User talk:Paulwithap

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Academic Challenger 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this person deserves an article. The information you put the first time you made this article makes it obvious that you are joking around. Academic Challenger 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Paul Jaworski may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul. May I refer you to Wikipedia:Notability? Thanks! Sango 123 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then kindly please, Paul, follow my friend Sango's good advice, provide evidence at the article itself that this person possesses a degree of notability that may warrant its inclusion at Wikipedia. Without any proof of said notability, it is impossible to reach a conclusion different than that to which both Academic Challenger and I have come: that this person does not deserve an article here. Regards, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jaworski

No problem. That's what we are supposed to be doing helping and creating articles. The best way is to have the full article ready on your own computer then put it into Wikipedia. By the way if you use ~~~~ then it will sign and date your name. And now that you have got started have one of these:

Welcome!

Hello, Paulwithap, 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:

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! CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on merger request for Paul Jaworski. Pustelnik (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jaworski 2

I've left a message with the person who deleted it. They may not have read the original article or the second and not realised they were different. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been restored. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship/paulwithap

Paul, you might wish to remove your request for adminship. Most successful RfAs have more than 2000 edits, three months of experience, and usually have well-respected member of the community as a nominator. I can't fault your boldness, however. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Are you referring to 27 (number) or something else? While I would probably not have deleted the Malboro reference I probably would the birthday. The reason being if you look at January 27 it's not possible to list all the birthdays (and multiply that by 12 months). Thus it's almost a POV in saying that Mozart is more important than anyone else in the list. If there was something else then let me know.

But I don't think Academic Challenger really holds a grudge, remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith (AGF). If you look at Paul Jaworski, history you can see that he helped it by removing a speedy delete tag. Wikipedia is the same as the rest of life, people who have been doing it for a while forget that newcomers may not be up on proper way of doing things. Sometimes we forget to explain why something was removed or changed, What may seem like a good idea to me, may not be obvious to the other person. The best thing is to leave a note on User talk:Academic Challenger and ask (politely) why the edits were changed (or I can if you want). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your addition to the 27 article about Mozart's birthday again, though I made sure to keep the addition about the cigarette, as that is valid. I love Mozart, but as Cambridge says, putting the date of his birthday when we never do that for anyone else on a number article seems random and POV. Academic Challenger 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I saw your note on CambridgeBayWeather's page. For what its worth, I see nothing amiss in the actions of Academic Challenger. He seems to be following Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:POV. You might find a review of Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes helpful as well. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jaworski

You've recreated this article a few times now, if you think its deletion is unwarranted there is a process here. Continually recreating deleted content can get you blocked, so I advise going through the correct process. Also, if the article is about you then you should known that is a really bad idea. Whatever, if you want to write about living persons you need to check WP:BLP first (not to say you haven't, but that is implied by what others have said). Let me know if you need help with the WP:DRV process. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this one was ridiculously confusing because it was rewritten with a different but identically named subject halfway through two separate deletion processes. I've restored the full history right back to day 1 and it's currently being sorted out. Thansk for the comment, though. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 65.29.46.101 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I was unable to locate any outstanding block against you. If you are still blocked, please re-request an unblock making sure to copy the block message accurately. --Yamla 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 65.29.46.101 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 05:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still blocked, I copied and pasted the above text directly from the message I received.

Thanks, you should be good to go right now. The autoblock-locating tool seemed to be a bit confused. We sincerely apologise for the inconvenience. --Yamla 05:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be some abuse issues, namely abusive account creation, stemming from this IP address (65.29.46.101), please be patient while a CheckUser request is filed. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent checkuser request

I noticed you created a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/haria808, but didn't seem to fill out the form (in particular, no suspected sockpuppets are listed, and no explanation for the request seems to have been given). As the plot thickens, I checked, and the "primary" account listed, User:Haria808, doesn't seem to exist -- possibly, there's a typo involved? If this was a serious request, please take a moment to fill out some of the form (I can help, if you need). If this was a test or experiment, please let me know so that I can take an appropriate course of action. Thanks. Luna Santin 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I'll have the listing done in a moment. As a checkuser clerk, I'm not empowered to accept or reject requests, but you should know that the checkusers generally won't perform a check without a reason -- if you look at the grid at the top of WP:RFCU, or at Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, do you see any policy violations by these accounts that might justify the use of checkuser? Luna Santin 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some explanation to the case page. If you have anything to add, especially as relates to an accusation of sockpuppetry, or if you'd like to select a code letter from the list at WP:RFCU, feel free. Luna Santin 03:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Hitlerweb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitlerweb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Wplogolib.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Wplogolib.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Wplogolib.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Wplogolib.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon in Madison

Paulwithap, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon

Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)

Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.