User talk:Ecvjackass

Ephraim Bee

Hi. I'm alerting you that your article, Ephraim Bee, is a possible copyright violation because duplicate text of your article appears here. If you are unsure of Wikipedia's copyright and fair use policy, consult this page before further editing. If this is an actual copyright violation, and you want to rewrite the article in your own words, start here. In the future, do not copy articles verbatim from other sources. If you do make future additions to Wikipedia, make sure they are of your original work. If you decide to take basic ideas from other sources please cite them. Thank you.

Welcome!

Hello, Ecvjackass, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
• Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing!

E Clampus Vitus

I've rereverted you, since you dumped a copyright violation from http://www.ecvgazette.com/lostdutchman/KenCastrosHistoryofECV.htm into the middle of the article. If and when you do contribute in your own words, please check out Wikipedia:Manual of style, so that the next time, you won't contribute an unmodified text dump. I'd also like for you to point out the "spelling mistakes and grammatical errors" you claim to have found. I did correct a couple of typos.

Please don't be discouraged about contributing, I don't hold my beginnings of articles to be artistic, just an attempt at an encyclopedia entry. You're very welcome to contribute in your own words. RickK 23:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the article because the earlier version was more NPoV, and in more encyclopædic language. The later version read as though we were taking all the nonsense seriously and at face value. I was trying to the article a favour, as the VfD is going to go against it if it continues to look kooky. A short, neutral, factual article might survive; a long, loopy article almost certainly won't. I realise that you're only here for this article, and so haven't really got a feel for Wikipedia. I suggest strongly that you spend some time going through other Wikipedia articles, makig small edits where you think that they're necessary (but not like the one at [1], which was both superfluous and misspelt), until you're ready to do something on a larger scale. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you take seriously the notion, for example, that "The origin and meaning of the [organisation's] name is secret and mysterious", and so on, illustrates why you're not going to understand my points above. Mel Etitis (Μελ Epsilon;τητης) 16:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the name IS secret and mysterious. As far as the "so on" comment, what else is it, specifically, that you object to? I do understand the points that you're attempting to make, but you're making them poorly. Its clear that you haven't read any of the article past that sentence, and made your decision based on that alone. Silly. I'm attempting to describe the history of E Clampus Vitus. Some of the history of the Order is nonsensical, however, much of it is very serious indeed.

1. "For example" means just that — it's an example, not the whole thing.
2. Your edit summary ignores my reasons, and concentrates on my response to your reply.
3. Check Wikipedia:Three-revert rule before you think of replacing your version. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My edit summary does not ignore your reasons; your reasons are not well defined. My edit summary was an attempt to change the one objection that you listed. The article was put up for a VfD; according to the voting so far, not one person has voted to delete the article. So, what risk are we talking about here? You said that a short, factual article will survive a VfD. The version you insist on putting up is rife with mistakes. I've listed them in the Discussion section for the article, which I invite you to actually read, because I have my doubts that you have. I find it hard to believe that the latest version I've submitted is violating the NPOV anymore than the one you are posting. Again, please let me know what the "so on" comment you made earlier may have avered to, and I will adjust the article if need be...

I strongly suggest that you read the Wikipedia policy on 3RR carefully. As for your assumption that, because I mention only one point, that's all I've read, it doesn't bear inspection. I might add that I took it, not from the article, but from your replies to RickK on the Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You really should curb this habit of jumping to conclusions. When I say that took a comment from the Talk page, that doesn't imply (either in a logical or in a conversational sense) that I haven't read the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't repeatedly mention the 3RR policy; I warned you of it, you objected, I responded to your objection.
2. It doesn't, in any case, only apply to "some crank who is vandalising this particular article", but to everyone. If I broke it, I'd be blocked from editing.
3. Mentioning it to a newcomer is generally regarded, by all except the paranoid or perpetually defensive, as good manners. Would you rather I had waited until you'd broken it, and then had you blocked for the violation? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have mentioned it in a rather crude fashion. The first time seemed to be a warning not to edit the article further, when I asked you about what it is you objected to, rather than answer you just ominously referred to the 3RR rule and then added your "paranoid or perpetually defensive" comment. You then threaten to block me; is this what you're not doing already? You will not allow me to make a single edit. Every time I edit, you reverse it. How come? User:ecvjackass

1. A neutral reading of my comments doesn't bear out your odd interpretation (for example, how you get a threat of blocking out of what I wrote is beyond me).
2. The same goes for your long and unsigned message on my Talk page.
3. If you insist on generalising everything that I say instead of simply reading and understanding it, there's little point continuing this discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you edited my User page. Don't do that, it's regarded as vandalism, and very much frowned on. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope you're happy. Your unencyclopedic additions are going to cause the E Clampus Vitus article to be deleted. RickK 05:57, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)