User talk:YoungWebster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sputnik

Hi, YoungWebster, Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, bonjour, salut, privyet, konichiwa, shalom, hola, salve, sala'am, bonjourno, and hi! I'm Sputnik. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". We're glad to have you in our community! I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful. If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Here are a few links to get you started:
And remember:
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
  • If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
  • P.S. I'm happy to help new users. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Happy Wiki-ing!


- СПУТНИКССС Р 17:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and the 3RR rule

Point #1: Wikipedia has rules regarding neutral point of view and verifiability. The article on Susan Kadis cannot and will not assert that the demise of the Thornhill Times came because the paper was too partisan — it's a claim that can never be lifted out of the "it's true because I said so" file. The claim is unverifiable and not neutral.

Point #2: Wikipedia has a three-revert rule; you cannot revert disputed text more than three times in a 24-hour period. You already broke this rule once; consider this your first warning. You may be editblocked if it happens again.

Point #3: Do you VaughanWatch guys really think I'm too dumb to see through this? Bearcat 03:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And, after further review, it's time for point #4: given that User:70.31.246.119 was previously involved in talk page blanking at Susan Kadis, behaviour consistent with the VaughanWatch side of the dispute, how exactly do you expect me to believe that they're suddenly User:pm_shef's sock puppet? I'll tell you what it looks like from where I'm sitting: you and 70 trying to frame shef for a 3RR violation.
The ball's in your court, kiddo. Prove me wrong or it's editblock time. Bearcat 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Accusations

They're not just saying that you're a sockpuppet of vaughanwatch, but others too. Go to the deletion review. 02:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who should be banned?

Please read my user page. --JohnnyCanuck 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)