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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!
If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!
Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:
Best of luck to you, and happy editing!
Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you commented on the EAC nomination for deletion. Editors have made some cases for and against deletion since your comment. Do you care to comment further on this, or to vote? Thanks. Rohirok 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Atheists, foxholes, opinions, etc
Hi Tuesday. I'm a bit puzzled by your insistence on including an unreferenced explanation of one possible meaning of "there are no atheists in foxholes". Why do we need (or want) to include this particular interpretation that you continue to say is NOT your opinion. Whose opinion is it, if not yours? I'm not trying to be annoying, I have done my best to make this one small paragraph factual, informative, and objective; I haven't watered down the counter-criticism, in fact I have added further counter-evidence, including sources. I don't want to weaken the paragraph by including stuff that looks like unsourced personal opinion, and I'm sure that you don't either. So let me know what makes you say that this is not your opinion, but is in fact the usual meaning of this phrase. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 00:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I see you call this "a description of the phrase", and I wonder why you think we need to describe a phrase as simple as "there are no athesist in foxholes". Isn't the idea of an encyclopedia to let the facts speak for themselves, ie let the readers make up their own minds, based on the simple factual information that we provide? Thanks. Leeborkman 00:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at the atheists in foxholes article, it DOES say that possible meaning in the article. However, when I look at it I realise that it says "used t"o imply, so either I misread
or remembered incorrectly, or the article has since been changed. Also looking at the article again, part of that paragraph has a citation-needed flag. So, you can do what you want to with that bullet of the article. I think the sentence needs a rewording over a deletion, though.Tuesday42 03:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Rayman_Raving_Rabbids_Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rayman_Raving_Rabbids_Logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages: