Welcome!

Hello Apeloverage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 17:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. I hadn't thought of that parallel. Welcome to Wikipedia. Marsden 16:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no-one else has thought of that "parallel" either; that's what makes it original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... not to be discouraged by Jayjg's and SlimVirgin's ever-rising hurdles for what they think you must do in order to make your edits, but to be honest, this is how Wikipedia works on contentious topics, and Jay and Slim are accomplished and powerfully placed practicioners of the art. It is likely to get worse, and it may never get better. Marsden 20:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ALR --

I was going to delete this sentence that you added at self-hating Jew, barring that you protest against me doing so. See Talk:Self-hating_Jew.

Marsden 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --W.marsh 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on the spam links -- I missed them when I was looking over the article earlier this week. --David.alex.lamb 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to West Memphis 3. I have begun to lookup references for this article. In the future, instead of tagging a large number of sentences with the {{fact}} template, please put the {{not verified}} template at the top of the page or section instead. Thanks. --Hetar 08:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your justification for wanting to merge the Order with Robert Jay Mathews? This doesn't seem to make much sense, since the group was co-founded by David Lane who is still alive. I have put in a request for feedback over at Wiki Project: Terrorism concerning these entries, and sooner or later I will get around to editing them to a more encyclopaedic style, as I already have edited David Lane into shape. (You can go ahead and reply here - I'll watch for it) --WeniWidiWiki 07:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Mathews basically isn't famous for anything except being in the Order, and because the article on him is actually largely about the Order, it seems to me that the biographical details about him, and the details about the Order that aren't in the Order article, could be put in the Order article, and his article be redirected to there. --Apeloverage 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - that's why I asked. I don't really have a problem with that, although the "fanbase" might. You may want to clarify your intentions: You want {{mergeto|The Order (group)}} over at Robert Mathews and {{mergefrom|Robert Jay Mathews}} over at the Order entry. (You might want to double check the spelling of the last name - I think it is incorrect). --WeniWidiWiki 08:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are our friends. Unsourced material, no matter how true, is unverifiable by other editors and therefore may be removed. It's often easiest to do the sourcing while the material is still fresh. Sources don't have to be online - newspaper clippings will do. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added several references to my FightDemBack article, and I'll add more in the next few days.--Apeloverage 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've move the text you recently inserted into the Keith Windschuttle article to Talk:Keith_Windschuttle#Hitchens_and_Horowitz for discussion. Please join in. Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please read the page's talk page? This has been discussed and will only remain in the article if there is a reputable source that backs up claims of misogyny. Lyrics themselves are open to interpretation and would violate WP:OR. Gdo01 11:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the sources. I've done some tweaks to your edit. Gdo01 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Immortal Technique. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. QBorg 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit provide links that fails WP:VERIFY and WP:EL. And you vandalize an article. This is your second warning, if you persist you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. QBorg 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Joseph Ferrante, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. exolon 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit to the Genocide denial article, because you deleted a relevant section of the Chomsky paragraph to add your own. It'd be better if you included your link within that paragraph, as the two combined would make a more neutral statement. Otherwise, it might be more relevant to just leave both sections out, and point the article to the Chomsky critcism article. -- Kesh 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fantastic illustration and it adds a lot to the book burning article. Thank you for finding it. Hopefully we'll someday find a cleaner copy of it. --Gmaxwell 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Apeloverage 06:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm calling for a citation-finding drive to get rid of the 'no citation' banners at the top of Worker Cooperative. if you're interested in playing, i'd love to have you on board. -- frymaster 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First time I've been confused with a loony vampire! Thanks for the morning laugh! Seriously, if you look at some of my edits [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]], you'll see that I'm the one who added the cited facts, not the miscellaneous OR supplied by the subject and his sockpuppet "family member". Also, while I am a new user and I started with his article, I am now light years away from being a WP:SPA. Not that it matters much, except that I agree he shouldn't be editing his own article (especially with OR and since he's been indefbanned), but I wouldn't want to be banned under the theory that I am he. Take care, Butseriouslyfolks 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries.--Apeloverage 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you made some changes to the Donnie Davies article. As you can see, the article is being reviewed for deletion as Feburary 2, 2007. If you're interested, please participate in the discussion! Thanks. --SquatGoblin 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image you added violated a couple of policies, which I thought I would bring up here, so you know for the future. Firstly, the caption was somewhat original research- comparing the image of the band to the image of two other people, without a source. Perhaps if the band listed the film as the inspiration for their image, or critics had compared them, it would be acceptable. Perhaps they have, but I didn't see a source cited.

In any case, that is not the main issue. The main issue is that the image was fair use- fair use images are badddd. We want to minimise their usage, and when they are used, their usage should add massively to the article, while adhering to our (very strict) fair use guidelines. This did neither- it was just decoration, and was not strictly needed. Feel free to contact me if you need any help. J Milburn 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You redirected this some time ago. Has the edit history up to that point been lost? I couldn't find it, though I am still a very inexperienced admin.DGG 06:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was anything before that. I often start 'articles' which are just redirections to an already existing article. --Apeloverage 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]