User talk:Singularity42/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you edit without a username, your IP address (Singularity42) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —Mathew5000 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Court of Ontario

Please see my response to you at Talk:Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If you read the legislation closely, you will see that under section 10, the "Court of Ontario" does exist, and the Superior Court of Justice is one division of the Court of Ontario. --Mathew5000 (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for pointing that out. As I pointed out on Talk:Court of Ontario, I think a whole article for the "Court of Ontario" might be a bit of overkill for such a limited legal term. Keeping the term in the Ontario Court of Justice and Ontario Superior Court of Justice with references (as you did with your most recent update) might be the better solution. 142.108.145.91 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul and Robert

Thanks for adding that info, and for clarifying. I will go redact the OT discussion - I'm usually a real pedant about OT, but it seemed odd to cut it off in the middle. Happy editing! Anchoress (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to help out. It actually brought up a number of necessary edits that had to be made (I was completely surprised that the Paul Bernardo article didn't actually say what he was convicted of). Singularity42 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Request For Rollback

Hiya - I'm sorry, but even including your acknowledged IP contributions you have barely 100 edits. Your use of WP:UNDO seems okay, but I'd like to see a bit more before granting a relatively powerful tool. Please don't think you work is not valued - it is - and I urge you to carry on and pop back here or ask me directly in a couple of weeks. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/December 2008#Singularity42. SoxBot X (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:24.80.115.82

Something has to be done about this IP's edits. It's undoing good edits all over the place. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But given it is an anon user, it is probably just one person at a public computer deciding to do some petty vandalism. For now, just revert them. If these type of edits continue, though, we will have to recommend an administrator issue a temporary block. Singularity42 (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

False accounts

I went ahead and made a report to sockpuppet investigations for you along with a CheckUser request. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singularity43. MuZemike 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just about to do that now. Thanks for beating me to the gate :) Singularity42 (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

I wanted to know why the article "Elmwood (band)" was proposed for deletion. I understand if certain people don't know who they are, but they are a rising band. Any recommendations on how I can improve upon the article? Please don't delete it or do a speedy deletion. Talk it out with me first. Thank you.Kbr1656 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether it meets the noteability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. I'll discuss it in more detail at the article's talk page. But don't wory - I just put it up under WP:PROD, which requires the deletion to be uncontroversial. Since you disagree with it, I'll remove the template and see if we can figure it out. Singularity42 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We Own The Night (Serpico song)

Hi! I've removed your {{db-song}} tag from We Own The Night (Serpico song), because the A9 criterion only applies when the artist's article does not exist. The artist's article is at Serpico (band). Feel free to prod instead. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. When I put it up for speedy deletion, the link to the the band was just to Serpico (the movie), which is why I put it up under A9. Thanks for catching that. For now, I'll leave it for someone more interested in the subject matter to consider whether a prod is appropriate. Singularity42 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Barbera redux

See Talk:Joseph Barbera, can you take another look at this. Everyone but this Knight agrees his autobio is the best source. Not our fault he's too lazy to read it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've re-iterated that I think consensus has been established, including input from outside editors such as myself. (At this point, Knight is the only editor disputing the ethnicity issue.) Hopefully that will end the debate. If he doesn't stop, I guess it should move one step up on the dispute resolution ladder... Singularity42 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

the forum

hello

the forum is under construction —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVPRINCE (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comments above, I have replaced my speedy deletion nomination of The Forum (TV Series) with an Under Construction template. However, it will need to be improved within the next several days to avoid a deletion by myself or another editor. You may wish to consider moving the article to your user space until the article is presentable. Let me know if you need helping making such a move. Singularity42 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Plebs

Sorry I seem to have tagged for a SD seconds after you added the PROD.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to keep it up for SD. I'll remove the PORD. Singularity42 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Singularity42. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thanks!

thanks for your advice and comments! admittedly, this is my first attempt to post on wiki... i do respect the rules, and i do want to be a worth contributor... i am hoping that my research on notability guidelines has given me the insight needed to fulfill this. --Mouser Hyde (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Eta Delta Upsilon

Hi.. I would like to know why our fraternity wikipedia page was deleted. Please explain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etadeltaupsilon (talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You really should raise the issue with the administrator who deleted the article, Skomorokh, as I was just the editor who nominated the article for speedy deletion. However, the reason I nominated the article for deletion was that there was nothing in the article to say why the fraternity should be considered notable, one of the main criteria for articles in Wikipedia. You should take a look at WP:ORG to see what the guidelines are for organizations. Singularity42 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand..the purpose of the page is to inform interesting students who want to join the fraternity. I believe many other fraternities have the same type of page and there's has not been deleted. Is there a way I can at least get my content back for editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etadeltaupsilon (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't meant to exist for the benefit of the person posting the article or his organization. Among things that Wikipedia is not is a web host for your fraternity. Articles are meant to be about subjects having encyclopedic value, judged in terms of "notability" as the word is used on Wikipedia. That's why Wikipedia has several mechanisms for considering articles for deletion. Meanwhile, you appear to think you can do whatever you want on Wikipedia, and have resorted to several acts of vandalism. I think you'll find that that doesn't fly here. This isn't your frat house. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ok tough guy...what kind of acts of "vandalism" have I committed? I honestly would just like to hve the contents of my page back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etadeltaupsilon (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't consider wiping out the contents of someone else's user or user talk page four times to be vandalism? As for the deletion of the article you wrote, although I realize that kind of thing is a shock for someone who came to Wikipedia without awareness of the way Wikipedia works, an explanation was provided to you at the time of the deletion, correct? —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

i have spoken to the appropriate person so everything is clear. It's very apparent you were a loser in college and must of been treat badly by fraternities. please dont butt into other people's business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etadeltaupsilon (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that everything is now taken care of. However, when making comments in Wikipedia, please remember to remain civil, and not to make personal attacks (especially against third parties on my talk page). Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Eskimo Buddhism

If you'd like to nominate the article for deletion, we can create a section on User:Jemesouviens32's talk page, surrounded by <onlyinclude> and </onlyinclude>, which can be transcluded into the deletion discussion. He then will have a chance to participate in the discussion despite his block, as you had hoped. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I think I have it figured out now, including the transclusion part. Singularity42 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you have it all set up. I made a couple of small changes, but feel free to revert or alter further. Like I said at wp:an/i, it doesn't look hopeful, but it was very considerate of you to seek out ways for User:Jemesouviens32 to contribute. If every editor approached the project like that, we'd not need wp:bite. I'm not sure if he'll be satisfied with the results, but at least he can have a say in the process. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your remarkable efforts to insure a fair and neutral AFD, you have shown yourself to be an exemplar of what good faith really means. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I'm glad we were able to work things fairly for everyone. Singularity42 (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me to, thanks a lot, especially to you, Singularity42. I had tried to treat Jemesouviens32 as fairly as possible as well, discussed and discussed...and discussed... you know, before in the discussion around Modern Buddhism. It was very painful at times.. i even got blocked at one point, because i got myself dragged into an edit war... Thanks for helping to finally solve this situation. You definitely did a lot better than i did :) Andi 3ö (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi Singularity42 - I'm not quite sure how I became aware of you but regardless, you've struck me as someone who would make a very good administrator. Right temperament, right attitude. Anyway, if you are interested let me know. I would gladly sponsor and mentor you - we need good folks on the team. Regards, Manning (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - your edit count is a bit low though... we might need to wait a couple of months to increase that. Regardless, the offer of mentoring is still there. I see you already have rollback which is good. Regards Manning (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually gave some thought to being an administrator recently as well. Unfortunately, I reached the same conclusion you did - my edit count just isn't there yet. Partly because although I have been editing for almost two years, I didn't get heavily involved until this past summer (and on a related note, could mean a slow-down in my editing over the winter). Anyway, I like to be mentored towards being an administrator, so I would be interested in taking you up on the offer. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

what can i do to get it to not be deleted?

i changed it and said that he was an amature hockey player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schennfan1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:ATHLETE first. For an athlete to be notable, they need to be at the fully professional level of the sport (which Ben Alavie is not), or competed at the highest amature level (such as the olympics or world championships, which Alavie has not). In either event, I have put the article up for a deletion discussion since you were objected to my deletion proposal. You can join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Alavie‎. Singularity42 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw an article for Taylor Hall (born 1991) up and he is an amature player too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schennfan1 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Which may also be wrong. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it's right. Singularity42 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me what I can do to keep this article up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schennfan1 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain why you think it should be kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Alavie‎. Oh, and please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Who makes the decisions whether to keep articles or not, because if you put it up for deletion, doesn't that mean you would make the decision?--Schennfan1 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No. As explained on the message I added to your talk page, a third-party, uninvolved administrator will now make the final decision. By the way, Taylor Hall competed in the World Championships, and won a number of prestigious international hockey awards, which is why he has his own article. Singularity42 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Quarter Toss

Please allow my page i created called quarter toss to be a page. i have a picture of it being played i just do not have it at the moment, its on my camera i just dont have my upload cord. This game is a different than quarters,( yes it involves a quarter and a cup or shot glass) but it also consist of throwing and the biggest thing is when the coin lands on heads you have to drink. It requires a high alcohol tolerance. Many people at North Lake college play this game it just has not picked up yet. This article will help promote the playing of this game so please allow it to be a page and not just a redirection to quarters because it is more like Chandeliers which has its own page. please sir let this page exist what harm can come from its existence. --Taylorwebb (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For third-party editor reading this discussion, the context of the above comments is that I re-directed the article Quarter Toss to Quarters (with an explanation on the user's talk page)... Singularity42 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I have not prevented you from creating the article. What I did was redirect it. You then moved it back, and I reverted, with an explanation on your talk page. First of all, take a look at WP:ONEDAY. It is an important guideline, explaining an important policy, WP:What Wikipedia is not. Specifically, we generally don't allow articles about some fad, such as a drinking game, just because some people made it up one day (in this case, September late 2009). This is because of two reasons:

• WP:No original research is one of the guiding policies for Wikipedia. It does not allow articles based on orginal research. You want to base you article on a separate game based on your own knowledge about this game and pictures you have taken about the game. That is original research. What you need is a third-party, reliable source.
• WP:Notability is another very important guiding policy for Wikipedia. It means that the threshold for articles on Wikipedia is that the subject is notable. If you just made up the game last month, and it hasn't gotten much attention outside of a group of people at your school, then it is not notable. You can't use Wikipedia to promote something that is not yet notable. We work the other way around - first it must be notable. WP:ONEDAY explains how you can promote your game outside of Wikipedia.

Now, you and I are both editors. I am not an administrator. You are free to disagree with me, and since no one else has weighed in yet, there is no consensus yet. If you disagree with me still, you should check out Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, where you can request a discussion to determine if my actions were correct. Let me know if you need help with how to start a discussion on that page. Singularity42 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiIslam

Hi. You may be interested in this AfD wherein consensus was achieved to keep the material as a section of the Faith Freedom International article. Nothing seems to have changed since then in terms of more sourcing. ITAQALLAH 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Exactly why I mentionted at Wikiproject Islam - seemed there must be more history to the articles than from what I could firstsee. Looks like the redirect was taken care of. Singularity42 (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Newpage Patrolling

Hello. Thank you for helping Wikipedia by marking inappropriate new articles for speedy deletion. In case you didn't know, please mark all pages you tag for speedy deletion or deem acceptable as patrolled, unless you're not sure. This prevents other patrollers from repeating your actions. New pages can be marked as patrolled by entering an unpatrolled page from Special:Newpages, and clicking the link that looks something like so: _{[Mark this page as patrolled]}, at the bottom right corner of the newpage. Thank you for trying to help out! Intelligentsium^review 23:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Normally I do. Seems I've been forgetting today. Singularity42 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WTH please read

Okay, I made an article and it got tagged for deletion like 10 seconds after. Can I make the article again but add a site and get it saved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluchurch (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I recall, the issue was that there was nothing to suggest the individual who the subject was about was in any way notable. WP:Notability is the main policy on that issue, and WP:BIO is the guideline of how the notability policy applies to people. My suggestion is to take a look at the article creation wizard. Unfortunately, since I am not the person who deleted your article (I just tagged it for an administrator to look at it and make a final decision), I can't look at the deleted article or give you more specific suggestions. Versageek was the administrator who made actually deleted the article, so that might be the person to speak to if you want more advice about that specific article. Let me know if you have any other questions! Singularity42 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: does the edits i made fix it? Bluchurch (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. Again, just because the person has their own website and has a YouTube video does not make them notable. Since this person is an artist, why don't you look at WP:ARTIST to see the very general guidelines about artists who have articles about them. Singularity42 (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ohhh ok how can I move it to work in progress?] Bluchurch (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You can add {{Under construction}}, but I'm not sure that will help, since I just don't see this individual being considered notable. Singularity42 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, but he has been mentioned by Halo.bungie.org at least a dozen times. And the remake of 28 weeks later has been put up on numerous sites. (spike tv had it on their site for a while)

but il delete it if you really think he is not notable.

Here would be my suggestion. Create a subpage for yourself at User:Bluechurch/Jamie98s User:Bluchurch/Jaime98s, where you can work on the article and get the various links added, etc. When you think it's ready, let me know, or post it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for another experienced editor to look at it. Singularity42 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluchurch (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Eskimo Buddhist blanks talk page

I'm not sure you are quite right in reverting a revert of a page blanking. The page contained a sockpuppet inquiry and a reference to a live deletion discussion. As I read the rules, these should not be deleted from talk pages. Bluehotel (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet messages should not be deleted while the block is in place. Jemesouviens32's block was expired when he removed the message. Nothing stops an editor from looking through the page history to find if needed for future purposes. The reference to to a deletion discussion is just to turn his attention to the discussion. By deleting it, he has confirmed he is aware of it. The exception you may be thinking of are MfD tags (which means the actual template tag, i.e. the page itself is tagged for deletion - talk page messages are not the same as a tag). Hope that helps! Singularity42 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Rytz Axis Construction

Dear Singularity,

there was absolutely not a single shred of advertising in my article, what so ever. So I fail to understand the rationale of tagging my article for speedy removal from Wikipedia. I am however, completely new to this aspect - posting articles - and as such, I am unfamiliar with the modalities of doing so. If I have committed some infraction, plaese explain the rationale to me. Forgive me for leaving this message, on your page but, I don't even know how to get to my page, yet!

Cordially,

Stephen Koroknay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Koroknay (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I felt that the only purpose of the article was to promote the company. It did not appear encyclopedic, and the company itself did not appear to be notable, which is one of the main criteria for articles. Wikipedia cannot be used for the purpose of advertising non-notable companies. Also, the final decision was not mine to make. All I did was tag the article so an administrator could review it. In this case, User:Fastily made the final decision to delete the article.

Nothing wrong with writing a message on my talk page - that's what it's here for! To access yours, log in and go to the top-right of any Wikipedia page. You should a number of links, including a link called "my talk" - which takes you to your own talk page as well. Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rytz Axis Construction is a procedure discovered by D. Rytz in the 19th century to find the correct axes of the only ellipse that can fit precisely into a given parallelogram. This technique belongs under the general science of Descriptive Geometry. There is no company.

Cordially,

Stephen Koroknay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Koroknay (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If I was wrong, than I am sorry. Since the article is currently deleted, I cannot look back and make any specific comments about why I thought it was necessary to tag the article. If you think it was deleted in error, please talk to User:Fastily, who deleted the article. (Oh, and you should sign your comments on talk pages by adding ~~~~ after your comments.) Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Bibleball

Hello Singularity42, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Bibleball) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Tim Song (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was debating between a speedy deletion and a proposed deletion. Since there was not a single Google hit on the "game", and there were, in fact, numerous references to "Bible ball" (which had nothing to do with the article's subject), seemed to be a blatant hoax. But I can see where it might be more preferable to do a PROD and see if any references are added... Singularity42 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Paradise du golden

My presentation is very important so can you please stop doing that until 10/21 11 AM EST. I would really appropriate it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.221.78 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

dude i deleted it. Happy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxfriendlyxx (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Singularity42 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsk-tsk education is extremely important in the real world and education is how we are able to write these article. So this is my way of showing people to be cautious about sources. It called teaching. It's a pity but i am sure there are many mistakes in other articles ie. elephant article. But my sincere apologies for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxfriendlyxx (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your intention was to demonstrate that Wikipedia was unreliable by adding a fake article. In that respect, you failed. So the educational value is that you have learned how difficult it is to add unreliable articles to Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the repetitive conversation

well not really that was an extreme case. May you should google unreliable source wikipedia there are article on it? FYI my teacher assigned this position so i am completely for wikipedia. Like I said, I am sorry for that article and it was only for one day and after that i don't really care what you people did with it. So thank you for ruining my presentation and my GPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.221.78 (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Your thesis (i.e. it's easy to introduce fake articles into Wikipedia) was proven false. You can show that to your teacher. Please read WP:HOAX and WP:POINT. Anyway, I think this conversation is exhausted now. If you plan to contribute to Wikipedia, don't be disruptive. Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) A presentation on why it is unreliable as a bibliography in research was the assigned topic. I wish my teacher didn't so technically it's not my fault for doing that. Why are you saying stuff like that when it's a presentation in class its not like i chose it. Maybe you should take this issue to the teachers in school, you know do a campaign on why student should use wikipedia. Because apparently many teacher don't like Wikipedia and according to them, it's for procrastinators. And I love to use wikipedia as a source because it saves time. If you took up that cause students would be eternally grateful to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.221.78 (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Why am i even "making a discussion" with you it's so pointless and a complete waste of my precious time because after tomorrow i really don't care what you think. And I would never edit anything because I have better things to do than edit something. I really hate editing so you don't have to worry about me posting fake article. Why am i even "making a discussion" with you it's so pointless and a complete waste of my precious time because after tomorrow i really don't care what you think. And I would never edit anything because I have better things to do than edit something. I really hate editing so you don't have to worry about me posting fake article.24.190.221.78 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

BOO

boo happy halloween —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piper987 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A little early, but thanks, I guess. (I shall take it in a good faith spirit...) Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes im early and in holiday spirt (r u doing anything 4 halloween) im going to go 2 a skating halloween party —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piper987 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, I generally reserve this talk page for Wikipedia-related discussions, rather than as a social site. Singularity42 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Halloween

BOO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.210.104 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What's with this constant "boo"-ing? If I've done something you are not happy about, please let me know so I can discuss it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked template

Hi, could you explain why removing the blocked message from one's own user page would result in the user being prevented from editing their own talk page, as you stated here? kmccoy (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading over WP:BLANKING, and I see where I made a mistake. I read "Important exceptions include declined unblock requests ... (while blocks are still in effect)..." as including block messages while blocks are still in affect. I'll strike my comments. Singularity42 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add to my above comments, though, that while the warning I gave was incorrect, the editing was on the disruptive side (i.e. granting himself an unblock, etc.). But at this point, any advice to Aziz090 should come from someone else, due to that error I already made. Singularity42 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

re

Thanks, I'll take that into account. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gene M. Ransom III

I removed the CSD, but feel free to PROD or AFD. I just try to be a bit more cautious with the CSD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've found that there seems to a lack of consensus about whether A7 applies to living persons whose only claim is that they hold a minor local elected office. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to formerly address that, and make it only PROD/AfD in those cases. Singularity42 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If a more generally policy is established, let me know, as I would like to make sure I follow it. Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Newpage patrol

Hello, Singularity42. You have new messages at Thedarxide's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thedarxide (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lount

Regarding this debate, I wasn't quite clear from your comments if you wanted to do so or not, but you can withdraw the nomination. Just say it somewhere in the AfD, and ask for a speedy close. (Of course, if you'd prefer to wait for more !votes, that's fine too). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not going to withdraw yet. If there already is a consensus that all villages, not matter how small, are automatically included, then I would withdraw. I just haven't come across anything that actually says that. Singularity42 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I just wasn't sure what you meant, so I thought I'd check. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I realized how my comments might have been confusing, so I've added a clarification about my position. Singularity42 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Journey church

Your tagging of Journey church with A1 was incorrect. A1 is for articles with no context (i.e. a completely unidentifiable subject). This article was well, a church, with external links with more info. Due to the unambiguous promotional tone, I have deleted it under G11 instead. A3 would probably also work, since it is a rephrasing of the title. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The link worked for you? I couldn't seem to access it, and without it there was no way to tell what the article was about. Due to the title, it may have been about a church, but then the one sentence in the article indicated that "Journey" was a "church town", whatever that meant... Anyway, no probs! Singularity42 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's because I deleted it, I'm forgetting what it's like to not be an admin. ;) The content was:

"Journey a Church Community.

LIVE BIG! link title

GO NOW!"

Obviously promotional, but you can tell that it describes a church, so G11, not A1. Thanks, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Singularity42 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary Wehrkamp

please do not delete Gary Wehrkamp page. It is a reputable progressive rock musician who is linked off of my many wikipedia pages. He has hired me to create this page for him. Sayitdigital (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I never actually deleted the article. The last version (i.e the one that was deleted on October 27th) was tagged by me for an administrator to delete because the article had no content. That is not the case with the new version. By the way, Wikipedia tends not to be so happy when someone is hired by a subject to write a Wikipedia article about them (but I see somone has already explained that on your talk page). In any event, I have not tagged the new version of the article for deletion (and I probably would not have even known about it if you didn't write me this message :) ) Singularity42 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How is content to be accurate on wiki if the page someone is writing is not reviewed by the person it's actually being written about? I never said he "paid" me to write the page. I just got permission to write it about him and asked for some references so I had accurate content. It is not a conflict of interest. Sayitdigital (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's still a conflict of interest if you have a relationship with the article's subject, which is evidenced by your first comment (i.e. you were 'hired' by the article's subject - whether you are getting paid is irrelevant).

We do not ensure content is accurate by asking the article's subject - that would violate our policy on neutral points of view. Instead, Wikipeida has a core policy of verification. That is, all content added to an article must be able to be verified by reliable sources (another core policy). The burden is always on the editor adding the content to be able to verify the content when challenged. This is especially true for biographies of living persons. In fact, there is nothing wrong if someone in your position removes content you believe is inaccurate about the article's living subject - but we wouldn't give you (as a representative of the article's subject) any preferred treatment over other editors, due to neutrality. There is also a specific noticeboard for issues regarding biographies of living persons, found at WP:BLP/N. Hope that helps. Singularity42 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I agree that it is still a conflict of interest when someone is "hired" to create a page. I also agree that the conflict of interest noticeboard is an appropriate outlet if Sayitdigital feels it is not a conflict of interest for some reason to be hired to create a page. But before creating a thread there, I would encourage Sayitdigital to review WP:COI regarding the definitions of conflict of interest. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it's over for now, given the latest comments on the article's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Sayitdigital. How do I get the 'conflict of interest' warning off of the page? Sayitdigital (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Sayitdigital. I would suggest starting a thread at the conflict of interest noticeboard. By the way, I like to keep conversations in one place, rather than split between two pages. Do you mind if we continue this on my talk page? I'll copy these comments there. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion response

OK, thanks for your message. I'll look at the article creation wizard. I'm trying to improve the Irish media pages on wikipedia (they're pretty bad at the moment) and it's hard to do on my own. Thanks. Robfitzgib (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I had to move your comments to my talk page. User pages (like User:Singularity42) and user talk pages (like the one you are reading right now at User talk:Singularity42) are different. The first is where the user can add details about themselves. The second is where they can have Wikipedia-related discussions.

Also, have you thought of joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and it's related projects? Some of the members of that project might be able to help you out as well. Singularity42 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

still waiting for a reply

Hello Singularity42, after seeing the admin discussion of my userpage use I immediately wrote up an in-depth reply on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Several days have passed without a reply from any of the parties involved in the discussion or from the admins who left messages on my usertalk page. I am wondering how the communication process is supposed to take place, perhaps I am leaving messages in the wrong place? Please let me know where I am supposed to correspond. The admin incidents page where the discussion took place suggests that topics that are still under discussion should be moved from the archive to the active page, although I am not sure how to do that. The discussion was archived, and now it is rather hard to find. thanks, ted --Htw3 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have pulled copied the thread from the archive back onto the noticeboard for an administrator to give a final answer on. (Keep in mind I am not an administrator...) Singularity42 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!. I have not been involved in any administrative decision making process before, so I am a bit uncertain how it is to proceed. I had been under the impression that such decisions involve discussion. However, so far, with the exception of your reply here, I have had very little sense of actual interaction, it has seemed more like a series of declarations. Part of that is due to the asynchronous nature of course, but also, from the perspective of a non-admin, there was no clear procedural model communicated. I thank you for clarifying that you are not an admin, and thus I wonder who is the relevant admin for this decision? I imagine that this becomes more clear as one becomes more familiar with the process. Thanks again, Ted Welser --Htw3 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI can be a bit messy (well, actually more than a bit...) Basically, what ends up happening is a bunch of users (usually admins, non-admins with a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and involved parties) give their viewpoints and interpretation of policy, reply to each other's positions, and if there a lot of debate hopefully some consensus emerges (although that's been happening less and less at that noticeboard). If an admin thinks admin action is necessary, they will then do so. What looks like is happening in this case is no one thinks immediate admin action is necessary, especially given the in-depth reply you made at the thread. The discussion may still be ongoing (after I restored the thread), but it's starting to look like they would like you to self-identify which pages are not Wikipedia related, and mark them with {{db-g7}} so they can be deleted. Does that make sense? Singularity42 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I followed up on the thread and put deletion tags on many of the pages. --Htw3 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rangeblock request

Sorry, I cannot implement a rangeblock as the CIDR in question includes 65536 possible IP addresses. However I have gone ahead and blocked the second IP, and will semi-protect the article if I see it disruptively edited again. Thank you for your help on this issue! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Impressive.

Your number of edits. The amount of research necessary to substantiate the articles you have a major stake in. You're entire Wikipedia history is impressive. Do you think it may be time to walk away from the computer a second? I mean that respectfully. It's people like you that make the proverbial jigsaw wikipedia world go round.

I just think there's a point where something goes beyond a hobby, into perhaps an obsession. I know of course that there are editors with many more edits than you, maybe even hundreds of more hours logged on the site, but I think that maybe you aren't too far gone.

When I was addicted to an item, I was in denial for a long time. Telling myself that it wasn't that big of a deal. It made me happy, didn't hurt anyone, and even helped others! It was when I tried to go without it for a simple 24 hours that I realized it had become a part of me. And it wasn't exactly something that I wanted to be an integral part of my person.

Is Wikipedia giving back to you, what you pour into it? I don't mean badges, or status inside the Wikipedia world, is your life the better for the time you spend on here? Is that impulse to check your talk page and patrol the new articles assigned to you because it truly makes you happy?

Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scprotoss (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And who are you a sockpuppet of? Singularity42 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the answer is yes, I get a lot out of it. By looking at articles outside my normal area of editing, I get exposed to new ideas and learn about new subjects. Singularity42 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1-877-JAIL-FON

Hi, I placed a link under the DUI article "See also" section to 1-877-Jail-Fon. I am just curious why you reverted that edit? WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have given a bit more of an explanation. The DUI article is now a more general article that is provides a more global perspective. 1-877-JAIL-FON is very specific Utah approah, and not very relevant to the the DUI article. What I should have done, which I'll do now, is suggest including it at either Drunk driving law by country (which is the new article that looks at individual countries), or even better, Drunk driving (United States). But since we're not linking to drunk driving in individual countries from the main DUI article (just to the article that breaks down the different countries), it doesn't then make sense to link to something so specific to an individual state.

Nonetheless, I apologize for reverting it rather than undoing it with a proper edit summary. When I first saw it, I thought it was just a random, non-relevant addion, but now I believe I was mistaken about that. Nevertheless, I don't based on my comments above, I don't believe it's more relevant to one of the other DUI articles, not the main one. Singularity42 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Falafel

I'm not sure if you read the Talk:Falafel#Images section, but my photo of falafel chips have been quite controversial with several editors. At one point in the discussion User:Ani medjool told me: "nsaum75 i suggest you cease cry and cease play of traditional "poor me. poor jew" wolf call. nobody listen because they know the jew steal everything from us and rewrite history to degrade arab. i suggest you cease this vandalize of arab food by shoving you pro jew ajenda, which be antiarab by natural and deny culture of arab peoples".

The politicization of food is truly sad. Anyhow, thank you for reverting the edits based upon WP:ASG. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I actually hadn't come across the controversy before, but I now recall that being raised at ANI, which I recently pulled out of the archive. I only came across Ani medjool very recently, and based on what I've read I've decided to keep a close eye on him. See if he's able to change his behaviour from POV-pushing or if we need to go further. But yeah, since when did falfael and hummus become an I/P issue?? Can't everyone just agree that it tastes good and leave it at that? Singularity42 (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ani medjool

It looks like you'll have to take this issue to WP:AE. Per WP:ARBPIA, I'd love to help out but Ani medjool would cry foul were I to take any action against him. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think Ani medjool is taking a break from Wikipedia, so I'm going to hold off taking any action. If/when he returns, I'll see if he's reigned in the POV pushing. Singularity42 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

UAA/Bot

Just caught your show on the UAA bot page. I was just about to revert but you got there before me. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I had a brain fart... Singularity42 (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, we all suffer from them. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Inga Newson

Ah! Thanks for the information. I should have looked more closely at the edit history. The poor quality of the writing and the lack of references made it look like a slam dunk. Perhaps an AfD is in the future. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The article's state is definitely a problem. I tried to fix it a bit, but I'm not very familiar with the subject, and the editor is fairly active so it's hard to keep up. I'll probably tag it for cleanup this weekend. AfD is definitely a possiblity for this article. Singularity42 (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Notability still seems dicey. It seems some projects are in the works, some books are going to be self-published, etc. Not much that's solid. An AfD, with no prejudice against recreation when something more substantive develops, is a good idea. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

banging your head against a brick wall

• Well, nobody can say you didn't try to clear this up. I can't tell if this person is a deliberate troll or just too dense to even try and understand the difference between the two processes even though it's been very clearly explained about five times now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to AGF here, especially since I have a feeling new editors are dismayed when a new article they deleted goes from PROD to AfD (i.e. they think they nipped it in the bud by getting rid of the PROD tag). Oh well. For my trouble he's asked me to no longer edit his talk page, so that's the end of my involvement. At least I tried... Singularity42 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're not editing vandalism, you have the right to edit anyone's talk page. I say ignore his request and focus on improving the encyclopaedia. I don't know the whole story, I'll admit, but I say that in this case, the encyclopaedia is more important than making nice to a troll or someone who shouldn't be on the internet in the first place (if he's really that dense, anyway). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth it. Either he follows my advice or he doesn't. He's made it clear he no longer wants to listen to me. Which means his block will expire, he'll do what he did before, and he'll get a longer/indef block. At this point, all I can do is feed the trolls, so what's the point? At the end of the day, the deletion discussions are going towards an obvious conclusion, and he's setting himself up to the point where he won't be disruptive much longer no matter what (i.e. he'll be blocked). Singularity42 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

SD of ټولګړی ورټک

I wonder why you are informing me about this? I have never created such article. Masti (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to the article's history, you did. And the article was an exact copy of your user page, and included a link to your Polish Wikipedia userpage. That's why it seemed to be an accident and/or test page, and was deleted as such. Anyway, it's not a big deal as the page was deleted, and if you don't remember creating it, then I'm sure you're not upset about it :)

As I said, you probably created the page by accident, which is not uncommon. I come across similar accidents on a regular basis. That's probably why you don't remember creating it - you never actually intended to create it. Singularity42 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• that's strange. Maybe a glitch in the Matrix :) Masti (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Singularity42 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Sockpuppets ae such a headache,...Wikipedia must find an effective way to deal with them.... AruN_KumaRTalK 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally it is easy to deal with them. But this guy has a dynamic IP address, so there's no way to effectivly block them. As Kraizec! noted, the range covers over 65,000 IP addresses, and we can't block a range that large. Semi-protection will solve the problem once it is in place. Singularity42 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Singularity42. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WuhWuzDat 19:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Singularity42. You have new messages at Amsaim's talk page.
Message added 04:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amsaim (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

relation to Michael Leonard

Hi, I am new to wikipedia, forgive me if I have made a mistake. I am Michael Leonard. Are there restrictions on creating a page about yourself? or anyone else? Is there a help page of a page for person new to Wikipedia? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcessi (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Why don't I answer each question seperately?

1) While there are no policy restrictions on writing articles about yourself, there is a guideline at WP:AUTOBIO. Specifically, it is discouraged. There are a number of reasons: a) most people find it difficult writing an article about themselves in a neutral point of view, b) it could contain facts most people do not know and is therefore not verifiable, and c) it could contain original research. Also, it is hard for people to figure out about themselves whether they are notable (many people think they are notable for obvious reasons). Anyway, WP:AUTOBIO covers the various issues better than I could.

2) You can write a page about another person if that person is notable. The main guideline is WP:BIO. If they are living, you also need to follow the rules at WP:BLP (since there are issues of defamation, etc., when incorrect negative info is added about a living person). A great place to start is the article creation wizard.

3) There is a help page for new editors at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, with links to useful pages and volunteers to answer your questions. There are also some useful links found in the welcome section on your talk page.

In the meantime, can I make some suggestions regarding your user account. You currently have two of them, so you are going to need to pick which one you are actually going to use (or, possibly, leave both for a third). Xcessi may be a problem, as it appears to be the name of a company, which is specifically contrary to username policy. Michael Leonard is permissible, but there are pros and cons to using your real name - see WP:REALNAME. Anyway, let me know what you want to do about your username, and I'll get you pointed in the right direction.

Let me know if you have any other questions! Singularity42 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Filewax

It's back. I tagged it G4 and an IP removed it. Tagged it again. Just a heads up. DarkAudit (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. Might ask the deleting admin to SALT as well... Singularity42 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Piper987

I offer my apologies for my comments regarding WP:BITE. I was focusing on the October 20 edits (mistakenly thinking November). I now see that this user has a lot more history of questionable edits and deleted talk page content for this editor. At one time, this might have been a salvageable situation, but it seems beyond that now. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and I understand the confusion. It might have been salvageable early on. But by the the time I got involved in October, I tried to open a dialogue with the user with limited degrees of success. Ultimately, it didn't help, though. Singularity42 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Battalion Series

Is it ok if when I am done developing the 4 Battalions on my user page, and I create them. May I create a page titled "Battalion Series" including only the 4 links (To the Battalion pages on Wikipedia, that I create) and a very brief summary of what the Battalion series is? --SpartanGreg09 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hard for me to comment too much, since I know nothing about the subject, but brief articles are allowed - see WP:STUB. However, the bigger issue may be notability. My suggestion would be to start with the article creation wizard. I would also suggest creating first drafts of all the articles in your userspace (say User:SpartanGreg09/Battalion Series), put a draft together, and then you can ask me or another editor to give you some feedback. That way, I (or another editor) will have a better idea of what you want to add, and can give you more specific constructive feedback. I can't promise we'll get a finished product - notability may or may not remain a problem (without knowing more about the Battalion series, I can't give a more definitive answer).

Another suggestion I have would be to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, and work on some of the video game articles that already exist. By editing established articles, you build up more experience for when you create your own new articles. It might also give you a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. I know a similar method helped me when I first started out. Singularity42 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this helps alot. (SpartanGreg09 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Hip Hop Chef

Good afternoon Singularity42 I'm the Publicist for the Official Hip Hop Chef Cooking Tye. The information that has been posted on the page is with his permission and is the way he wants it to be done. If we have to go another way with it please let me know. My email address is theofficialpublict@gmail.com and his is theofficialhiphopchef@gmail.com. My name is Chaste Fleming you can also reach me at 410-500-2267. If we have to change the information we will. Also I would he has the name trademaked and does not want anyone else to use it, what is your procedure on that? How long would it be before his information will be posted and How do I add his pictures? How many pictures can I add to his page? These are the questions that he wants me to ask.

Thanks in advance Chaste Fleming, Publicist Gemini Business Development and PR Firm —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hip Hop Chef (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's break it down:

1) Copyright issue. The first thing to do is read through Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials carefully. Essentially, you are going to have to grant certain non-exclusive licenses for anyone to copy the work, provided it is properly attributed to you. If you are okay for granting the licenses in question, follow the instructions on that page (it lists certain email addresses to contact, etc.).

2) Trademark. I don't know of any Wikipedia policies regarding trademarks, so I would raise it in the email regarding copyright permissions. I don't know of anyone else on Wikipedia usin the phrase "Hip Hop Chef', so the trademark issue for now is moot.

3) Pictures. WP:Images explains the procedure for uploading and using pictures. It probably describes it better than I could.

A couple other issues I should raise...

a) You should read the policy on shared accounts.

b) If you decide to create an article on The Hip Hop Chef, you should follow Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest (which apply to a person's publicist).

c) You should also be familiar with Wikipedia's policy on only having articles about notable subjects.

Hope that helps. Singularity42 (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

re: your email

I don't check my email very often, so I just saw your message. I'd be happy to help you out in any way I can. I'm leaving for Thanksgiving with the family right now, but in a day or two I should have time to run through your contribs and give you some feedback. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

click here Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Varanapally

Hello Singularity42, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Varanapally has been removed. It was removed by Davidwr with the following edit summary 'Deprod and referring to Wikiproject India'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Davidwr before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Zalongwa

Was deleted as a speedy, last April, so it's a G5. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No (assuming you meant G4). WP:CSD#G4 specifically does not apply to articles that have been speedy deleted. It only applies to pages that have been deleted after a deletion discussion (i.e. AfD). As I said, the WP:CSD is very specific and narrow, for very important reasons. Singularity42 (talk)

If you did mean G5, that is if the article is created by a banned user, which does not apply in this case. Singularity42 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, G4. Though it may be more appropriate to ask an admin to check the deleted article because A1 could easily apply again. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how. There is enough context to identify the article: a specific word of a specific language, which seems to have some promotional use. It's original incarnation may have fallen under A1, but this re-creation doesn't. And as I said, G4 specifically excludes articles deleted as speedy deletions. Singularity42 (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Translated footnotes on Shiron.net

Thank you for helping improving that article and proving its notability. You wrote on the talk page "the references section be cleaned up with footnotes that translate the relevant content into English, in order to allow verifying for English-speaking readers." Can you give me one example for improving and translating a footnote there? I would like to follow that example on the other footnotes. How should I present there, for example that citation [1]?Eddau (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to take that back. I believe I misinterpreted WP:NONENG in that regard. The notice I added to the talk page should solve the translation problem. However, I would suggest using an English translation of the article's title for the reference, not the original Hebrew one (so readers at least know what they are clicking on). Singularity42 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Eddau (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Shiron.net AfD

I'd just like to thank you for your participation in the Shiron.net AfD. You've been a voice of reason and neutrality and have assumed good faith on both sides and have been fair to both sides. Thanks for being the level head.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Dear Singularity42, I am trying to get the gist of this system. I thought I had replied to your most recent thread regarding citation of Failure to Die Criteria, but cannot find it in the thread. My question was how does one cite original material? Do I need to publish this article elsewhere before posting it here? Adamella2 (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Everything we say has to come from a reliable source. However, if you are attempting to cite yourself, you must also be sure that it is absolutely necessary for the article to avoid being accused of having a conflict of interest. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Or get your work published and leave a message on the article's talk page letting folks know that it is available for reference.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like everyone already answered while I was away. I hope the above advice answers you question, Adamella2. I would also suggest reading through WP:OR and WP:RS, two very important policies on Wikipedia (I know the policies can be a bit lengthy, but they are really quite comprehensive). If you have any other questions, don't hestiate to let me know!

Happy Singularity42's Day!

User:Singularity42 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Singularity42's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Singularity42! Peace, Rlevse 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! What a nice surprise, Rlevse. Thanks very much. (And I totally missed contributing on my own Wikipedia day - heh!) Singularity42 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

40ooo of your whatevers to the Foundation!

...Thanks for putting up a more sizable opinion and for-- erm-- leaving me a bit of good faith at the end. Given how careful I am with wording on any and everything I type, I completed screwed up the final draft of that.

(Was trying to type this an hour ago, but you might be interested in a few other details) The legal threat was to Jimbo originally which gave the user a block, which of course doesn't mean anything special by itself, but if you combine that with user trying to claim large donations as a reason for an unblock? They did get unblocked for the proper reason, but then immediately trying to flaunt the cash around for something else that greatly advantages him? It's rather ridiculous. Another reason this stuck out was because I recall 2 vandals on Mon and Wed nights I believe that quickly went from new user to blocked indefinitely for vandalism on Jimbo's page. It was the most red dots and Xs in Huggle I'd ever seen with obviously about a half dozen people guarding it. They didn't speak money, but the speaking style was at least somewhat similar. It's a duck test, but it wouldn't at all surprise me.

I was also in the middle of starting a SPI report for him and the dozen canvassing cronies on the AfD and that they have family photo albums as their user pages. Really. And as "a team" they claim to have uploaded over 8000 images? ............. why do I find this sort of stuff that I can't in good conscience ignore if I walk past? Could report it first but someone would have to check the stuff eventually anyway. I have an endless streak of finding obnoxiously large speed bumps later at night.
Could be deemed inappropriate, but I might leave a passing comment about ... said user on Jimbo's talk page. He might get a laugh out of the cash flaunting and I'm sure he'd be aware of how it started. I am so incredibly sorry for taking up anyone's time on this, but since the situation for the primary user started bad at a very specific spot, continued bad, and immediately turned back onto the same pattern of horrible and terribly shameful behavior, my good faith was dead. If it weren't his own personal article or so insane an AfD it's have been far less annoying to see. Zero good faith left, after a pathetic move like this. Like he wold cease to exist if his article was deleted. ...Again, thanks for your time on this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tamil_Nadu#Environmentalism

Thanks for your comments on my userpage I appreciate that.

I have just minimized content on Environment_of_India#Tamil_Nadu and added to Tamil_Nadu#Environmentalism.

I noticed you said earlier "but that does not rule out a merger in a reduced NOTDIR-compliant form, if there is consensus for it on the talk page."

At this point I think the best place for a reduced NOTDIR-compliant form of the originial list: User:Marcus334/Lists of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu is at Tamil_Nadu#Environmentalism.

I don't know what you mean by reduced' NOTDIR-compliant form, but I am open for suggestions to put the article in that form. It would be nice If I could just add

Main article: Environmental Organizations in Tamil Nadu

to Environment_of_India#Tamil_Nadu and Tamil_Nadu#Environmentalism and also link to it from other articles as appropriate. What do you think? Marcus334 (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Varanapally

Thanks for sending this to AFD, I'd practically forgotten about it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Colony of Cloud Flower

Hi there,

i am new to making pages in wikipedia. I made a page that was to be the start of a fictional story, but it was deleted, could you tell me where i went wrong? I didnt think that wikipedia was a fact only information base? could you tell me what i have to do in alterations to have my fictional story continue,

thank you, stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevey1983 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it is about verifiable facts. Wikipedia does have articles about fiction, but the article is about the work of fiction - the article is not a work of fiction itself.

We also have several policies on what type of subjects Wikipedia has articles on. Specifically, it has to be a notable subject, and cannot be for subjects made up one day. You should also take a look at WP:NOT. I hope that answers your question. Let me know if I can still help you out. I should note that you have a very good writing style, and you could make an excellent contributer to Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Soudnbox banditz

this group is of importance therefore it shouldnt be deleted. They are a group endorsed by berklee college of music and received a 9k grant to make music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BAND. Does the band fit any of those criteria? Singularity42 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

yes we fit the first criteria because we were featured in the newpaper for a song we did for our education system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 21:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The first criterion requires multiple non-trivial published sources. A single newspaper article, focusing on a different subject but mentioning the band in relation to the main subject does not meet the criterion does not make the band significant or important. Singularity42 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Music from this band is featured in a video played for a game played at giants stadium by the bands school team and opponent Summit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

we also work with stinerstudio and orngink hosting the recording studio at a building owned by HANDs Inc

SoundBox Banditz

Hello, I'm aware that you wish to delete the page for '''SoundBox Banditz'''. I don't need to beat around the bush. I'm here to explain why I would like you to keep the page. The page was created for fans and those who have not heard but would like to know about '''SoundBox Banditz'''. We are a group working on music and currently working on music for other artistic presentations that shall be seen by the mass public in the near future. This page is vital for those that would like to gather information about this group. Redwolf5000 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I is with what I've read that I can say we've met a few of the qualifications as to where I've seen we had notible sources and links.Redwolf5000 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not to promote the band for people who have not heard of it. If people have not heard of it, then it is not notable yet. Usually, if the subject requires someone directly involved with the subject to create the article on it (thereby becoming an issue with our conflict of interest policies), then that is also a sign it is not notable yet. If the band becomes notable in the future, then the article can be revisited. Singularity42 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Now how can it be said that we are not notable when we've fans across the U.S. and Canada. They are eagerly waiting for their next mixtape to to release of which would be of self-production which I believe would meet one of your criterias. There are also links of which connect to SoundBox Banditz under google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwolf5000 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources. Sources, independent of the band, are needed to state that. In any event, I have decided that this article may benefit from a fuller deletion discussion, so I have declined my own speedy deletion and nominated it for WP:AfD. I'll be posting a message on your talk page about it shortly. Singularity42 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You also say that this is created for promotional use. That is not the case. This is for imformational use because if it is so that they are using this for promotional use then they would've made mentions or passes about checking out their myspace and all other musical sites to help spread their norioty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwolf5000 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You stated you were trying to use the article to provide information to people who have not heard about the band. Therefore, yes, you were trying to use the article for promotional purposes. In any event, this discussion is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoundBox Banditz‎. Singularity42 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

alright, then that's where the discussion shall take place. Though if I am correct most of wikipedia users use this site as a change to read up upon subjects of which they have heard or or have not yet learned about therefore it can be assumed that most of the wikipedia articles are invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwolf5000 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is why we have guidelines like WP:BAND to help us determine notability. And so far, I see nothing that meets the criteria. Oh, and you should sign your posts on talk and discussion pages, by typing ~~~~. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to read your message. "rqd on the moscow coup attempt".

Just letting u know Singularity42 that i looked at the "recent changes" and saw u requesting speedy deletion of The Moscow Coup Attempt. Just putting my "two cents worth" most likely i'am wrong but I thought they were "Notable enough"? Your call though. --Huik01 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! The one time I decide not to do a Google search before a CSD tag, and it's the one time I should have! Basically, there was nothing at all in the article to indicate that the band is "important or significant" - hence the A7 tag. I've removed it, but the something needs to be added to the article that supports the band's notability. Singularity42 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Singularity42, i appreciate the comment, i'am confused though in where I could find a "Notable Ref or Refs", for this perticular band? --Huik01 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

First step is to read through WP:BAND. Next step is to find some reliable sources that support one or more of the WP:BAND's criteria. If you want some help from editors familiar with bands, go to WP:WPMU#Project structure, click on the genre that most fits the band, go to that page's discussion page, and post a message to see if someone there can help you out. If you're still having trouble, let me know. Singularity42 (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Singularity42. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 06:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^discuss 06:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Singularity42. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 06:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^discuss 06:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Singularity42. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 06:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^discuss 06:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dougie Swallow

Hi there

I just wanted to apologise for going slightly off topic on the above thread. Believe it or not I was not going to post any more in that thread after I'd challenged the anon IP about saying that the people saying to delete were unnotable. If they'd replied again I was simply going to leave a message on their talk page about assuming good faith. For the comments that are off-topic would you like me to see if I can erase them from the main page and paste them on to the talk page that you've created? --5 albert square (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't need to bother. I collapsed it more to get the IP to stop. They are kind of a "last word" type user, and their comments were starting to get annoying. Should be fine now that it's in a collapsed box, and hopefully that will be the end of it (until the anon comes up with something else that is ridiculous...) Singularity42 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vir Singh (author)

I am in the process of making "Vir Singh" a disambiguation page, and that requires my putting the current "Vir Singh" page into a new page called "Vir Singh (author)". This is why there is currently a duplication of page: "Vir Singh". Thank you.Virsingh (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been easier to move "Vir Singh" to "Vir Singh (author)" rather than a copy paste? Singularity42 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to assist me in doing so? I am not the best with Wikipedia. I am attempting to make "Vir Singh" a page that lists Bhai Vir Singh, Vir Singh (author), and Veer Singh. All of these three people are equal in notoriety. There is no reason for the author to maintain the main page. If you were to do this it would probably take you 30 seconds to my 10 minutes. Let me know if you are up to it, otherwise I will do it. Thank you, happy new year! Virsingh (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I am convinced a disambiguation page is better than disambiguation links, since the the other two subjects go by names other than "Vir Singh". See WP:DISAMBIG. In any event, I would be glad to look into it further, and if a disambiguation page is called for I can help create it, but I am about to leave for a New Year's Eve party. I can look into this more tomorrow. Don't worry. There's no rush... Singularity42 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. "Bhai" means brother, and is just as much a title as "Dr.", which is held by the current holder of page "Vir Singh". Vir is a transliteration of a punjabi word, the other correct transliteration being Veer. Therefore, whether the page is "Vir Singh" or "Veer Singh", it refers to all three. Enjoy your new years party, I appreciate your willingness to look into this tomorrow. Virsingh (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I should note, I went ahead and did it. I'm not sure if it will still be standing when you return. I screwed up in that Vir Singh (author) was created with a lower case "s". It is Vir singh (author). That should probably be fixed, and I unfortunately do not know how to do it. Virsingh (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

All's well, I've fixed it. Fences&Windows 01:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm Delicious

RA0808 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

RA0808 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RESPOND TO ME!!!!!!!

I do not respond to ultimatums, yelling, or discussions over obvious vandalism
IMMEDIATELY AFTER YOU YELLED AT ME FOR PUTTING UP A REAL PAGE, A PUT UP A MESSAGE ON MY TALK PAGE. YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED YET. I AM WAITING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavie (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal Aid Ontario

Hi Singularity42, I noticed you have worked on several wiki articles to do with Canadian law. I've got a project I'm working on that I think may interest you. I'm looking to extensively clean up the article on Legal Aid Ontario since there is very little content, and even less verifiable information. This would also expand into the section for Legal Aid Ontario on the legal aid page. I've got some content that I'm working on but I could use the help from some Wikipedians to fact check / peer-edit the work. Lemme know if this sounds like something you'd like to help out with.
Thanks!
Lawyer in training (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion?

Hi,

It seems you marked my page RIP-IT Sporting Goods with a speedy deletion box. Would you please mind deleting it. I think I fixed the issue.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldulfer (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean delete the Speedy Deletion tag or delete the article? At this point, the article appears to me to still be an advertisement. However, it will ultimaely be the reviewing administrator who makes the final decision. Singularity42 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rip-It Core Values

They are the actual core values of rip-it sporting goods. If we cite the core values then does it eliminate this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldulfer (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That might remove the issue of it being an advertisement. But is this company even notable? See WP:ORG for the guidellines. Singularity42 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Jawahar navodaya vidyalaya, Takli Dhokeshwar , Ahmednagar

Hello Singularity42. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jawahar navodaya vidyalaya, Takli Dhokeshwar , Ahmednagar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Slipped my mind. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :) Feel free to PROD or AFD it. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright permission for The AHHAA Science Center homepage

Hi!

I have the copyright permission for The AHHAA Science Center official homepage(http://www.ahhaa.ee/en/), because I work as a guide there.

Yours sincerely,

Kalev Uiga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuix (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see the instructions here in order to effectively "donate" the material on that website to Wikipedia. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Took the words out my mouth :) Singularity42 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Wrong Turn Mutants

My article is a list of antagonists from a movie franchise, no different from others like 'the hills have eyes mutants', its my first go at making one, if its a problem please can you tell me what I have to do to make it avoid deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarzParty42 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Three replies:

1. This is a proposed deletion. Anyone, including the article's creator, can object to the deletion. Just remove the tag and in the discussion page explain your reasons why you objected. Note that stopping the proposed deletion process does not stop an editor from starting a different process.
2. I'm not a big fan of the argument that other stuff exists. However, I do note from the the deletion discussion of List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes, there was some suggestion the general nature of these articles are allowed, but that it is debatable amongst Wikipedia editors.
3. Even if this article is not deleted, it needs some significant work. Besides copy-editing for spaces, grammer, spelling, and punctuation, this article has too much detail for no sources. Some of these are pretty minor characters, and don't require lots of information.

Singularity42 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can i put up Diary of a Wimpy Kid 6

please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmullins77 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Long answer: Wikipedia does not predict the future. For more information, look at WP:CRYSTALBALL. Singularity42 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry i was gone and i dont know how

sont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmullins77 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean or what you are asking for here. "Don't know how to do" what? Singularity42 (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Science Fiction shows cancelled after one series

Whilst I agree with your assertion that the original scope is too broad, I am actually trying to capture science fiction shows that were recently cancelled, post year 2000, or shows that certain networks such as NBC, ABC or FOX appear to have cut short where viewers numbered many millions. In many cases, the frequency and magnitude of these cancellations are unrecognized by the science fiction community due to the fragmentation of data. Wikipedia can address this subject with a single page. I agree that the list may prove large but I suspect that the article will provide clarity on whether certain networks cancel science fiction shows more frequently than others.

Perhaps a title "List of Popular Science Fiction Shows Cancelled" with a listing where viewing numbers where recorded at over five million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cams0ft (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There would have to be some very strict criteria to make it work, at which point I'm not sure the utility of such an article. However, I don't have to be right - I just my own opinion like everyone one else. Wikipedia works on consensus. Add your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television series canceled after one series, follow that discussion, and over the next week we will see what the consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jdavie

I have pointed out to this juvenile editor that it was I who deleted his article (Flimibuff), and that it is not going to be re-created. I have given him a once-and-only block warning, and will watch him. Please let me know if he creates any further problems for you. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

i

i dont like you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmullins77 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I didn't really understand your question above. If you want to explain to me how I can help, I will try. Singularity42 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

to be brutally honest...

You might want to wait more than 20 minutes between page creation and your deletion proposal, or look to see if the editor is still working on it. 24 hours would make sense to most people, so it should to you too. Please on't be offended!--John Bessa (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I am offended, your actions caused me to lose at least half of my text, which included the references. This is very type of problem that is being discussed at WMF as one of the reasons editors are fleeing WP. You need to "feel" something about your actions.--John Bessa (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs are a huge problem on Wikipedia and have led to many legal issues. The remedy is that any BLP (with some exceptions not relevant to this situation) that does not have any sources should be tagged. This policy can be found at WP:BLPPROD. The process does not delete the article - it is just a notification that if sources are not added in a reasonable amount of time, the article will be deleted. I believe legal issues from unsourced BLPs are important enough to justify the tag early on. Also, I fail to see how my tag caused you to lose half the text of the article. Singularity42 (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets go back to the word "feel" and the phrase "20 minutes," because they are relevant to you. You may think that your rationalization gives you cause to negatively impact the editing process, but this is not so. For one thing, you could have added the reference yourself (but you chose not to in defiance of Wiki collaborative culture), but instead you chose to wave the "big stick." You might actually accept my comment to improve your influence here, but I doubt you will (I have straight-As in my masters of psychological therapy).--John Bessa (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear about your degree and your marks. I have degrees in Physics, Astrophysics, Law, and a masters in Law. Is that relevant? Not in any way, shape, or form.

Shall we assume a bit of good faith here? I did do a Google search of the name. I found his own website, some forums, and some blogs, none of which were reliable sources. Based on the information in the article you wrote, I believed that he was notable. However, as I couldn't find any sources to back up what was in the article, and there did not appear to be any activity for almost 30 minutes (which, in my experience patrolling new pages, usually means the author of the article has moved on, at least temporarily), I applied the correct guideline for this situation. Singularity42 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So you understand common law. This text will be used to that end.--John Bessa (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope you gentlemen don't mind if I butt in. Mr Bessa, when you create a new article you see an edit notice which says, in part "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." I think that makes it pretty clear that the onus is on the creator of an article to provide sources and that it is especially important in the case of WP:BLP articles. There is no requirement that we wait to point this out, in fact in the case of BLPs it is usually considered the top priority, above and beyond all other concerns. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not, more text the better! However, I have to sign off.--John Bessa (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD rationale

You identified Conemaugh Health Foundation as a possible G12, but you didn't list the url for the material.--SPhilbrickT 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - I thought I did. Oh well, I believe the article has been deleted anyway. Singularity42 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as I'm here I can clear that one up too. You did add it, but you made a typo in the url field, it said "rul" and was therefore not parsed properly when the template posted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha! The downside of not using Twinkle or Huggle... Singularity42 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Many media including the largest Chinese-language infotainment web portal in the world has reported this incident

Please note the notability of this incident.

Reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSD_Kubiak_Lab_Rules_Incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respecteveryone (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, okay? (Did I have something to do with this article?) Singularity42 (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Entitled

You are fully entitled to delete the Pompey-Spurs rivalry article now. I put a litte notice on the discussion page. Sorry that I wasted all you guys' time. Delete it if you wish, I don't really care. --Wackslas :) (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Point taken - thanks Porturology (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Trotter

Hello my friend, I am new to wikipedia and it seems you have aleady started attacking my page for reasons unknown to me. I am trying to create an article on an inspirational individual who is a Musical Producer.

Its his story and biography, and I have seen no solicitating or adds that would cause my page to be flagged. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vybzatell (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Couple points:

1. I am not "attacking" your page. One of the tasks I volunteer with is patrolling new pages. You created a number of identical new articles within a relatively short period of time, all while I was patrolling. As indicated below, they did not meet the guidelines for subjects for Wikipedia articles, and I tagged them as such so an administrator could review and decide whether to delete them.
2. The article's subject may be inspirational. He may be important to you or a group of people. That, however, is not the criteria we are looking for. All subjections must be notable, as explained in WP:NOTABLE. Muscians, specifically, should meet WP:MUSICBIO. Finally, reliable sources are requried to support the subject's notability. In this case, there was none of that.
3. Finally, the articles encouraged the readers to search for him on the internet and learn more about him. That is not encyclopedic. That is promotional.

Singularity42 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Fidelis International Institute

Hello Singularity42. I am just letting you know that I deleted Fidelis International Institute, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Comenius Programme: The Secret of our Success in Studying and Teaching English

Hello I'm writing in response to this article which I created earlier today. It's part of that project and my teachers said that this is an unique project unfortunately which is unkwown for most of the people. We have copyrights for this because it's written from us only the first part is taken from that http://www.britishcouncil.org/comenius.htm website but we are working with them and it's part of our project to create something like this. We decided to create a wikipedia article. I hope that you will consider that I said and renew the article. I will apreciate that if you have any question please inform me because this must me done until sunday. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blog1234 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC) --Blog1234 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Couple points:

1. I am not an administrator and cannot delete or restore articles. I am just the editor who tagged your article for review by an administrator because it appeared to be a copyright violation. The administrator who deleted the article was User:Sphilbrick.
2. Wikipedia cannot just take your word that you have the right to use the copyrighted material. If the owner of the copyrighted materials wants to donate it to Wikipedia, the procedure can be found at WP:DCM.
3. Even the, copying and pasting material does not make for a good encylopedia article. See [[WP:COPYPASTE].

Singularity42 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Mutz new page

Hi Singularity42,

Thank you for reveiwing my page. I understand now why it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. I would like to ask you for help in editing this page. I would like to create a reference for collectors and enthusiasts to be able to research my knives for history and value purposes. Knife collecting has become a major hobby, passion and investment for many people. I feel Wikipedia is the best tool for them to find information today and in the future when I have passed on. I would appreciate any help you can give me to help keep my page on the Wikipedia website. Thank you so much.

Sincerely, Jeff Mutz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmutzknives (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate what you want to accomplish, I do not believe Wikiedia - which is an encylopedia - is the right answer. What you are looking to accomplish is to promote your products, which is not what Wikipedia is. What I suggest is that you look at WP:Notability, WP:COMPANY, and WP:Reliable Sources. If you believe you draft an article about the knives that meets those guidelines - without creating a conflict of interest - then read here on how to make a user draft and another editor can then review it and offer feedback. Singularity42 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmutzknives (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. Additionally, the diberri tool will aid in the formatting of references; all one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What article is this in reference to? I do not recall editing any medical articles? Singularity42 (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry yes it was this edit here [2]. No ref for it even though I am sure it you are correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Aah - that's 'cause the decision only came out this afternoon. The main media outlets have only just starting reporting it. The Toronto Star's article was just posted, so I have cited that as the source. Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My page

Umm... I have no clue how to create a new talk page on my page, so if you could let me know how, thanks. But in the meantime, I'm guessing this works like YouTube's PMs. Thanks for the info. How do I create a new article?

ArceusXIII has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

=D peace, love and visa golds, ArceusXIII (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: How do I volunteer for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArceusXIII (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi ArceusXIII. Thanks for the cookie. Not sure what you mean by creating a new talk page on your page... can you clarify what you want to do?

For help writing a new article, check out WP:CREATE, which has some guidance on how to write a new article. When you are ready to write an article, you can use this wizard to start. I would recommend editing existing articles first, though, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works.

Everyone is a volunteer for Wikipedia, just by editing, creating, and so forth. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. However, Wikipedia works by consensus, so it is important to become familiar with Wikipedia's main policies.

Everyone has a different way of they got involved with Wikipedia. The best advice I can give is based on what I did...:

1. Start reading articles on topics I was familiar with, correcting obvious mistakes, and getting involved in the discussions on those articles' talk pages. I also added articles I wanted to keep reviewing to my watchlist.
2. Joining at wikiproject that maintained articles that I was interested in, editing some of those articles, and joining in discussions at that Wikiproject.
3. Becoming familiar with WP:Notability. WP:Original Research, and WP:Reliable Sources - three important guidelines for Wikipedia articles.
4. Creating some of my own articles on topics that had no articles yet (usually in relation to the Wikiprojects I was part of).
5. Going to some of the discussions at WP:Articles for Deletion, seeing what was said in those discussions, and joining in.
6. Keeping on top of some of the issues that might be discussed at WP:AN, WP:ANI, or other areas on Wikipedia where issues were being discussed that I was interested in.
7. Finding an area of Wikipedia administration that I was interested and helping out. In my case, I found I was able to quickly look up whether a new article would meet Wikipedia's guidelines, and so I started patrolling new pages.

Anyway, that's how I got involved. As I said, everyone has their own way. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, but thanks anyways. peace, love, and visa golds, ArceusXIII (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Oh by the way: THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE!!!!ArceusXIII (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)