Welcome!

Hello, SteveWolfer, 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
• 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  V. Joe 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start off by welcoming you to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy it here and decide to stay.

The cleanup tag indicates, as it says, that the page needs to be changed to meet Wikipedia standards. You can find an exhaustive list of these standards here. The time stamp, as applied by me, is a convention for indicating the age of the cleanup task. Sometimes very old articles for cleanup are prioritized for cleanup. Having these month specific categories also reduces congestion to the general Cleanup category.

You are completely right about there needing to be a "root" page for the two John Rowans. On wikipedia, this is called a disambiguation page. They're pretty simple to make, and you can find more about them here.

Specifically, the article for John Rowan is lacking in that it doesn't interwiki link (that occurs when you place double brackets around the title of another article within the text of your article), fails to assert notability in accordance with WP:PROFTEST, reads like a list of accomplishments (see WP:NOT), and does not use proper section headings. It's kind of hard to understand these things with words, so it might help to take a look at the Featured Articles. They're a great model to work off of when refining an article.

I would encourage you not to get discouraged about this. Let me know if you want any help or if you have any further questions. It would be more convenient for you to respond on my talk page. --Alphachimp ^talk 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments at length on my talk page to keep it all together. --Bduke 11:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm picked up your case at the Mediation Cabal, and will now be handling the dispute. Would you prefer we discuss everything on the article talk page, or some other medium (such as IRC)? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 08:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the dispute! If it works for you, we can do email between the two of us if needed, and any three-way, or more public communications could take place on your user-talk page (I noticed you have another issue in mediation there). I'm new to Wikipedia so you'll have to let me know how a mediation is conducted. Have you had a chance to read the talk-page entries? Feel free to refer to me as Steve and let me know if you'd like to be called, Prophet, Wizard or ? SteveWolfer 18:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can call me whatever. Well, my talk page works fine. For a faster, real-time discussion... we could actually go to the Mediation Cabal's IRC channel... that might be quicker. Here's a link to the channel: [1]

The Mediation Cabal is an informal group of everyday users that like to volunteer to do this sort of stuff... we're a very informal group with a sort of "anything goes" guideline... so mediation is conducted which ever way is best. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried clicking on the IRC link - serveral times - but my browser (IE 7 beta 2) either does nothing or brings back a 'page not found' fault. I went to the Wikipedia-medcab page and tried the link there - same results. I wasn't able to find an email address for you. SteveWolfer 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, if you are using Firefox or Mozilla download chatzilla and then you can get on IRC from your browser. If you are using internet explorer use MRIRC - a stand-alone client. Good luck with the mediation. --Bduke 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on Talk:Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology you mentioned that you didn't know how to set up wikilinks. Talk:List_of_publications_in_philosophy#mediation where the part after the # is the section name, will link you right to the section. Also, remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Crazynas ^t 22:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I see that you had good intentions. What I learned from this misunderstanding is: Although I had explained my edit in Category_talk:Ethics, it was foolish to assume that everybody would see this. It would have helped if I had provided a link to the explanation from the change description. Well, I hope no one else falls into the same trap.

If you would like to learn something from it, as well, then I'd like to mention: My primary objective was not to add the book category, but to clean up the Ethics category. So, in my perception, you reverted the reason for my edit. I agree that you were not pushing a POV, but that's not a criterium for edit wars. For me, the criteria are if someone shows understanding (usually, people have good reasons for their edits) and communication (Explain reversions in the edit summary box).

That's all I had to say - have a nice day, too, and happy editing! Common Man 22:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, I did not remove the disowned selves article from the psychology topics category. That was someone else. Please double check the entry and direct your question to the correct party. Personally, I think it should be included and will support your actions to reinsert it. Cate108 08:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... Thanks Cate108 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more consistent in using edit summaries; it helps watchers, recent change patrollers and those digging through page histories. GRBerry 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steve - I'm disappointed to see that we're back to the same old 'argument by reversion and edit summary'. I'm still convinced that we can come to a reasonable consensus about inclusion criteria and about Rand, and I invite you to talk part in working towards that, rather than playing this rather pointless game of revert and re-revert. Yours, Sam Clark 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - I've just posted again at Talk:List of political philosophers before I saw your message on my talk page. I shouldn't have lumped you in with LW, and I'm sorry for that: I've also found you reasonable and amenable to compromise. The lesson I should learn here is that I shouldn't get involved in debates on WP after a long day of teaching... I'm going to leave this for the moment, and come back to it fresh tomorrow. Cheers, Sam Clark 19:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Hagop S Akiskal article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I irrevocably release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Mak (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments also, on Talk:List of psychologists. -DoctorW 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have responded to a move debate. There is a related debate where your opinion would be useful at header tags. TonyTheTiger 19:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You gave an early opinion that helped turned the tide on the Robert Johnson move proposal. I am continuing work on the Johnsons. I would appreciate your opinion on the following:

Samuel Johnson → Dr. Samuel Johnson —(Discuss) Since the Feb 2006 page move, 6 new entries have been added to the Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) page including Sam Houston Johnson, a Presidential sibling, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr., a Presidential father, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr., a Presidential grandfather, Samuel Johnson (footballer), an active footballer, and Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr. the patriarch of the richest family in Wisconsin. The primacy of Dr. Samuel Johnson versus the remaining field of Samuel Johnsons should be reconsidered. This move would enable replacement of the dab page at Samuel Johnson TonyTheTiger 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a reminder steve, there is a 3revert rule. I know we've both broken it in the past, but i'm going to try to be civil about the 3 revert rule as I am with everything else. --Buridan 04:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful in the future if when you revert edits that removed Ayn Rand in addition to others, that you just revert the whole edit instead of editing Rand back into the pagespace. Since your justifications are that Rand deserves to be there because there are sources to justify it, and since the same is true for many of the others removed, there is no real reason to be selective. thanks. - Sam 05:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]