User talk:Newagelink

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sincerely, Ryan 00:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Herland (novel)
Listen, I am totally with you that Herland (novel) is racist and sexist, but your undergraduate research paper doesn't meet WP:RS and if you continue to link to it WP:COI may apply. It has nothing to do with how good the paper is or how smart you are, you just don't have the credentials and the paper itself is not peer reviewed. As absurd as it may be to talk about credentials on Wikipedia, some standards do apply with respect to source material. AlexeiSeptimus 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Message
Hey, did you get my message on Facebook? I'm looking to be an RA but I need a housing staff reference, and you're the only one I know. You can delete this thread when you've read it. --Milton 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Suzanne haneef
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Suzanne haneef, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Suzanne haneef 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: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Suzanne haneef, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Navel has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks —Animum (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your message on Talk:Proud Boys
I would strongly suggest you read wp:no personal attacks and wp:assume good faith. Jim1138 (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I made any personal attacks (e.g. nothing of his personal life was mentioned), and assumptions can only be made in accordance with what facts are known, and his edits prevent making the assumption that he is not doing as I said. -- Newagelink (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

BC/BCE
You should read WP:ERA. Wikipedia doesn't take sides on this issue and our opinions of dating systems should be irrelevant to our editing. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that Wikipedia administration not taking sides on this issue means that individual editors are not allowed to have an opinion or argue in favor of it? I don't know what you mean that "our opinions of dating systems should be irrelevant to our editing": Precisely the opposite is true. If something is foolish or incorrect, we have the obligation to improve or remove it. -- Newagelink (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)