User talk:Countedx58

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear Countedx58: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!--Sar e kOfVulcan 01:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome on this side Doc &#9836; talk 14:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

E-Mail
If you look under "toolbox" on the far left side of any user page, you'll see an option to e-mail a user. It's standard for all user pages, though users need not provide an e-mail address. Aside from preventing unwanted e-mails, failing to provide an e-mail address leaves a user without means to recover their password should they forget it. Rklawton 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rklawton
I'm just another Wikipedia editor, though I do have more edits than most. Rklawton 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD process
You are somewhat correct about votes. Closing administrators (admins) do take votes into consideration. They also take into consideration the ideas presented. On a side note, some editors may try to discourage active discussion on AfD pages and use it primarily for voting. However, this isn't appropriate. This is an encyclopedia, and ideas matter. AfD discussions continue for five days (unless the choice becomes obvious - see WP:SNOW) before an administrator volunteers to review the discussion and make a decision. Deletions may be appealed. Likewise, retained articles may be renominated for deletion at any future point, but the nominator should be able to explain why this is appropriate. The highest number of nominations I've seen on an article that was finally deleted was 18 - and the argument over that one continues.

One of the things the closing administrator will take into consideration is the experience level of those voting. A lot of novice votes in one direction can be over-ruled by just a few votes from experienced editors. This is because experienced editors are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices. The links at the top of this page will increase your familiarity with these polices. However, the process is ongoing not to mention under constant revision, and I learn something new ever day. If you have questions, the Community Portal is a great place to start. Or, you can just pound out your question here on your talk page and then type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Rklawton 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Graving
This article is a good example of both a neologism (WP:NEO) and Original research. They often go together. In the case of neologisms, it's not enough to simply find a word in use somewhere (that's original research). You'll need to find a source that says the word in question is an accepted part of some language. Such sources would include dictionaries or other encyclopedias. If/when this word becomes accepted by such a source, you'll then need to find sources to support the various facts or ideas contained within the article. Unsupported facts and ideas may be removed, though we usually first just tag them - or even better - find a supporting source to help things along. It's kind of like a scavenger hunt, and it can really become quite addictive. Don't let this first experience discourage you. Compared to most, you're off to a very positive start. Rklawton 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Not to butt in on your conversation with Rklawton but you could try checking the article history to see who added the cleanup tag and notifying them, or any other key contributors to the article/cleanup. IvoShandor 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. IvoShandor 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Countedx58! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Merrill Osmond -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)