Hello, Faithfullyclever! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Doug Weller (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Faithfullyclever, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, 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. Leebo86 05:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It is considered vandalism to remove a speedy deletion tag from a page you created. Leebo86 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
A tag has been placed on Elisha Hoffman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, 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. DanMS 05:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Look. Anyone can create a new word. However, it only gets onto Wikipedia after other people start using it. That's the tricky part: convincing other people to use your word. That's the difference between "faithfullyclever" and "podcast", for instance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on The Green and the Red Societies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I was pondering your edit to Garden of Eden while someone went and changed it. I would have done the same, though I wanted to mention why. creation myth is a concept that is common to all religious beliefs. To remove its mention takes away a dimension from the article. This isn't a place for politically correct language. Instead, all topics are discussed in the same bare analytical manner. noit (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
You can write a note on anybody's "discussion" page. Then sign your note by writing 4 tildes , "~" after your message. I usually like to keep conversations on one page, but most people jump back and forth between user pages, making the conversation impossible to follow to anyone else. noit (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Creation teaching requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Matt(Talk) 06:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Faithfullyclever. You have new messages at Matt.T's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garden of Eden. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ben (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Faithfullyclever, I won't write a long note, but I just wanted to say two things. Firstly, I thought I would offer you any help you might need, since you genuinely seem keen to learn how "it" works, just let me know and I'll be happy to explain anything I can or point you in the right direction otherwise. Secondly, I thought I'd let you know why your particular edit to Garden of Eden was reverted by me twice. Creation myth is the standard term used by the majority of experts in the field to refer to, well, creation myths. Using a non-standard term in any article isn't going to help readers unfamiliar with the topic. I'm sorry if my reverts seemed a little short and to the point. If you want to discuss that particular change any more, the best bet is to use the discussion page of the Garden of Eden article (you'll see the tab at the top). This way there is no chance of an "edit war". Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your reply. Man was that getting annoying! I am not sure if I want to challenge the "professionals" or if I even have the time at the moment to attempt anything else regarding this article or editing in here in Wikipedia. It is interesting, but a little frustrating, as perhaps you can tell from this page, warning after warning. We shall see though. God bless and thanks again for your reply. Faithfullyclever (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Maybe I should have said "academics, writers, etc" instead of professionals :) Sounds a little weird now that you say it. Anyway, good luck with it all! Oh, in future, if you want to indent the disucssion (so it's easy to pick up where replies start/end) just use a ':' at the start of the line. You can edit this section to see how I've done it. Ben (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is so funny, it is like another world (I have discovered the Internet has a habit of doing that) to me. We shall see how useful this new world is... The problem is that I love to edit. That makes me want to correct every little error I make, and everything can be seen by other too, right?Faithfullyclever (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes. If you click the history tab on any page (including this one) you can compare changes made. Ben (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ya? Even if you want to fix a small typo?
Everything :) Ben (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay that is cool. Strict, but cool. I noticed too that when replying back and forth, some people where using more then one ":". Like "::" or ":::". Is that just personal preference? Or is there an order? Do you know what I mean? Because right now, it seems that you are using the ":" while I just leave all the colons out. That seemes to work but not sure if it is "proper". Thanks by the way for the brief tips! Faithfullyclever (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ahh, the number of ":"'s indicates how far to indent. So by me putting in one ":", it indents a little, but if I do two
like this
then things get indented further. It's customary to keep indenting so people can easily keep track of the conversation, until things get too indented and then someone will decide to start from the left again without an indent. There are no strict rules about it though. Ben (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay, cool thanks, I will try it right now (as it should be obvious). I find this conversation to be so funny because it is all public/published (along with anything else on Wikipedia) for anyone to see.Faithfullyclever (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. Then again, I guess it's no different from having a conversation in any public place. In most cases, people just won't care and will go about doing their own things :) Ben (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are right. The coolest thing though is the possibility that people can take what they need and go if they want. (Even if it is a dull conversation, perhaps they may be able to find what they are looking for, through it.) Faithfullyclever (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garden of Eden. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ben (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)