Welcome!

Hello, JEdgarFreeman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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! Cirt (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Paul, and I helped create the Sean Goes Pop! wikipedia page. I sent Sean Smith most of the codes to make the page. I'm not here to sway your judgment or yell at you or anything. Some not so friendly editors have somewhat attacked Sean Smith's wikipedia account, and his account now lays completely useless. Sean Smith never did anything to diserve any of the rushed attacks placed upon his profile, but Sean has asked me to thank you for being the one and only polite editor that has contributed to the Sean Goes Pop! page. Sean and I both believe that your comment makes perfect sense, and we have been searching for notable awards Sean has won over the years, which have been few seeing he is only 17, and I only 19. But those few (In Sean's and many fans and studio's retrospect) have been very notable, but obviously not notable enough for wikipedia editors. Sean has won other notable awards in New York, but of course not grammys or anthing of that stature. In several months, Sean Goes Pop! is going to release a record with the help of Barsuk Records, and Blind Man Records, which is something wikipedia regards as "notable" By that time it will be too late, and the page will possibly be deleted, but whatever the wiki-editors beleive is justice, must be... well justice. Sean and I are fine with wikipedia's disicion although we both believe that there are some "traffic lights" in the world that deserve some reconition. Thank you for your time PaulGIOMann (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you cleared another thing up. Sean's award link came up as an error for you. The page comes up on my computer seeing that I have the page saved, and I just found it was moved to a different address. Thank you so much for pointing this out seeing how important the link is. Also thank you for your kindness through the issues adressed during this process. I dont like the wording of the barnstar award, but you do deserve it. About the "power happy idiots" remark, I will take it back and apologize on the talk page, although I will explain several circumstances Sean and I were in. The first day the page was made, I was still putting things up and at that moment, the page was "Placed into the deletion process." Confused, I defended my case, and was replyed with ignorant rudeness. I understood that if the page wasnt up to wikipedia standards it would be deleted. But having my intellegence insulted was a little too much. I apologize if my "words" offended anyone, but this person does in fact deserve the title. But because I do appreciate your help and kindness, I will apologize. PaulGIOMann (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean and I both love wikipedia so much. We both will continue to edit and use this site, but we cant until this issue is resolved. Thats why we both, are a little touchy on the subject? We both have lives to live, and Sean has music to write, and when we both go on wikipedia, we exspect to just read, and if so, rewrite. But now, we both get flooded with messages we have to spend time replying too, as if we were being punished for something that wasnt our idea. Sean put up another name change request, and I voted the article for deletion also, but my word. Can you understand why we both want this to go away? This problem can be easly taken care of. But so many people are making it difficult. Thats why its nice to have a few kind people to talk to. As a matter of fact if you and a few others werent here. Sean and I would of just given up and left the site forever. Oh, and in the article for deletion, I saw you posted right after the editor who Sean and I disliked very much. He was the first one to try to delete us saying that Sean was just "a 17 year old boy who is writing about himself... promotional..." and so on. Sean and I can not wait to finish up this mess. We both would like to get on with our lives, and get on with loving the good parts about wikipedia. Plus, do you know how hard it is to keep relaying these messages back and forth to Sean too? Ha. Very difficult/tedious process. Thank you, PaulGIOMann (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No doubt you mean well but your proposal to add a summary to the cheerleader AFD discussion seems to contravene the sense of WP:AFD#AfD Wikietiquette. These discussions do not normally have such additions and we already seemed to have more than enough text for other editors to wade through. Please withdraw it. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JEdgarFreeman. You've done quite a nice job for your first review, and I found little to fault. I wanted to point out that it's good you give such a full and deep review, which some experienced reviewers lack. It's also good that you've compared the article against both the main criterion and the quick-fail criterion. Regarding your concern about there not being enough information, while I agree with you about that, keep in mind that some topics will not have a lot of information. Also, articles should represent a neutral view, so I'm not sure if there has to be information about critical reviews, especially if they're the minority. Feel free to ask any more questions on my talk page. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to other commitments I probably won't have time to devote to work on addressing the points you raised in the GA review for a little while. Thank you for taking the time to do the review and I hope you will understand if I get to it in a few days. Yours, Cirt (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, UK Community Issues Party, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Community Issues Party (2nd nomination). Thank you. BlueVine (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had taken the time to read my explanation, you would see that I removed it because when the tag is added, it makes the info box disappear (at least for me; If it happens when I open the page, I assume that it happens for most other readers as well.) I didn't say that the problem was resolved; The editors of the article are aware that the intro is too long, and a discussion is ongoing, so having the tag there at the cost of removing the info box doesnt make a lot of sense. Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that it is my computer, as I've never had that problem with other articles with that tag. If even a small amount of readers have the same problem, then the benefits are minimal. Our goal is to not confuse a reader, and I am sure that it will confuse them if they open the page to a big white space. Thanks, Ono (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to) P.S: Actually yes, it did, now that I think of it. When it first went up, I could see it. However, when I went back, the infobox was gone. Thanks, Ono (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. Thanks, Ono (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My source is from a school textbook, you should not delete items on talk pages like that.--Conor Fallon (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is very fair I get a permanent warning for voicing my opinion. Koshoes (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for clearing up all that stuff about The Evil Empire. It seems a shame that contrasting sources is considered POV, but as you said yourself, there's not much we can do. I think I'll just leave this alone now and keep my ranting on Conservapedia. Between you and me, that's the one place where you can actually get away with POV! ;) All the best. User:Crablogger 11:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]