at the article immediately after your edit, you'll see that there are a lot of coding errors now because of those missing slashes! It would be great if you could figure out what it is that you're doing to cause this and stop doing it (and fix places where you've done it). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pro-life

Welcome to WikiLand. I read your entry on the Pro-life article Talk page. If you intended to vote on the name change, could you mark your comment as "Support" or "Oppose"? If you only intended to comment, could you mark it "Comment"? If you intended it just the way it is, then have a nice day! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome, and a quick tip re overlinking

Hi, '91! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have fun here, and thanks for your contribtions so far. I just wanted to mention, though, that common English words, including the names of major religions, which would normally be understood by a typical speaker who's fluent in English, should not generally be wikilinked, as you did in this edit. Please see WP:OVERLINK for further details about what should and should not be wikilinked.

Btw, "wikilinked" just refers to a word or phrase that's hyperlinked to an internal Wikipedia article. Additionaly, and not that you've contravened the policy, but just to avoid confusion, I'll also mention that links to any external site or resource should not occur in the body of an article. They're normally permitted only in references ( set off by the usual enclosure in the two surrounding "reference" tags, viz. the opening and closing tags <ref> and </ref>, respectively ) and in the "External links" section of the article. You might like to have a look at WP:EL for more information about what should and shouldn't be linked, if this raises any questions for you at all.

No problem at all in any of this; I know the rules here are myriad and confusing. I remember that when I was new to Wikipedia that it seemed like I could barely log on without running afoul of some arcane policy or other. Don't sweat that, in other words; just keep trying to improve articles, and you'll do fine. Finally, if you're not already aware of it, the help desk is a great resource when you get stuck. Everyone there is a volunteer, just like you, of course, so they'll appreciate it if you make at least some effort to sleuth out the answer to any question you might have, for a minute or two, before posting there. I'm going to go ahead and introduce a more comprehensive help template below, in a new section, that may be of use to you. If you don't like it there, you're perfectly free to delete it, as is the case with anything anyone posts to this page. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comprehensive help & welcome links

Hello, Encyclopedia91, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Here's you shiny new welcome and orientation boilerplate!

Happy editing! – OhioStandard (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

February 2011

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Not cool. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek is right, '91. Continuing to address your fellow editors like that, whether on a talk page or in an edit summary, will certainly get you blocked from editing in short order. You might like to read the request you have at the top of your talk page, "Don't be rude." Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, E91. Thanks for clarifying your vote on the Pro-life talk page, above and beyond the call of duty! Sarek and Ohio are giving you good advice here. (As the leading expert on WP:CIVIL, I should know. ha ha ha!) Never call anyone an ASSHOLE like I did, or liberal scum like you did. You need to learn very quickly how to be more subtle. You are swimming in a sea of editors (and I know you know this) who actually believe that the New York Times, for example, has no bias. So, swim carefully and avoid describing other editors too bluntly. Thanks again. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS to Sarek and Ohio: Don't bite the newbies! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for dropping you in the hot water. I should have known WikiManOne would be following me around. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. _WikiMan^One 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia91, please take the time to read about Wikipedia's various policies. The comment which WikiManOne reported you for making (calling someone "liberal scum") is considered uncivil, and therefore against our policies - see WP:CIV. If you continue to make comments like that you will inevitably be blocked from editing or worse.Griswaldo (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E91, please click here [1] and you can see what we're saying about you. Again, my apologies. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]