Guppy313
Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Guppy313! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic'Acid 14:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Since you made an edit in talk:"common law"
editMaybe you want to look at this specific problem.
Some long time ago I created the article "fair comment". It was created because it was a good way to circumvent some stonewalling editors on another totally different Article. And also the article "fair comment" did not exist before.
The article is therefore politically charged.
I will not make any changes in the article as it is now but I will point out that it seems to be logically inconsistant as it is now.
As the meaning of "fair comment" is actually quite important I believe something has to happen...
I have made my comments on the talkpage "fair comment" If you have any questions just ask...
And thank you in advance...
While I realize Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, I don't see how this means it's supposed to be some sort of anti-censorship political action group. Moving the picture to the middle of the article, aside from having precedent in other articles, not only satisfies the "not censored" requirement but also demonstrably reduces the frequency of reverts. But, instead, the discussion seems to be dominated by those who seek to keep the image front and center, as if the article were some sort of digital Fort McHenry over which a beloved flag must be kept waving over (and, like the fort, the article will continue to be shelled). Just because we're not censored doesn't mean we have a duty to be Something Awful.
But the polls are all but final, and the pictures will be kept at the top of the article, apparently for little more reason than to proove a point. I'm unable to change peoples' minds, so I'm done. Guppy313 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)