Contents

User talk:Snideology

• 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! WLU 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell those Vandals to get out of North Africa and go back to their lands in present day central Europe! Just kidding, that was an historical reference to the Germanic tribe... Anyway, there are resourced you can find on Wikipedia for how to deal with vandalism: [1] It's helped me a lot. I'm more of a newbie than WLU probably, but I just though I'd help, haha. Aepoutre 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice is to work your way through the appropriate user warnings. If they're still vandalising, report them on the AIV page (there's a bunch of templates already in place - edit the appropriate section and you'll see the template you're supposed to fill in. If it's sever, perisistent vandalism, or a repeat of past behaviour, you can just put a level four warning up and go right to AIV. WLU 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should also read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. WLU —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Please be careful when calling people "vandals", as you did here. I did not dedicate 8,000 edits and 6 months of my life to put up with this. Please assume good faith in the future. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I just saw your message about the Columbia article. To tell you the truth, I don't remember exactly why I removed the text given that it was a year ago. However, I think the part about tears streaming down Cain's cheeks is certainly not encyclopedic--it's trivia that's not really relevant to the article. As for locking the doors, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there, but it is standard procedure for a crisis in Mission Control.

Hope that helps. If not, let me know and we can talk further. MLilburne (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is noteworthy in general. I checked and there is already a reference in the Columbia disaster article. I'm not sure whether you're the one who put it there or not, but it fits very well (in my opinion). MLilburne (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thank you for your kind words and keep up the good work. We definitely need more people working on the NASA articles (and I should return to them myself). MLilburne (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that addition to the Agkistrodon piscivorus (cottonmouth) article, however this falls foul of Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. I know this is common-sense advice, but having specific medical advice in our articles would open us up to legal problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, no problem with asking for clarification on this. You added the statement that "While this venom is, as mentioned, rarely fatal, all venomous snakebites should be treated as medical emergencies and immediate medical attention should be sought.", which is a instruction on how to act when bitten by a snake. The problem being that this is written in the authorial voice and no source was cited, so is you personally giving advice. This is indeed perfectly sensible advice, but this statement now gives you a direct legal responsibility if somebody acts on your instructions and is harmed. This is why the policy forbids giving any such advice. If you had attributed this to a reliable source, eg The CDC sates that while this venom is, as mentioned, rarely fatal, all venomous snakebites should be treated as medical emergencies and immediate medical attention should be sought." that would be fine, since it would then be the CDC's legal responsibility, not yours. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loki says kkkghrk3tq77777777777777 (that's cat on keyboard for thank you). Tim Vickers (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snideology. Please do not add information to articles without citing a reliable source, as you did with The Crepes of Wrath. Thank you, Theleftorium 09:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I apologize if you thought my revert of your edit was too hasty. It was not my intention to be impertinent. Although it's true that much of the information on Wikipedia is "uncited", The Crepes of Wrath is a Good article and must therefore follow the Good article criteria (which states that the information has to be verifiable and that the article can't contain any original research). Feel free to re-add the information along with a source to back it up, though. :) Regards, Theleftorium 10:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article becomes "Good" if it is passed by a reviewing editor at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. You can tell if an article is "Good" by looking at its talk page (a template is placed there if the articles has passed its Good article nomination). See Talk:The Crepes of Wrath, for example. :) Best, Theleftorium 23:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snideology, I appreciate your comments on the article that I started concerning Hannibal's crossing of the Alps (I cannot seem to get access to the account that I crated that article on, I'm constantly applying to wikipedia to help me retrieve the information, but they have not responded). That is both the positive comments that you offered, as well as the negative ones. The article clearly needs work - especially from a stylistic standpoint. A little bit of the reason for that, is because the sheer length of the article, as well as my desire to include as much detail as possible, combined with my desire to finish it, left me prone to making such errors. Another reason, my poor grammar. i wanted to hear some more of your commentary on the article. In addition, I wanted to encourage you to work on the article, fix it for proper wording etc... Although I am happy to do that, I fear doing so because of the fact that I wrote the article. However, I am happy to do so. Having said that, I thought that it would be better for someone who didn't write the article, and therefore had a more objective view of the article. I freely admit that I am attached to it. While I work on getting my account, if I could direct you to provide further advice/commentary into the talk section of the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.138.58 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]