User talk:Perel

Welcome!

Hello, Perel, 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:

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! SatuSuro 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First message

Thanks very much! Have lots to learn yet about wiki. Have lots to contribute too.

Imapwnu 07:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westerly

Ok when a stub starts, it is by nature short and brief - such a note is by no means necessary on the day of the creation of stub. _If_ it had been unchanged and that size for some time (and I have met a few) -Then_ it is appropriate. Good idea to look around the welcome topics before letting loose too much! SatuSuro 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) BTW seasoned editors do have suspicions about red linked user pages and are more likely to cause you agony - even if you put one word there is better than a red link SatuSuro 08:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Ok that's better! The next thing is to be very carefull about putting the arrmoury out - there are many tags that really need carefull attention - Rich has caught up with you so far - but sometimes there are uncool eds who might not be so friendly.. Take Care! SatuSuro 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question - I havent trawled all through your contribs to get an idea really - I only have the experience of the new westerly stub. I would say keep at it - and as you go you will get a feel for how you are going - and where it happens - just listen to specific issues that others might raise - and enjoy! Dont let me put you off in any way - there's a very important principle in wikipedia dont bite the newbies - so we all were starting once ! SatuSuro 12:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I kept track myself, quite frequently I'd forget to log in or some such so I just kept a paper log of the number of deletes and such. Das Nerd 23:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I will rewrite.

Breakdown Section

Please see the talk on the page about musical breaks. I don't feel the move is in keeping with usage, as the highest usage of that term is "breakdown section" and has been since its invention. It is necessarry to keep this distinct as it is most certainly the origin of hip hop culture and one should start at the beginning. Also, is it not customary to discuss such matters before undertaking the move of an article? thank you.

re: your response to such - My Bad, and thank you for the instructions as well as your intitial restraint.--Tednor 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings professor bios

Thanks for catching the Hastings copyvios, as noted at User talk:Ttau they should all be deleted. There was enough suggestion of notability on the Chris Chan Lee article that I didn't feel comfortable speedy deleting that one, but feel free to post it to AFD for broader consideration if you think it doesn't live up to our bio guidelines. Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theology on Tap

Hello - thanks for your input and help! I've attempted to better Wikify the Theology on Tap article, and am hoping to find and start articles on other noteworthy topics that haven't yet come to Wikipedia editors' attention. PennaBoy 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

verbumvanum

"The given reason is: It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article."

I dispute it's blatant advertising (unless mere mentionning the existence of something is deemed blatant advertising, but then allmost all pages would be advertisement), though I agree it's a stub which can be improved upon. What, exactly, is the blatant advertisement in your eyes, which can not be found in any of the other CC projects mentionned on wikipedia? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons#Projects_using_Creative_Commons_licenses) Especially if you look at how they were originally started (for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikitravel&oldid=1543793) you will see they are no different (in fact, even worse) then the one about verbumvanum. Note that there is a difference between blatant advertisement and a stub. Thank you. - SmartSnoopyDog

Copyvio's

Hello Perel! Just wanted to let you know that when you mark an article as a copyvio, you also need to give the URL of the website that the article was taken from. Happy editing! -- P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I saw that you'd changed it to speedy (with the URL this time) right after I sent my message. Good job! -- P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent 'vandalism'

I see you've removed content added by 'Ben101' on the flamborough article.

Personally, I don't see how this user is a prolific 'vandal'. From his contribs he seems to have added quite a bit of useful stuff - the only thing he's done that I suppose isn't up to scratch with Wikipedia rules is promote his own band / a local band Parr (band).

I don't know anything about the Ghost that his addition to the article is on about (I don't live in the area so don't know that much). But Daynes Dyke certainly exists at Flamborough.

- And I'm sure previous information about Daynes Dyke had been removed before on this article. Why? Can't we just let people expand bloody articles for once? --AlbertW 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for replacing the stuff! I know the feeling of joining Wikipedia, adding useful stuff and only finding it removed because it is 'unsourced'.

Not only that, but this article (flamborough) is a perfect example of one that has been heavily 'pruned' for no reason other than the fact there is no online source to back points up! Hopefully User:Ben101 as well as the rest of us will actually be able to make it a worthwhile article in future! --AlbertW 09:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding prod of Spencer Knapp

I noticed that you removed the speedy deletion tag on Spencer Knapp and replaced it with a PROD. This is inappropriate as an administrator has not yet made a decision about the article. The only reason you would remove a speedy tag is if you can fix the article to eliminate the concern, however this was not done. I hope this clarifies the procedure for speedy deletions. Thank you --NMChico24 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the above comment because I didn't realise that it was actually the page author who removed the speedy. Anyway, there's no reason to place a PROD on an article when the author is actively fighting for it, because that basically negates the PROD (as this can be removed for any reason by anyone who objects to deletion). If you disagree with the speedy but aren't able to address the concern yourself, you can always follow the procedure at WP:AFD. That allows community consensus for deletion or acceptance of the article. I hope this clears up the confusion, and I apologise for assuming you'd removed the tag as a newbie goof. I should have looked farther into your reasoning. Thank you --NMChico24 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rep Minerva

Thanks for the heads-up. Actually, I didn't start the article, but I was trying to quickly salvage a bad article (written by someone who didn't know of the existence of a real RoM) to prevent obstruction of a good article. I may see later if I have anything worth adding to Republic of Minerva (I doubt it); I had reverted all my edits to the bad article. —SlamDiego 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User:Perel

I want to talk to your superior over the following.

Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Structural corruption and organized crime in the child protection system) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Perel 08:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not know what you are doing. I am the top expert in the United States on organized crime in the child protection, mental health, and social work systems. You cancelled my article while I was writing the response opposing deletion. My e-mail address is thesociologist@adelphia.net. I WANT CONTACT INFORMATION FOR YOUR SUPERVISOR.

James Roger Brown Director THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesociologist (talk • contribs)

Replying on user's talk page, FYI. Mytildebang 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome template

hi, I've left the project but was just logged in to check on my username change and saw your message. I can't remember the exact page, bu it belonged to User:Shreshth91. Glad you liked it! Mjg0503 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: speedy deletion notice

I'd say: if you think that a page obviously shouldn't be speedily deleted, just remove the notice. Notifying the user of what you have done and of the proper procedure is a good idea, too. - Mike Rosoft 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your comment about my Suburbs of Johannesburg article. This is my first edit to Wikipedia since the start of August, and I will not be doing it while logged in to my account. I grew too frustrated with the project, but I'm not one to ungraciouly leave a compliment floating.

Thanks again! The user formerly known as PZFUN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.65.75.36 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]