User talk:SpuriousQ/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

removal of my external link

Sorry and thanks -- I didn't know the rule, I just saw that there were other similar links (which have probably also been removed!) kahooper

Not a problem, and I hope the quick reaction didn't discourage you from editing here. It's just always a worry that when a new account comes in and starts adding the same link to multiple articles they have no interest in improving the encyclopedia and just want to promote their website. I'll put some useful links on your talk page, I hope you find you like it here and stick around :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A Reliable source has been cited, so please don't delete the edits

Read the source that I cited. I am not attacking in any way but giving the wikipedia article some balance. There is an alternative view held by a number of people and I was just citing from the article. The author of the article is a Arthur Hu, a very prominent MIT educated intellect with who is a writer for "Asian Week". Besides the article is extremely well researched, very fairly written and thoroughly documented. Please re-read the source at

After reading the first five paragraphs and skimming the rest, there is no way that is a sufficiently credible source to justify your claim. We should stick to proper sources that are not self-published, e.g., the Salon article and the CNN transcript that are referenced in the article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the content already in the article is pretty negatively worded. "opposes increased immigration to fill computer science jobs", "H-1B...harms the prospects of American workers", "opponents are industry leaders in software and related fields" etc, make it sound like he's on some mission to prevent immigrants from obtaining American jobs at the expense of the software industry. The article needs balancing to be written from a neutral point of view. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Porto Page


I added a link to the Porto, Portugal page but got a message saying it was a spam link. That was not my intention. It is simply what I find to be one of the most complete tourism guides to that city on the web. I won't try to link to it again, but I leave it up to you to consider adding it. The link I was trying to add is www . golisbon . com/portugal/cities/porto.html



Thanks for your message. Per WP:EL, Wikipedia generally doesn't link to such tourism guides; you might want to look into other websites like wikitravel (I can't say I'm familiar with that site's policies though). -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User: is vandalizing again

Please see Attila the Hun. This time, he or she left an obscene and inflamatory message in place of the article. Can you please block him or her more permantly? ThanksLCP 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi LCP, thanks for reporting! I left the IP a warning, we sort of treat IP accounts differently than user accounts because IPs may be shared. Since they haven't had any recent warnings, blocking isn't necessary at this time. For more information, have look at WP:BLOCK and/or WP:VANDALISM. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


This user has vandalised All-Australian Team in spite of your recent warning re vandalism and many previous blocks. Maybe time for a permanent block? Grant | Talk 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, it does seem like that IP is headed in that direction, but the vandalism was quite some time after the warning, and it's a shared IP. We typically block IPs only for vandalism happening right now, except in extreme circumstances. If it starts up again, it will be blocked at that time, but it looks like no action is necessary right now. See WP:BLOCK and WP:VANDALISM for more info, if you're curious. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The warning was on May 30. Grant | Talk 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Warning

When I read the warning, I failed to see how removed vandalism was considering vandalism. Be careful with that button.

Yes, I know. I totally just hit the wrong button trying to warn someone else. I tried to remove the message before you got it, but... too late. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you live

18g a year editing wiki from googleplex where do you live? I can find out myself.

Huh? -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the help. I didn't realize what was going on there (with the Lynchburg Article). Luckily I finally found the mytalk page and read your messages. Sorry for any inconvenience. Regards Sankaat 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded back at your talk page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
I award you this magnificent barnstar for you and your brilliant work reverting vandalism and blocking those whose accounts appear to be used for vandalism only. Well done! Lradrama 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit Feuds

Hi, Sorry I just found out that they are for that, I thought that by puting them links there wikipedia would translate them.

Thanks The-G-Unit-Boss 13:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all :-) Hopefully someday they will be translated. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I goofed

I guess I should wake up a little more before I jump into the vandal patrol. I reverted the AIV based on the edit summary of 'ROFL'. Only after getting to his talk page did I see that the other editor was in fact an admin. DarkAudit 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

But he said some nasty things to me online. I didn't know how else I could get back at him.

User: vandalism at North Carolina

Thanks for reverting, but the user is persistent at vandalising by blanking. --Javit 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I am turning to you because you have already blocked this IP for vandalism. It is being used by blocked vandal and copyright violator Cpzphantom. This person (using this IP) has left me a rather offensive and out of line comment on my user talk page. I would appreciate if this IP can be blocked for editing on the grounds of it being used by a blocked user for anonymous vandalism. If you need further evidence, see the contributions made by this IP.

This blocked user is also using a sockpuppet account under the name "Langosto". I appreciate your help in investigating and blocking these accounts.--Schonbrunn 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Langosto was already blocked. As for the IP, it appears from its contributions that it is a shared address, so I can't really block it indefinitely. If that IP persists in making Cpzphantom-like edits, it should be temporarily blocked, but right now it looks like an isolated incident. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. This user has left me another message in my talk page using the same IP. I believe it should be blocked. Also, he has been trynig to get around the block with this other IP: Once again, I appreciate your help--Schonbrunn 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Yamla has blocked them: (talkcontribsInfoWHOISRDNSRBLsblock userblock log), (talkcontribsInfoWHOISRDNSRBLsblock userblock log). -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Apollo (MP3 player)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Apollo (MP3 player), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 08:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mishehu, that was me mass reverting an IP that was removing prod/notability/afd tags at a rapid pace before proceeding to vandalize the main page featured article. Thanks for the heads-up though. -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to restore all such tags except for prod. Even bad-faith removal of prod tags is enough to prevent prodding - as long as it isn't clear that the editor wan't trying to stop the prod process. Od Mishehu 12:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Er, even when he's massively making arbitrary changes to articles? I don't see why we have to view that as a legitimate contesting of the tag; it seems like that would fall under the same category as page blanking or vandalism overwriting the tag. I didn't even feel the need to review all of his changes individually. In any case, I don't quite care if that article stays or goes, and I thank you for checking up on it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look i'm really sorry i'm new to wikipedia and didn't understand. I keep mistaking the sandbox 4 real things.


Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page and blocking the vandal. =) "terrets", uh huh... -- Gogo Dodo 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to French vehicle registration plates (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I would like to know why you keep removing my article about "Dane Olson" when sufficient information is provided.

Dane Unleashed 12:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is read your talk page, which you blanked out. The article does not assert the notability of the person. This makes it eligible for speedy deletion, as you have been told many times before. Attacking someone with a keyboard does not make you notable. Please carefully read your talk page and especially our criteria for speedy deletion before attempting to recreate that article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just started editing today. I didn't mean to erase the talk page. I didn't know what it was. Anyways, I see articles about professional gamers on here, and professionals in other fields. Why is Dane Olson being omitted from the internets? That was only listed in the article because it became an internet meme. Wikipedia has many of those on here as well. I don't know what's going on. ;( Dane Unleashed 13:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The other articles, presumably, are about gamers who have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of themselves. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on Altaf Hussain

It's all due to to his party's spacious role in recent events in Pakistan.Pl revert these kind of edits as the language used is not appropriate.Although, in example you gave, the vandalism was based on facts but after all it's can't left it alone as it is.We will look into the matter.Pl continue to patrol as it quite necessary. Thanks .User talk:Yousaf465

Great, I appreciate the reply. Thanks! -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks very much for reverting vandalism on my userpage! Much appreciated. Lradrama 08:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Please assist?

Contains a vandalous (now, is that a word?) edit by

Whom you have given a final warning already.

User has already been blocked, thanks for reporting. -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my external link

We added the external link there is because we receive 30-50 questions per month from our site visitors who are unclear of certain definitions - so we thought it would be helpful since it is matter-of-fact and not a promotion. Also, the articles submitted are written by respected authors in the field and the fact that they are on a comercial site does not detract from their usefulness.

Adding a link to your own website is promotional spam and a conflict of interest. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on external links and note that Wikipedia is not a directory of links. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Simon & Schuster

Hey, did User:Gbooks24 claim to be an employee of Simon & Schuster? If so, please take a look at User:KatieSimon, which is either the same person or someone sitting next to her, as she also posted a lot of articles about Simon & Schuster authors today, all copyvios. Looks like we have a concerted effort by a major company to spam the heck out of WP. This should probably be referred elsewhere for action. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yow. Yes, in one of the deleted talk pages, Gbooks24 claimed to be in the marketing dept of Simon & Schuster. If they continue, a report at WP:COIN would be appropriate, but I think (hope) they may have stopped. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a cookie

Thanks for taking action against spammers! Buddhipriya 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to contribute

Hi, I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but when I try to add a useful website under the External Links area, some guy named Derek Balsam is taking it off and accusing me of being a spammer. If the website I was adding the external link to wasn't useful or didn't have great information that wasn't already on the Wiki page, then I could understand how that could be construed as spam...however the website does indeed have useful information on it and information that is not already on the Wiki website, and therefore I would think be useful to people looking for that information. So I would ask that the external link to the website be kept on for the benefit of the Wiki users.

I will answer this. Your link is an advertising link and those links are not allowed on wikipedia. If you add it again, you will be blocked for spamming and your website blacklisted. Momusufan 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Please review our guidelines on external links and spam. You are adding a link which is primarily intended to sell property, and, not only that, as far as I can tell is just a relisting of craigslist, which is not a reliable source of information. It is blatant promotional spam, please stop adding these links. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Momusufan and SpuriousQ. Derek Balsam(talk) 19:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain140 Vandal

I stepped on your toes after you restored User:Matticus78. It's been fixed. Apologies.

--KNHaw (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, happens all the time. Good thing it's a wiki! -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Center for a Greater Cause

I think the article should be kept or at least placed into a subarticle. This is the first and one of the most popular student-run charity organization in South Philadelphia.

It will need to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Are there any independent, reliable sources that talk about it in more than a passing manner? -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My friend sent me the citation of this one article: Alison Gendar, “Children Helping Children," The Daily News October 28, 2005. It's a short article about the rise in popularity of PCGC among students.

Hm, I'm not sure that would be enough. There needs to be significant and deep coverage about the organization. My feeling is that the organization is not quite notable enough, since Google gives no hits. I would recommend doing more research and trying to find more coverage. If you recreate the article, be sure to include your citations, and make them specific enough so that fact checkers can verify them (it's not clear what Daily News refers to). I cannot guarantee the article would survive an articles for deletion discussion, so be sure you understand the notability guidelines. Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi there! Thank you for reverting scribble on my user page. Antique Rose 08:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


who are you? why do you think i said was incorrect information? isnt bruce almighty the inspiration behind god tussi great ho? and this inspiration was reported by movie masala programme of indian news channel "aaj tak". dont be so absurd.this way no one will be able to edit wikipedia. why cant you just not do any such sorry things? real indian movie fans will recognize if i am right or wrong , if necessary they will delete my edit. what do you know of indian movies?

If you want to add something, you must back up your claim by citing a reliable source, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin contact for repeat vandalism

I keep crossing paths with you while I'm patrolling recent changes. I do not use bots to detect and revert vandalism, I think that the bots lack a human touch and fail to notice things that I do when I'm watching and editing manually. My question for you is - Seeing that you seem to always be on hand at the same times I am, would you object to me using you as a contact to route incidents of multiple vandalisms by the same IP address?

I could use some help when I get into edit wars with a vandal that reverts the reverts of my reverts of his reverts.....etc.... :) It gets old after I remove the same vandalism the fifth or sixth time. Trusilver 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trusilver. I'm not sure what exactly you are proposing here. If a vandal is persistent (5 or 6 times is more than proof of that!) and has been given ample warnings, you can report to WP:AIV for an administrator to block the user. It's probably more efficient to report there instead of to me, since many admins watch that page. See Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism for more information. I hope this helps, please let me know if this doesn't answer your question or if I can be of any more assistance :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try that. I'm new to this whole vandalism repair thing... I'm used to being a copyeditor, not a police officer. Thank you for your assistance. Trusilver 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I just had another look at your contribs. You should consider warning vandals, since admins generally do not block users who haven't been warned. But it is kind of tedious to do so manually, so you might want to at least give the anti-vandal tools a try. My understanding is that some are more automated than others. I think that Twinkle, for example, allows you to revert and/or warn with a single click, but it's completely unautomated... just saves you keystrokes. I haven't actually used these tools myself, though, I have some (pretty crude) custom software that allows me to monitor recent changes and warn with a single click. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I'm going to take it on a trial run tonight and see if it agrees with me. That will help a lot especially in the middle of the night when I seem to be reverting a vandalism every ninety seconds or so. Trusilver 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin IRC channel

Hi, per your request on this page, you've been added to the access list for the admin channel. If you have any problems, PM me on IRC. Regards, Majorly (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


You just removed an edit of mine. Paris Hilton is a fucking hott woman sir.

Your edit violates Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir, but don't you agree?

Tennis vandalism?

Please explain how I vandalised the Tennis page. Tennis experiences ALOT of criticism.

Same reason as your Paris Hilton. Stop adding your own opinion into articles, or you will be blocked. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir, many ESPN articles have expressed such dislike for Tennis. Shall I add that to the Tennis page to please you?

Try explaining what you want to do on Talk:Tennis. Your edits seem to suggest you do not fully understand Wikipedia's policies, and your edits to the article would likely be reverted. Please review WP:V and WP:NPOV. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright I did that.

wet jamal

not sure why it was termed 'nonsense' and deleted, especially given the fact that this site contains references to school pranks such as wedgies and wet willys. your wiki-arrogance is not appreciated.

Mostly because of the silly claims about it being invented by someone in some city. If there are independent, reliable sources about it, it can possibly be added somewhere to Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Browser Games

In the Browser game article, I added information about PBBGs as that is the name that I and many others use. Whether you think the PBBG page is appropriate or not is up to you, but the page is up on wikipedia, and it is very useful for game designers such as myself to differentiate a PBBG from a MMORPG. If you believe this is an advertising effort on the behalf of a single person, you should probably check the forums ( where it's clear that the game designers (myself included) find the term useful, and the admin who created the PBBG acronym is neither using the site to sell ads nor even promote his own external sites.

Yes, it's a new term, but it's being used by more people than just the creator. And its inclusion in wikipedia even after the controversy suggested to me that it was "okay" to link internally to the wikipedia page. Note that my link was not to the external site, nor to anything even remotely affiliated with my own work.

I don't understand the animosity toward forming a clear term for a specific subset of browser games.


While it may be a useful term, there is no evidence that it is a notable one, in that no independent, reliable sources have been mentioned that discuss the term in detail. Wikipedia does sort of tend to lag behind the "cutting-edge" of new terms; we do not cover subjects that have not already been covered in reputable secondary sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote or form new terms, movements, etc. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is needed for this term to be considered notable? There are multiple independent developers who have written blogs about PBBGs today, a small but active community on the forums I mentioned above, and an entry in The free advertising offer that led to many games using PBBG on their game's home page did not cause people to adopt the term in their blogs, nor did it influence to my knowledge. The activity on the forums may be only limited evidence of notability by itself, but the fact that we all constantly use the term when referring to our games should be pretty substantial.
I'll admit the first time the PBBG page showed up on wikipedia it probably was an advertising effort, though I think it was never a plan to be spammy - the site just isn't about that, it's about separating our work from other games. I think it could have been done more tactfully, and Aaron (the originator) really should have waited more than 2 weeks after coining the term to put up a page here, but I don't believe he meant to be spammy. Spammy people don't have ad-free websites and forums. Spammy people stand to make some kind of financial gain from their work, but I don't see how Aaron could be doing that. He doesn't advertise his own stuff on the main pbbg site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nerdmaster (talkcontribs).
What is needed is significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Things like newspapers, magazines, websites independent of the PBBG movement that have discussed it in detail. I do not deny there is an active PPBG community, but it appears the term has not yet passed the notability and verifiability guidelines of Wikipedia. We document things that have already been covered in secondary sources; we are not first-movers with respect to breaking news. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I am baffled once more. My website is 100% independent of the PBBG movement. My first browser-based game was a madlibs game launched in 1998, well before the PBBG movement was even an idea. My next games were java applets, rated highly by, released around 2000 or 2001, also well before the PBBG movement. My site is small, and has a small user base, but it has kept a steady stream of users coming back. That should certainly lend me a little credibility. I am exactly what you say is missing - an independent source. My reliability should be determined by the fact that my site, amateur though it is, has been around since 1998 in one form or another. It has been a site where I built simple games for others to play. My first PBBG was written around 2003, over three years before the term was coined. How does my site not qualify as a reliable, independent source? I did not start the movement for the PBBG term, I simply jumped on board when I heard about it and decided it made sense.
And how is not a reliable source? And for what it's worth, a few months ago google stopped trying to correct PBBG to "pcug". That should say something for the term's independent validity - Aaron himself couldn't possibly have put up enough content in six months to cause google to make that exception.
If my site, and other independent game developers' sites, are not valid independent sources, then it's clear to me that by "independent, reliable sources", what you mean is sources that you deem worthy. How is it there are pages promoting individual PBBGs, such as BattleKnight? What "independent, reliable source" made the List_of_browser_games page notable? Seems to me like a collection of free advertising for games that the wikipedian moderators must like, because they chose to "look the other way" and ignore the clear fact that a game advertisement has no place here. Yet they will bring down a page they don't like, even one that's clearly based on dozens of independent sources. I can't help but feel this is part of a grudge against the original article, because searching google should make it very clear that the term is now in use on hundreds of independent pages - blogs, games, "top site" lists, and even a few forums not created by Aaron. Each and every one of these sites that are not or are not associated with Aaron's original movement and should be considered independent. Nerdmaster 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
By websites independent of the PBBG movement, I meant websites that are not just operated by game developers, but reputable publishers of reliable information like, say, or Slate. You need someone other than PBBG game developers and players finding it notable enough to write about, and a significant amount of coverage. acronymfinder would be considered an independent source, but it's unclear how reliable a source it is, since it is somewhat user-generated, and the entire coverage—a mere definition of the acronym—is too weak for inclusion here.
The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBBG was unanimous and strong. If you have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available during the debate, you can try Wikipedia:Deletion review. Or, create a new PBBG article solidly grounded with independent, reliable sources and substantially different than the first PBBG article, so that it would survive a second deletion discussion. You might also try Wiktionary, as the criteria for inclusion there appears to be lower than here, and PBBG may be accepted. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You probably work a lot on wikipedia but this doesn't make you god. It's an open project as far as I know and you can say it's not notable to if there are tens of other people who find the project a notable one. Wikipedia is about sharing knowlegde and the PBBG article is about that to: making a interesting definition known. Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia the way you use it. You're so kind to delete other ppls work, but how many knowledge did you add to wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Octavian Susnea (talkcontribs).
The concept of "notability" is not subjective on Wikipedia. There are plenty of things I find notable that are not on Wikipedia. This is because there is not significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about them. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PBBG Deletion

Why did you delete the whole article. It took me one hour yesterday to writ it down. If you consider there are things missing or faults (that would surprise me) edit it. Don't you have respect for other peoples work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Octavian Susnea (talkcontribs).

There was nothing added to address the concerns in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBBG. I'm sounding like a broken record, but the best way to ensure your article does not get deleted is by referencing independent, reliable sources about the subject. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


A user by this name has gone on my talkpage and put a sign saying i have been banned indefinetly for using my username only for vandelism. He's a vandal who put it on with your name. Is that some kind of bannning of warning offence???DC

Here it is here.

He also did the same thing on Sexmeere's talk page here

Deleted Page

Dear SpuriousQ -

Hello. I apologize for my newbie question... An entry that I had built/modified (Sixteen (card game)) was deleted, and the reason given was "Blatant Copyright Infringement." This is puzzling to me, as I posted the page, and I am the designer and copyright holder of the game. I believe that the entry was done in an informative and non-promotional manner. If you can please give me some insight on how to get the entry re-listed and/or how I can design the entry in a more acceptable manner, I'd be grateful. Thanks much!


Hi Kris. The content was vastly copied from, and there was no indication on that site that the content was licensed under a GFDL-compatible license. Please note that by contributing content to Wikipedia, you agree to license those contributions under the GFDL, so that article could not have remained if you wanted to be copyright holder of those instructions. Please refer to WP:C for more information.
Another issue is that it wasn't clear whether the game was notable. You should read those guidelines and ensure that the article you create satisfies them. Basically, draw from independent, reliable sources, and don't make it a mere howto guide for the game. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


There's another user harassing me, is there anything I can do? User:Haelstrom

What's going on? -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going around to different sports figure's articles updating them (they are prone to having "current events" so I see Theodoros Plakadopoulos (His name when he thought he could succeed without his father's help) and it said
A)he still played basketball
B)he had the euroleague record for steal,
but of course, he is human garbage,
A)can't play ball
B)has the greek junior league record for steals

I thought the only reason it was scheduled for deletion was because of the lack of third party articles, so I fixed the name, redirected and added the deletion tag to the new article

I figured it should at least get deleted for the right reason

I explained that to RandomHumanoid and he went nuts on me. He claimed my explanation was vandalism and said "There's nothing more to say about it." Then I said I'll read the civility article if he would admit "There's nothing more to say about it." is the most ignorant thing a person can say. And once again he claimed vandalism.

It looks like the drama is over, just let it go. You may have gone overboard with headlines like "#($*@#(" and "people that have b*ners for me". Try to keep WP:CIVIL in mind when you edit here. You are entitled to remove the vandalism warnings on your talk page if you wish. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

altaf hussain

Why do you think this is inappropriate, he is obviously so damn happy over killing the pathans etc

"Altaf Hussain congradulating Israt-ul-Ibad on the killing of innocent people..."??? I don't see any congratulatory gestures in that photo. We must adhere to a neutral, encyclopedic point of view, no matter who the article is about. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Unintentional edit on Reversion article

Completely unintentional. I honestly did not even remember clicking "edit". I'm new so I was reading about reverts. Sorry for the confusion --CommonSense101 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, no worries, I figured that was what had happened. SpuriousQ (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


<math>Insert formula here</math>

 :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


It is a valid religion. Please stop deleting?

I'm pretty sure you realize this, but Wikipedia is not for things that a few people made up. If it really is a notable religion, please provide independent, reliable sources to prove it. Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The last time I edited it I added a link to a website called Tebalism. Is that not proof enough?

No. "independent" means outside the Tebalism "movement". -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a website that talks about the historical persian satrap Tabalus who discovered the ruins?

Please read WP:N and WP:V for a better idea of what subjects are appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm quite certain Tebalism isn't one of them. -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


What is the correct tag to request semi-protection on the article Router? There was an expert tag request so I have been fixing it. I do not know how all this mis-information was placed into this article or why it was not discovered. I just thought it would be a good idea to permanently be semi-protected.

Please let me know.


--akc9000 (talk contribs count) 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Going to WP:RFPP, as you did, is the correct method. However, semi-protection is not applied in cases like this, since the edits from IPs were not blatant vandalism and furthermore there is relatively little activity right now. Semi-protection is, generally, a protective measure for articles that are getting hit constantly with vandalism from IPs. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Answering your Q

Hi SpuriousQ!

I think it is well written, although as you mention, it has no hard proof - like archaeological findings etc. Non-the-less, please note it is not improbable either. And, yes, it mentions one website. However, is it not possible for any others to add their link? the mentioned website is related and offers valuable insight and tutorials on the topic.

should i add other sites with products or info for haircutting?

No, please don't. Please first take some time to read more about what Wikipedia is about. I would recommend WP:5P and WP:POL as a starting point. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a place for "not improbable" information: everything must be verifiable and attributable to a reliable source. -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Insert non-formatted text here

Im sorry, wait no im not...

Evolution IS bull crap and upsets me that you believe in it... I hope you know that you are spreading the word of SATAN you fool! You really think youre better than God??

Cant wait to see you in heaven, oh wait, you ARENT going to heaven!! I AM!!! But you ARENT unless you abandon this STUPID WORTHLESS WASTE OF TIME CRAP EVOLUITON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All im saying is, if you edit the stuff that i editted and make it support evolution, youre making a VERY bad choice.

~For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

~For God so loved the world( my own edit: That HE created) that He gave His only begotten son. And whoever shall believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life in heaven. John 3:16

~That if you confess woth your mouth the Lord Jesus and believ in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-11

~If we are faithful and just, he will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness 1 John 1:9

Please see WP:NPOV. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


why have I been blocked? I have an automated block npotice, apparently placed by you for vandalism - despite 1) being the only person who uses Wikipedia in my household and 2) never vandalising any wikipedia page in the slightest - indeed wher ei i have done a small quantity of editing in the last few days my edits remain on the page and have not been deleted or contested so i am rather baffled.

Please fix this.

it's certainly saying i'm still blocked

hi,regarding deletion of my article on national innovation foundation

hi I am abhishek srivastava i have posted a article on national innovation foundation on 8th of june and it has been deleted .well i want to tell you this article is about a non profit organisation which brings people from grass root ,collects traditional knowledge and brings herbal product again 1000 years old .which realy benefits the society but the problem with this organisation is really not many people know about this organisation ,well wikipedia which is known for providing knowledege to everyone is a good medium and realy by accepting the article permanently it can help to grow world into a knowledge society where every section is contributing to the world well this organisation is playing its part but now its time for wikipedia to help this organisation and help millions of potential people to get the knowledege of this organisation . abhishek srivastava

Please see WP:CSD, particularly items A7 and G12. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, regarding deletion of the page Balkan Dream Properties

Hi, it's my first article and i want to put info about this company becouse i saw other similar pages - Remax or TIM_Bulgaria and maybe the inofrmation that i can put can be interesting for many peoples. Can i edit this page again if i change it's content? I don't want this article to looks like advertising, i want this article to provide information.

I'd recommend reading WP:N and WP:NPOV. The best way to write the article is to draw information from independent, reliable sources, instead of from the company's own website or press releases. Instead of focusing on what the company offers, focus on what makes the company notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, i'll try to do that!

permission granted from NIF INDIA to use content from their site in development of article in wikipedia.

Got the permission from NIF INDIA to use the material from their site in creating article on NIF INDIA.I have already forwarded the permission mail for your perusal.

Where did you send this mail? I don't see it anywhere. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)