User talk:Ebenezer27

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear Ebenezer27: 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:


 * Introduction
 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How do you edit a page?
 * How do you revert to a previous version of a page?
 * What about copyrights?
 * Community Portal

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 this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes ( ~ ). 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! Stifle (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of neomilitarism
I'd like to request an undeletion of neomilitarism. While several individuals supported deletion before September 12, the page was substantially overhauled on September 13, with the addition of a large amount of new material. Conspicuously, no new vote for deletion followed that change; while one new vote to keep was logged. In other words, it's clear that there was a substantial change in views about the page. So on procedural grounds (and because I think the substantive case is now much different) I would like to request an undelete. Thanks. Ebenezer27 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * Actually, User:Carewolf !voted to delete after the amendment. Nevertheless, because I suspect a deletion review would come up with the same result, I am going to restore and relist the article. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your consideration. I know Carewolf did follow up (and thanks for that) but I noted that the only new vote was for keeping.  You may be right about the eventual outcome but the page that provoked initial concern was substantially narrower in focus, and it would be helpful at least know why the revisions don't satisfy the concern.  The concern as it was initially expressed (only once source) is clearly not correct anymore. And I would find it helpful to know how I respond to the position that "sure it's widely used, but everyone uses it as a neologism" -- which seems to stretch the wikipedia criterion for neologisms quite broadly. Ebenezer27 (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should be included, so as such I am not in a position to help you providing arguments to keep it. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for the response. But I didn't mean to ask you for arguments to keep it.  I'm asking for reasons to justify decisions to delete; which you haven't given; and which most of the others haven't given on the revised text, even though the initial complaint is obviously no longer supported. Ebenezer27 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)