A tag has been placed on Principlist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you.
August 2008 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Taifarious1, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Patrick (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I only intended to add some humor to this dismal place (I only edited pages in the "User:" space, not wanting to mess with what the readers see). -- Live free or die 04:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- You did edit Template:Che Guevara, which is used in the mainspace. Please do not do that again. I will admit that the image was rather funny. --Patrick (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi LFOD, thanks for taking the time to write your note about this article. As you will have seen there was a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principlist) where the unanimous opinion was that the article was not suitable for Wikipedia. The version I deleted, was shorter than the discussed version and did not include any material not review in the deletion discussion. While you are welcome to take this to deletion review, perhaps you would want to edit Principlism where the term is discussed, albeit in a medical philosophical setting. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"This has absolutely nothing to do with preference in hair colo(u)rs or body sizes and/or shapes, but with idiotic political correctness censorship. Should we now label bin Laden a freedom-loving freedom-fighter? Oh wait, we already are... LFOD (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)"
As right as you may think you are, or as "idiotic" and "politically correct" you may feel detractors to particular userboxes are, this isn't a helpful comment. Please produce less heat and more light when you discuss things. Calling people names produces heat. Insulting and dismissing people's points of views produces heat. Making insightful comments that contribute to the discussion produces light. Please remember that discussions are not about arguing forever over who's right – it's about coming up with a solution to which everyone can agree, whether that comes from convincing somebody that you're right, or whether it comes from finding a compromise. I'm sure you will notice that people's opinions are rarely swayed by insults and mud-slinging. It's not rational or sensible, but, if anything, people become more entrenched in their positions if you insult / attack them. To convince somebody, try to see where they're coming from, and make relevant, reasoned points, rather than name-calling or belittling their opinion as "political correctness" or "idiotic".
Please keep this in mind when making comments in a discussion. — Werdna • talk 12:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sock? edit
What's with the sock tag? Who is this user suspected of being a sock of?
- I don't know. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban proposal. --AmaltheaTalk 14:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)