User talk:Rent A Troop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rent A Troop, 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
• How to write a great article
• 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism template

I noticed you put vandalism template on Chevron Corporation article. It's not in the right place. The template should be placed at a user talk page to warn a user. Please see WP:WARN for the guidelines. Dekisugi (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find them here: Wikipedia:Template messages. Dekisugi (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rent A Troop. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Easter

Hi, I noticed your message about the changes User:CapitalElll‎ made to Easter. I agree with your view. However, please also see the long discussion on Good Friday. There were also similar issues with Crucifixion of Jesus, the conclusion being that the word myth should be avoided. Those pages are on my watchlist, but it would be useful to have more people watch them. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:CapitalElll Warning

I couldn't help but notice your warning to User:CapitalElll. Why do you warn him for something he stopped doing a week ago? And why do you call "mythology" a word that introduces bias and bigottry and then a link to an article that proves the opposite? I'm not getting into another edit war over this terminology, but retroactive warnings after a week are not called for and mythology is the scientific study of religious narratives, regardless of whether they're Christian or Hindu in origin. And a mythology is the body of such story within a culture or religion. That's why Wikipedia has an article on Christian mythology. The use of the word "myth" as meaning an untrue story is avoided and not presumed on Wikipedia, especially when used in the context of mythology. Pleas check relevant Wikipedia policy. Do not use warnings in content disputes. -Duribald (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't introduce a higher level warning because someone gave a lower level warning after the incident you're warning for. He didn't have any warnings at the time he made the edit you mention in your warning. And you assume good faith on Wikipedia. Vandalism requires INTENT. According to Wikipedia policy even misguided edits, that are in good faith, are not considered vandalism. You may think what you want about the word "mythology" in this context, but retroactive higher level warnings are not consistent with policy. And your comment about Uncyclopedia is definately not in good faith. -Duribald (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the top of the page you referred to and you will see that it clearly says: "Issuing more than one warning level simultaneously serves no purpose, since they did not get the first warning before you escalated to the next resort." The purpose of warnings, according to that same page, is not to punish or leave a track record, but to "...guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals". Warnings are not a formal system, but "...they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more." The track record of a persons activities is checked in the "User contributions" of the user before a warning is left, according to both WP:WARN and WP:VAN, and you leave a new message, or report to admin, only if the behaviour is repeated after the last warning (see the first quote). Consequently, according to policy, you did it wrong. I've made similar mistakes in the past. But I have yet to refer someone to Conservapedia for trying to explain Wikipedia policy, and that you shouldn't make personal attacks on people, to me. That's not exactly WikiLove. And I think the Christian conservatives on Conservapedia were kind of on your side in the mythology debate, actually. They don't belive that anything Christian is a myth. It's all scientific facts to them. Never mind... Peace! :-) -Duribald (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bank of Sudan

Ah. Delete away. I should have known, I started the page Bank of Sudan as User:McTrixie. I will revert my hangon. Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The {{Article issues}} template

Howdy. Normally when adding {{Article issues}} to an article, editors condense the other article issues into it.--RockfangAWB (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comment should have been made under this account. Sorry for any confusion.--Rockfang (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Begging to differ

I've replaced my spam tag at W & W because it is there on different grounds to the other tag. I believe the article (which has appeared before and been deleted is spam, trying to attract mew 'moderators' and to promote the site. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My latest response re Wiglington and Wenks

Hello. Since the page has been deleted, here's my latest response to you about the reason for the deletion of Wiglington and Wenks:

It isn't that something makes it not significant but that there's nothing in the article that gives any indication that it's significant. Topics for Wikipedia articles need to be meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. If a new article about a person, group, or website doesn't even start by giving some indication that it could be notable, then it can be speedily deleted. The details are explained at CSD A7. One way of thinking of it is that there are so many people submitting articles about themselves, their friends, their children, their neighborhood businesses, their local bands, etc., that it's reasonable to expect articles on these topics to give some reason why we should even take the trouble to search for evidence of notability on the author's behalf. Number of Google hits is not necessarily a sign of notability anyway, because it's entirely possible that every hit is promotional or self-published or from some other biased source, and that none of them are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1