Welcome!

Hello, NJW494, 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!  Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-12 10:30 (UTC)

Your behavior on the War of 1812 talk page isn't exactly conducive to productive exchange. By the way, erasing things from your talk page is a violation of some sort or other (policy, guidelines, Wiki-ettiquote, can't remember which). --WikiFair1 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I erased it because I hadn't read up on "talk" and thus it was fairly untidy. How could you have disagreed with my points anyway, unless you're rather pro-American? NJW494 15:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be provocative? Please see WP:POINT. These spelling changes on pre-Rev. American topics seem unnecessary. Surely you're aware many will take them to be in violation of WP Guidelines, or at least questionable. Why make the changes at all? --Samuel Webster 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British spelling is generally more appropriate for use on the topics I've changed. NJW494 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. In any event, the question is WP guidelines, not what's generally used. --Samuel Webster 12:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I did answer your question. I gave my reasons. NJW494 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Changing between American and British spelling conventions without good cause tends to upset some editors, and is discouraged. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in relation to my First World War query? NJW494 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's in relation to this edit in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I see that most of your spelling changes are to articles where British spelling conventions are appropriate. However, in articles like Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the rule is that changes should only be made to impose consistency within the article, and that the spelling convention used by the first editor(s) to add significant content should prevail. On your question about World War I, I think you will find many editors will take issue with your claim that the British spelling rules should prevail because Britain put more effort into the war than America did. Personally, I see that kind of argument as being detrimental to the spirit of Wikipedia. Although not directly pertinent, I would urge you to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikipedia is being built by editors from many different backgrounds and cultures, and chauvinism of any kind only creates problems. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is an appropriate change due to the British Royal Family being a part of that particular family. Cheers. NJW494 18:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that you are being facetious with that remark. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerning your edit to Changes to Old English vocabulary (which has been reverted): instead of stirring up trouble which in no way makes Wikipedia better, yet does cause strife among editors, why don't you make some substantive additions to Wikipedia? Color/colour, aluminum/aluminium, who relly cares? Just help us make Wikepedia better!-Hraefen ^Talk 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually make some contributions to some Wikipedia articles, generally tidying up and updating sporting articles. You must admit however that pages on Old English shouldn't use American English, as the language is related to England far more than it is to America. The articles that I change into English are overwhelmingly British/Commonwealth related.NJW494 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "change into English?" What am I writing in? If one would want to take your logic to the extreme, then I guess the whole of Changes to Old English vocabulary should be written in Old English. My point is: be productive, not disruptive. We can argue for days about which form of English is "better," but these are opinions. The fact of the matter is, such spelling revisions do cause disruptions, whether initiated by a Brit or a Yank. The consensus opinion that Wikipedians have come to (and this is a compromise) is that the spelling convention used by the first editor(s) to add significant content should prevail. I am the first, and so far the only, substantive editor of Changes to Old English vocabulary, so can you please do everyone, Yank, Brit, Canuck, Aussie etc. a favor and just let things be as they are?--Hraefen ^Talk 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "English" as the qualification "English-English" seems to me to be a bit clumsy. Off course the English used in the British Isles (and by extension the Commonwealth) is the better dialect simply as we ddidn't let Mr Webster muck around with our words (maybe I'm not being 100% serious here). I will however refrain from altering your article in deference to your admirable scholarship in writing the article. Though if you were to think carefully about it you might be able to see how using American spelling on an article specifically related to England might be rather wrong (and indeed possibly a justifiable change). If in future you decide to write on an England/English related article it may well be wise to use English spelling as accusations of American linguistic Imperialism would only be bolstered by your failure to do so.NJW494 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you did let Samuel Johnson muck around with your words. Fortunately, Noah Webster restored most of the more appropriate Shakespearean spellings (color, center). Unfortunately, the British fell in love with their Norman conquerors. Cheerio! --Samuel Webster 10:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Johnson was a loveable old fat slob though, Webster was just a bothersome colonial upstart. Webster was more concerned with simplifying things anyway. NJW494 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Martinp23 21:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of edit summaries is required by the Manual of Style. Please don't make changes without describing what you're changing. --Samuel Webster 10:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think you're e-stalking me. NJW494 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment to my user page. I reverted your edit primarily because it was (what appeared to be) a blanket deletion of content not discussed on the talk page, without an edit summary, so I clearly had to take the belief that it could be vandalism and restore the text you removed. If you feel that such a large contribution should be removed/reworded, can I suggest that rather than deleting such a huge portion, you initiate a discussion on the article talk page. Then you can mention this consensus in your edit summary, and the edit will probably not be picked up by RC patrollers. Thanks, Martinp23 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the IP user's entries have been reverted, its a clear cut case, and doesn't really merit a discussion, especially if his previous reverted work on the article is taken into account. NJW494 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if its the consensus that those edits do nothing for the good of the article, then thats fine. Please use edit summaries though. Thanks Martinp23 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. It is sooooo true. lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is really going after some of us isn't he? He seems to be a very peculiar bloke. NJW494 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 22,000 hits for Malvinas War on yahoo and 37,000 for Malvinas War on Google - do you consider all of these lunatic fringe. Your reversion is in breach of WP:NPOV--Vintagekits 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the accepted English name (nowhere close, in fact; many find it offensive) for the conflict, it is not a name that should be part of the wikipedia article and shall be changed back forthwith. You will be in breach of the three revert rule should you attempt to change it back. NJW494 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the facts state otherwise. In fact I consider the term Falklands offensive and think the main title should be The Malvinas War. I have provided evidence from neautral sources so you will be involved in vandalism for deleting - and I will report it. --Vintagekits 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like the British much, do you? Just an observation. You have also violated Wikipedia policy by editing the FALKLANDS WAR article 3 times in one day. It's quite funny really as you never seemed that bothered about neutrality regarding the Damaen Kelly article.

Those sources you used aren't exactly supportive of the "Malvinas War" idea, either coming from nutty socialists, or not even using the term "Malvinas War". Very weak evidence indeed and not worthy of inclusion. Having the Spanish name for the conflict is enough, it acknowledges the Argentine name for the conflict NJW494 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with no liking British - its to do with accuracy.

I am trying to prove any support for the Malvinas War what I am doing is proving the term exists and is used. I can add more references if you wish--Vintagekits 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Malvinas War? lol, SqueakBox 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!