http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

Little context in Obstruct

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Obstruct, by Joie de Vivre (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Obstruct is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Obstruct, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response: you are not authorised to attempt to obstruct my joy of life, AKA pursuit of happiness.

Eternal Divinity

A tag has been placed on Eternal Divinity, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is not an article, it is a religious essay, and an absurd one at that.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cathal 04:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Meditational

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Meditational, by Joie de Vivre (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Meditational is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Meditational, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for guidelines on specific types of responses, you may want to check out a book by Dear Abby, or, better, by her sister. Your manners are horrifically rude, and take that as a compliment. There's always room for improvement, android mouse, and you can continue practicing as an amateur until you are professional. Just don't do it at my expense.

Warning regarding your edit to Satanism

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.---Cathal 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were not vandal. As you note, you use the word "appear." Appearance vs. Reality is an ancient meditation, and you should persue the idea more clearly. No, it was not vandalism. Editing, however anarchic, is in keeping with policies of wikipedia.

Hangon

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Hangon) 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. Cathal 04:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for welcoming my help to make new content. As I am not content with your insults, note that the very concept of "hangon" is integral to Wikipedia. Therefore, to insult me further by noting that it is only worthy of a sandbox is to take liberties unwelcome. Therefore, reconsider your complimentary approach to Wikipedia, and try to patent your own nosense somewhere else.

Re: Your edits to my talk page

Please refrain from adding nonsense to my talk page, which you have now done twice. We have nothing to discuss. ---Cathal 05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussing nothing, your efforts to identify nonsense leave you exposed, old anarchist cathal. The lameness with which you attack anarchy bespeaks to your inability to consider goodness. Even purity is offended by your homepage on Wikipedia. Shame on you.

Hangon

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Hangon) 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. Cathal 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon is not nonsense.

AfD nomination of Eternal Divinity

I've nominated Eternal Divinity, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Eternal Divinity satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Divinity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Eternal Divinity during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Divinity is not nonsense. It is not illogical, and it is not without verification. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Consider verifying your own contributions before attacking mine.

Warning

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the User:Eagle 101 page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Sean William 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Re: Your edits to my talk page

As I have stated previously, please refrain from adding nonsense to my talk page. I have no interest in your opinion, either about my anarchist beliefs, or anything else. I consider your continued defacement to be vandalism. ---Cathal 22:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=== Thank you.

Your opinion counts, too. ===

User talk:Theoldanarchist

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Guinnog 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rudeness

To note my efforts to peacably defend my content and, as you put it, my right to edit wikipedia, leaves me wondering how you treat "anyone." As the clarity of my writing leaves me without true tone of attack, ought you instead to review the content for lack of debate. Resolutions come about only through discussion. And to not be offered discussion upon several points, editing or otherwise, is violation of wikipedia policy. "oldanarchist" is quality example of violation, as is Joie de Vivre. As you have not proven your objectivity, please consider yourself under review. Good Day. Sfd101 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not "your" content, you donate it to Wikipedia when you write it. That's what "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*" means. Secondly, when you started editing here, you implicitly accepted our policies. One of those is the policy WP:NPA. I suggest you read it as it's very important. Good luck. --Guinnog 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little advice...

Hey, I've noticed (as it's hard not to) that your talk page is littered with warnings and other such templates, with your (sometimes abusive) replys below. Here on Wikipedia, we take the way we communicate with editors very seriously, so it's probably best if you show more of a neutral view when someone leaves a message on your talk page -- if someone gave you a warning or template or something, it's probably for good reason. Please don't think of this as a warning, and take a look at Wikipedia:Etiquette for more info. Thanks ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOte that there is no effort here to attend to the community of Wikipedia. Editors and their self-proclaimed right to deny editing to anyone would be in violation of Guinnog's personal policy, were it in keeping with your perception of Wikipedia as subject to authority. As nothing here is anything worth wasting time over, note again that I do not waste time. As conclusive effort to attend to several pressing issues, -- not my issues, your issues,-- note that individuality will not be compromised by attacks on my individuality. Ownership and intellectual property will not be disrespected by any authority, regardless of their self-proclaimed importance. Furthermore, I will not tolerate any prejudice of statement regarding how you FEEL, abused or otherwise. Therefore, I am the only victim. I am the only oppressed. Go ahead and shout about your perceived oppression; you are wrong.

Right... well... most of that went over the top of my head, because you seemed to avoid the point I was getting at; but hell, I gave you the link, so the rest is up to you. Oh, and please Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)... and you really shouldn't create a new section just for a reply, it really messes up the page and makes replying difficult. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

What I mean is, you could be more accepting of other people's comments and such; if you think you are right about something then discuss it politely on the talk page and avoid an edit war. Most of your comments so far seem to be a bit rejecting of the community we are trying to build here, where we work together to solve problems, rather then telling others that we are right. Check out the link I gave above for better info. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary: "who the hell is this?"

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Guinnog 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns, being.

But consider the applications of politeness: this is not a politic forum.

Nor is it a debate. It is a discussion.

As per the comment, "who the h*** is this?" note that the comment was make as a private statement upon the edit history, not upon the actual talk page.

Furthermore, some consider "who the hell is this?" a compliment, rather than an insult.

Thank you again for your efforts. Being cool is as easy as The Fonz: "A!"

This is my page, and I will edit it as I please.

'fraid that's not an option, bub. You do not have a right to edit as you please should it defy any rule on Wikipedia - and keep in mind this is not your page, it is a page granted to you by Wikipedia for your use - it can just as easilly be taken away. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Ownership and editing of pages in the user space to see examples of what you can and can't do to the Talk page that goes with your account. (aeropagitica) 23:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages

cut copy and paste.

and lest you be reminded,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

chill out

Look dude, firstly go back onto the "Be Bold" page, and look at 1.1. Secondly, although "anyone can edit", remember, editing Wikipedia is a PRIVILIDGE, not a right. If you continue to act in the way you are, you will be blocked from editing. You do not own any pages (no, not even the talk page), and personal attacks or other forms of abuse will not be tolerated. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my voice to that of The Haunted Angel. While it's true that we welcome anyone to edit WP, it's also true that we have certain standards as summarized in our policies and guidelines (which you have been given numerous links to on this page). To be blunt, your recent edits to Satanism have simply not been useful contributions, and you have been reverted by several different editors. Finally, one of your most recent Edit Summaries stated "...any alterations will result in action." While many of our policies have a certain flexibility, you should understand that threats of any kind are not tolereated under any circumstances. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your attitude and tone, and that you choose your words more carefully in future. Repeating this kind of behaviour will almsot certainly result in your account being blocked. Doc Tropics 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chill out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

I take it you are presenting that link for a reason. Read it, it states that rules should be ignored should they hinder Wikipedia's advancement, not "should they be something you don't like or choose to ignore." ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I move for recess until further cooling of individuals in the aspects of the application of the definition of Wikipedia.

Advice

Hello, sfd101. You may wish to read the WP:POINT guideline before making such "moves." I am sure you have noticed that you are not being very successful in garnering the support of other Wikipedia editors in your recent endeavors. Since this encyclopedia works by a combination of policy and consensus, neither of which you are embracing, I strongly suggest you exercise some restraint in the force of your comments. You're heading for a block somewhere down the line, perhaps sooner rather than later, and that will really not help you to find your place in the community. ◄Zahakiel ► 01:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of C.o. simpkins

A tag has been placed on C.o. simpkins, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]