User talk:Wingover

Welcome!

Hello, Wingover, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your message

Remember always to sign your messages (see above); it makes it much easier to reply.
We're all with Wikipedia — it's a collaborative effort.
Looking at your edits, they seem all to consist of adding or relabelling links to various conspiracy sites, some of them pretty kooky. While that's sometimes acceptable (see my argument at the moment on Talk:AIDS), it's often not. If you want to argue for your links, you should do so on the Talk pages of the articles in question (make sure that you've read the various Wikipedia pages on writing articles, though). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

also, it is not considered good style to add links to your own offsite material. This looks like SEO. If you think an article of yours would be valuable as an external link, you can suggest its addition on the pertaining article's Talk page. dab (ᛏ) 12:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wingover: I didn't call you kooky, I called the sites to which you're linking kooky. My other points also stand, including signing your messages. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: JPII revert

Yeah, I reverted your edit. You added the statement "President Bush was booed by many at the funeral", sourced to your own blog, into the John Paul II article. That's POV pushing, topic creep, and self-promotion in a single sentence, which has got to be some kind of record.

You're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but only if you're going to contribute neutral, interesting, topical, factual, and unbiased information. —Brent Dax 06:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wingover

I think it is quite unlikely that you would be voted in as an administrator, given your relative newness here (and your reasons for wanting adminship). However, if you are serious in this bid, please follow the steps on WP:RFA correctly: self-nominations belong in the lower section, and it looks like you didn't add all of step 6 and that you skipped step 8. A malformed request is likely to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed RfA Request

Wingover, I've removed your request for adminship. Given your time here, there is no chance of it succeeding (and it was posted in the wrong place) and there is no sense in leaving it up for a couple of dozen editors to tell you the same thing.

But you need to know that Adminship cannot be used for the purpose you wish to use it for. Admins may not use their technical powers to prevent editing, deletion or movement of their own articles. If you feel that your articles are moved or deleted wrongly, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and, if you still feel that they are within policy, you can add for comments on RfC or the Village Pump.

I hope you will want to stay and contribute to Wikipedia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Greg. Cecropia was correct to remove your adminship request, which would have drawn sharp criticism were it allowed to remain. Please realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project with hundreds of major contributors and thousands of occasional contributors. There are standards. Among those is an expectation that material will be referenced, and that unusual claims require stronger sources. An author's own personal blog is not a strong source; in fact, we usually do not consider blogs to be a reference at all.

You're clearly a concerned and articulate writer, and I hope you'll continue to contribute. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the project. Mel's tips in the welcome message, above, would be a good place to start.

I suggest you refrain from threatening to leave the project, as it has been tried before and has proven to be an ineffective means of advocacy for policy change.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need help. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Freepressinternational links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, the only edits you have ever made to articles here involve the addition of freepressinternational.com links to pages that you think are appropriate. Though the links you have been providing are of the same subject matter, the links do not hold value for the Wikipedia reader—they aren't made up of expert opinion in a peer-reviewed or refereed format nor do they contain anything more than snippets of other articles culled from other publications. It's fine that you gather these bits together for your readers but on Wikipedia, the readers are getting the most important and reliable material from the original sources and they don't need your link for additional validation or elucidation. Please reconsider your strategy of participation at Wikipedia, noting that not one of your links has survived other editors deleting them. Perhaps you can begin again by adding new sentences or sections to articles you have an interest in, making sure to always add references to back your text up. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for some pointers. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]