User talk:Paolorusty

External link
Hello there, the external link you suggested for Neopaganism has just been posted and quickly deleted the first time. (By an anonymous IP editor - possibly not yourself, then). The site has almost no content and we are trying hard to keep links from this article to the minimum, and only the most comprehensive and high quality. Please come and discuss this on the talk page if you'd like to argue for the link's inclusion. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your email
Hello Paolo, you sent me the following email:"'I received a message from you and I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia system... are you personally in charge of controlling the neopaganism page ? It seems to me funny that neopagan.com, the dedicated website for neopagan culture cannot be listed here. It contains really sparkling images and has content on many pages. This website is new and in development to have further pages and more content. Can you explain how I can add a discussion on this topic in the 'Talk page' ? Since seems that anyone can delete anyone elses content,then who's the authority that has real 'permission' to delete if any ?'" I've copied it here so the discussion can be 'on-wiki' and viewed by other editors; you can reply by editing this page just like an article, by hitting the 'edit this page' tab above. Place your reply under mine, and we can continue down the page. If you preface your reply with a : it will indent the reply, making it easier to read. If you finish with ~ your signature and date will appear at the end of your reply, as mine does here.

Now to your questions. I'm not in charge of the Neopaganism page: nobody owns pages in Wikipedia. I'm an editor, just like you, and neither of us has more or fewer editing rights than the other. Anyone at all (even without an account) can access article content at any time and add to, alter or delete it. There is no 'authority', beyond that of the editing community: that's why editors usually keep pages on their watchlist (click the 'my watchlist' tab above) which alerts them to changes. This allows people to keep track of changes to articles they care about, in case changes are made which they disagree with. There is a further category of editors, those with 'administrator' status, who have the authority to delete entire articles, block users, protect pages etc, but I'm not in that category.

You and I disagree about the suitability of the external link and that's fine! Wikipedia works best when people adopt what's often called the 'bold, revert, discuss' approach. That's to say, you boldly add the link, I disagree and revert it, then we discuss it at the article talk page so that other editors can contribute. The talk page can be found by clicking the 'discussion' tab at the top of an article's page, and then editing the talk page (adding comments at the bottom of existing text. To save you time, what I propose to do is paste your email and my reply about the link at the neopaganism talk page. Click on the blue link to take you straight there. One thing I'll say here is that if the consensus of other editors goes against you, please don't be offended! Wikipedia can be quite a straight-talking kind of place and to newcomers can sometimes seem terse and unforgiving. But you are obviously here to contribute to the encyclopaedia and if your first contribution should be challenged, please don't be put off from making others! Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  12:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)