User talk:SamuraiClinton

Welcome!

Hi SamuraiClinton! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! JoaoRicardo 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of gaps in Interstate Highways

Three-digit Interstates are allowed to connect to their parents indirectly, via another one of the same parent. I have added something in the intro about this. --SPUI (talk) 00:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello - some of your writing is a bit hard to understand. Is English your first language, out of curiousity? Evercat 02:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interstate 875

Please stop adding stuff about this road. It has not existed and there are no current plans for it. It doesn't even make sense where you put it (List of intrastate Interstate Highways).

Hey. This article here: Romance-Interstate standards analogies doesn't appear to be anything except a weird joke. Don't create stuff like that, and definitely don't link to it in other articles. Everyking 02:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A 'tertiary interstate', if the term is even used outside WP, is not a 3DI that spurs from a 3DI. If anything, it is simply another term for a 3DI. That itself only seems to be used on Wikipedia ([1] [2]). --SPUI (talk) 03:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make up terms. Unless you have some offline source, the term Hypotenuse highway is not used anywhere. --SPUI (talk) 03:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neologisms

I know that you're the person who vandalized Wikipedia with a bunch of neologisms a while back. Let's put that in the past. Could you please stop creating articles like Hypotenuse highway and -pedia? Many of the things you've written are inaccurate or made-up in some way. Many of the articles you write get deleted, and many more need to be rewritten or heavily edited. You're welcome to contribute here, but up until now your contributions have been problematic. I'm sorry to be so blunt with you but you're creating a lot of work for other people. Rhobite 23:54, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

And also, could you please use the edit summary box? Thanks. Rhobite 00:26, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think of bogus additions to Wikipedia like I used to; I am trying to avoid neologisms and I am trying to use existing words. If I think of a setup of 2 words separated by a space, I don't think of them as neologisms. Will you accept terms that use existing words separated by a space despite the rarety? --GoofyGuy 13:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think you should make those up either. Please stick to actual words and phrases. It's pointless to make up your own phrases, since they'll get deleted. It doesn't matter whether it has a space in it or not. If you're interested in writing articles which are actually needed, please see Wikipedia:Requested articles. You may also want to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Rhobite 16:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Speculation

Please don't create articles that speculate. Example: Unnamed portable XBOX.

There's a policy for this: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Thanks. --Milkmandan 22:15, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Copyrighted materials

Please do not post copyrighted materials to Wikipedia. Zilwaukee Bridge was copied verbatim from [3]. older≠wiser 01:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• REPLY: I am sorry, now I know not to do verbatim copying from copyrighted websites; now I will only do different setups.

stubs for things that are not ever referred to by the name you choose

Please stop adding stub articles like Temporary Interstate 69 (between Lansing and Flint) or Temporary Interstate 75 (central Michigan) or I-75 (between Grayling, MI and M-32). There are at least two problems with stubs like these: 1) no one refers to these entities by these names and 2) these entities are entirely unremarkable on their own and descriptions of them belong in the context of related articles (like I-75, I-69, ot M-78). These sub-stubs with invented names (replete with nearly unintelligible language usage) are starting to become annoying. older≠wiser 03:14, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Listen, I am trying to have the best intentions for Wikipedia nowadays. I am a roadgeek, road historan and whatsoever. These stubs and substubs that I generated are not meant to annoy anyone, they are here for historical value and retroactive curiousity about freeway construction projects from the past. --GoofyGuy 03:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • They are not much use if they lack content and nobody is able to find them. I think you have the potential to be a good editor here, but there have been a lot of problems with your articles up to this point. I think you should try editing existing articles (instead of creating your own) until you get a better sense of what constitutes the perfect article. You should read Wikipedia:Naming conventions too. Simple names are almost always better than long ones, and many times you don't even have to create a new article. You could edit Interstate 75 instead of creating a new stub about each road feature. Rhobite 03:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to imply that you should stop writing altogether. I agree with Rhobite's advice. I also think you have the potential to become a good contributor here. There are plenty of other road geeks here. I'm not exactly a road geek, per say, more of a Michigan geek, and as such have an interest in articles on Michigan roads (having written or edited a fair number of them). The little bits of information in poorly named articles aren't much use if no one finds them because of the name or that can't understand them because there isn't enough context provided. I think it'd be much better to try to incorporate the information into existing articles, or perhaps into more substantial new articles that address many of the stub topics (like perhaps something like Construction of Interstate 75 in Michigan). older≠wiser 03:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • If there's enough information, it might make sense simply to make Interstate 75 in Michigan and put anything that would go on I-75 there. I'm thinking of doing the same for I-95 and Rhode Island. As for the easiest way to clean these up, you wrote them, so just copy and paste the contents into the I-75 and I-69 articles, and put {{db|moved to I-75}} on the page. --a roadgeek, SPUI (talk) 13:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I admit that I am a bit of a road geek. Take a look at my user page to see what I mean. You iz gonna love my Ridge Route and U.S. Highway 99 articles. In the meantime, I don't have additional advice to offer beyond the excellent advice you've already received. - Lucky 6.9 09:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Freeway system of Los Angeles

We already have an article called Southern California freeways for this topic. Please make your additions there. Zzyzx11 23:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I merged your "Many of the firsts of Los Angeles freeways" to Southern California freeways#Many of the firsts of Southern California freeways. Zzyzx11 23:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BS I-75 (Mackinaw City)

Since you created this before creating your account, you probably don't have it on your watchlist - just letting you know that it's on VFD. If it's not pure speculation, please provide a source, --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A word of advice

Some of your articles are being listed on WP:VFD because they are minor subjects that can easily be included in a larger article (like the part of Old 27 in US 27, or the sections of I-75 in I-75). Deletionists don't like these, and even some inclusionists barely tolerate them. If you want to see your stuff stay, I recommend adding to larger articles wherever possible, including taking care of the current matters on VFD. --SPUI (talk) 12:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, you may want to make one article called Unnumbered Michigan State Trunklines or something similar, and include all of them. --SPUI (talk) 12:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Also, if you want people to take you seriously, you should sign VFD votes with your own name using 4 tildes. Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Club Roast

I have the best intentions for Wikipedia. Being banned would be a bad thing for me. I know some articles that I made have a VfD on the, but despite of that, I still have good intentions for Wikipedia.

This thing about Chevy Chase's Club Roast show is that I thought the name for his show was a funny one, and I thought it would be worth making an article about; I feel bad for you proposing to ban me from Wikipedia on the VfD page for that article I made. Just because pages I make have VfD dosen't mean that I am intentionally making bogus contributions to Wikipedia.

One reason why I make some articles is because my mind runs out of ones that would have enough significance to be kept; but having contributions with VfDs shouldn't spark any suspicion on me!

• Frankly, I get the impression you're just having a bit of fun with us. I've been watching your edits for a while, and "Club Roast" isn't your first spurious article. In fact, I count nine of your pages on VfD right now. If you're honest in wanting to be a valuable Wikipedian, then my apologies for suggesting that you be banned. But it's hard to believe that after all this time, after so many of your articles have been nominated for deletion, after you have shown no signs of changing your behavior, that you're just a victim of circumstance. Make no mistake: we don't enjoy ganging up on people. We don't do it without cause. If you want your presence here to be appreciated, you have to work at it a little. Don't expect other people to happily clean up your mistakes. Don't create pages on a whim. If you have nothing to say, don't write an article. Check out policies and guidelines and just develop a familiarity with the rules so you know what we expect from you. You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but you have to learn where it belongs. Binadot 03:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • P.S. Although other users may disagree, I've always considered it bad form to vote on your own page's VfD. If you choose to do so, always sign the page with your own username (not "Goofy Guy"), or people may suspect you're trying to cast a sock puppet vote. Binadot 03:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your Articles and Edits

Howdy.

As others have already pointed out, many of your articles get nominated for VfD because they don't really fit the mold for what subjects are covered in Wikipedia. If you haven't already, carefully read what Wikipedia is not and these guidelines on importance and notability. (Keep in mind that the latter link is not yet Wikipedia policy, only a general guideline, but parts of it may be in the future.) I know you already have a hang of creating and editing articles, but you might want to read through those as well, to pick up tips you may not be aware of.

You seem to be very enthusiastic about Wikipedia, and I commend you for your politeness while dealing with those of us who frequent VfD -- some of us (myself included) can get quite cranky, or just simply terse. If you learn from the links above, and concentrate on editing the topics you know well, I think you could become a valuable contributor. However, if you continue to create and edit articles in the way you are doing so now, I can only see frustration for both of us. Good luck. android↔talk 02:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Samurai, I'd like to give you some friendly and totally unsolicited advice: Read up on the Wikipedia:Manual of style and especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Strive for quality over quantity. Surely there's some subject(s) you care deeply enough about to either expand a current article or to begin one on something that is of broader interest than the one about the Sesame Street parody. I've been here about a year and I really don't have a lot of original articles to my credit, but the ones I have done are of general interest. A eBay user in Australia (I'm in Southern California) recently cribbed part of my Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 article for the auction of his own car! That truly blew my mind to see my own words paraphrased on an eBay auction. This is the kind of power this site can wield. Use it well. Best, - Lucky 6.9 23:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "GoofyGuy" thing -- I've been using all of your nicknames when discussing your articles on VfD because you have variously used three different names to sign your edits, and they're different enough from each other that other users might get confused. I'm only doing this so those that may remember the "GoofyGuy" nickname from earlier discussions realize that SamuraiClinton, GoofyGuy, and TheSamurai are one and the same. android↔talk 22:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Changing your nickname wouldn't have prevented you from being banned. It's quite easy to tell which edits belong to which usernames, regardless of how they are signed. android↔talk 23:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Category:New Orleans culture

Hi. If you didn't know, take a look at the Zydeco and Cajun articles you just added that category to. No doubt relevent to Louisiana culture, but not specifically New Orleans. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 23:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neologisms

I have no idea, as I've never used Wiktionary. My guess is that they will unless they're in widespread use. --SPUI (talk) 00:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Age of Aquarius

A quick Google would be more than enough to provide you the basic information to create this article. Even without Googling, I can tell you that the medley is from the musical "Hair" by Andrew Lloyd Webber and was performed by the 5th Dimension. Putting down some malformed substub, slapping a stub notice on it and hoping that someone cleans up after you is, quite frankly, poor etiquette. I could expand this, but I'm going to let you do it. Your behavior is running you the very real risk of banishment from further editing on this site. Please do the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 02:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really doubt your intentions. That's why I'm trying to guide you, harsh as it may seem. It isn't always easy to express that in writing. I'm not an admin so I can't block you. Nor would I if you were doing the right thing. If you take a look at the article now, another editor added a few basic facts that were easily obtainable with a quick Google search. Before putting fingers to keyboard, do a bit of research first. That's all I'm asking. If you're for real, and I hope you are, please take my advise. Now that it's expanded a bit, why not research the subject a bit more and expand it further? That should help you get a better feel for what goes on here. Have a great weekend...signing off for now. Remember: You can always leave a question on my talk page. Take care. - Lucky 6.9 02:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Papa Was a Rolling Stone"

*a short time after PWaRS was made, some funk song that interpolated parts from it with the recurring quote "standing on the top" was made; if a Wikipedian knows what that song is, add it to this section.

That song is "Standing on the Top", another Temptations song. It was written and produced by Rick James in 1982 for the group's reunion tour with David Ruffin and Eddie Kendricks. It does not sample or in any way reference or interpolate "Papa Was a Rolling Stone". --FuriousFreddy 00:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2 Questions about Votes for Dis-ambiguation

Here are 2 questions:

1. Shouldn't it have "Wikipedia:" at the start of its title?? I moved it there shortly after I saw your first vote.

1. How should it be abbreviated to distinguish it from Vfd standing for votes for deletion??

Georgia guy 17:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation process

Hi,

You seem to be creating a new process for suggesting pages that should be disambiguated. I don't think this is a good idea. Why do you think Wikipedia needs this new process? I'm concerned that it may be an example of m:instruction creep. Have you discussed this with anyone else? It would be good to get consensus on whether this is necessary. If other people agree that it is necessary, they can help to build the pages for it.

I've started a discussion of this process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) under the heading "Votes for disambiguation??"

FreplySpang (talk) 18:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clunky cartridge button

I see you created this page, and someone has nominated it for deletion. Could you please go to that discussion page and explain why this article is valuable.-gadfium 23:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creating Articles w/ Categories

Good work creating new articles. When you create things, it helps tremendously to assign them to an accurate category (see WP:CG for info). If you're really not sure about categories, at least assign your new articles a stub category (see WP:SC for info). By assigning a category, you help make sure your new articles don't get lost as 'orphans' that are not associated with related topics. Feco

"Monika" articles

Samurai, you have got to add more to an article besides half-finished sentences. Your last two entries are speedy-deletion candidates as they stand. Please take another look at the tutorials if you need to. - Lucky 6.9 03:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• OK, then...all you have to do is a bit of research beforehand like I suggested before. You could have easily Googled the phrase and added a bit more than what you recalled from memory. Same with that "Men In Black" substub I just stumbled on. If it helps, remember this: Keep the end user in mind. This is supposed to be a research site. - Lucky 6.9 04:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Of course. I used "Google" generically. Feel free to use whatever search engines you wish. - Lucky 6.9 04:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop creating your nonsense substubs. RickK 04:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Lists

I'd rather if you used complete sentences instead of simply adding lists of trivia to articles. But if you absolutely must form your additions into lists, please spell "occurrences" correctly. Thank you. Rhobite 05:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's spelled "occurrences". Not "occurances", and not "occurences". Two R's and zero A's. May I suggest that you download a spellchecker for your preferred browser, such as ieSpell for IE or Spellbound for Firefox? Thank you. Rhobite 00:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Context

Please, add context to your articles. For example, your article on "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime" never mentions the TV series it's an episode of. Have you ever considered editing existing articles rather than creating new ones? You might get better results that way. Yours, Meelar (talk) 21:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, please. We've all been patient and helpful since you seem to be very enthusiastic about this site. For that, we thank you. However, a lot of what you're doing is highly disruptive. This latest article is an excellent example. Unless they're particularly notable, single episodes of TV programs aren't considered encyclopedic. This is another example of information that's better served and presented at the main South Park article or perhaps the list of South Park episodes. OK? Deal? Friends? - Lucky 6.9 21:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please Stop

Please stop:

1. Adding "jokes" and pop-culture references to well-established articles. It's great that Beavis started masturbating in front of the Washington Monument, but that really ought to go into an article about him, don't you think?
2. Creating misspelled redirects and using them in articles. Look up a word before you use it in an article. It's obvious you've since realized your mistake, but now we have a nearly-useless redirect from Falix symbol to Phallic symbol, and you didn't even bother changing it in the Washington Monument article.
3. Adding links to your own newly-created articles in "See Also" sections in well-established articles. If you really think Gettysburg address needs a pop-culture references section, add it there; don't create new articles like 4 score and 7 years ago.
4. Creating useless templates like Template:Nn. Things like common VfD votes don't need templates.
5. Using some X in articles. If you're going to write substubs like X is a song by some band, at least do some research and find out which band it is. Google is your friend.

In short, Wikipedia is much better served if you add what you know to existing articles, unless the subject is large enough to warrant its own article. Individual songs, individual episodes of TV shows, and jokes and pop-culture references are not examples of things that need their own topics. android↔talk 03:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not IMDb, which can easily be used (and is more suited) to providing complete soundtrack listings for pretty much every movie ever made. Would you care to address any of the other points I've brought up? android↔talk 03:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

My friend, you are right on the verge of being drummed off this site. I don't want to see that happen. If you continue to treat this site in the way you have been, it's a certainty. Android brings up perfect reasons as to why. The 4 score and 7 years ago entry is not the sort of thing someone will look up before looking up the Gettysburg Address. BTW, the proper way of writing something like that does not involve good old Arabic numerals, but the words for them: "Four score and seven years ago." In fact, take a look at the main article. It's written that way in Lincoln's own hand. Actually, what you've done is a pretty good redirect to the main article. While it's likely that someone might type the phrase searching for the Gettysburg Address, it just isn't an article on its own. I'll beseech you once again: Please do the right thing. - Lucky 6.9 04:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autosexuality

The vote was not redirect and merge. VFDs last 5 days, but given what's been voted so far, it's a clear keep. Please do not unilaterally impose decisions that have strong consensus against them. --SPUI (talk) 14:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Autosexuality

Unless I'm severely mistaken, you do not have the authority to close VfD discussions, especially when the consensus is clearly not what you say it is. This should be treated as vandalism. Do not do this again. android↔talk 14:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, you're really pushing it. Listen to your old pal. I think you could be a terrific asset but you keep on doing things that will get you banned. Users have been banned for far less than what you've done. You're starting to tick off administrators which means the bureaucrats are going to sit up and take notice. - Lucky 6.9 18:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Based on this action and other past patterns of behavior, I have written up a Request for Comment regarding your articles and edits. You are invited to add your response. android↔talk 02:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Micropolis Corporation

I noticed you created a new page, Micropolis Corporation, but you made a redirect to Hard disk. I think it would be better if you did a little research about the company and see if you can make it to and article... or at the very least make it a stub. Just a suggestion. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Then, I am curious. Why did you create the redirect in the first place? Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I am not sure I follow you. It might be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? and point to me the specific reason you are suggesting here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • I still think you can make at least a 1-2 paragraph stub out of it. Have you heard of archive.org, the Internet archive? I believe if you enter Micropolis' old website www.micropolis.com into the wayback machine search engine, you can get some info on the company. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I cleaned up your additions on Micropolis Corporation. For your information: Notice how I bolded "Micropolis Corporation" in the first sentence in the article. This is part of the style of writing encyclopedia: you bold the main subject in the first sentence. Next, look at the second paragraph and notice how I really paraphrased a paragraph from Hard disk. Now, since this article is a stub, I put {{stub}} in the article. Finally, I attached Category:Defunct computer companies of the United States because another company listed on hard disk, MiniScribe, also had that category. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC & Traverse City

Howdy. I added some talk to the RfC talk page regarding your recent edits on the Traverse City articles. Please give it a look. android↔talk 22:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Black culture of Detroit is a large-enough concept that it might deserve an article on its own; I'm not sure about that, since I know very little about Detroit, but it's a good, long article. The Culture of Traverse City article and the Tourism section of Traverse City, Michigan are both small enough – and not likely to grow much larger – that it's only natural to merge them into the main article on the city. The "there's a merge directive there already" excuse is pretty meaningless since you put it there yourself. android↔talk 22:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fraud and Hoax

Fraud and Hoax are completely different. A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real -- a practical joke. Fraud is more of a crime to steal money. Therefore, I strongly disagree that they should be merged into one article. Besides, there is enough content on each of them to have them separate. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I just saw that somebody else put your Fraudulent hoax on speedy delete. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyway, even though they are similar, many people regard them as separate topics. Again, a hoax is more of a practical joke while fraud is a crime to trick people into giving away their money. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• However, I will admit that there are enough hits on Google about "Fraudulent hoax" that we could possibly make an article out of it. Is that ok with you? Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

La Cienega Boulevard

Since you seem to enjoy roads and highways, I thought you might want to sneak a peek at my latest article. La Cienega is really notable, I used to drive it often and I was surprised to find a red link. I also took this as an opportunity to show you what a short road article should look like. What I did was simple. I combined what I already knew like you do but I added info I found with a quick Google on the history of the boulevard as an incomplete freeway. In a few minutes, I had a decent short article complete with a couple of Caltrans photos. Hope this helps. - Lucky 6.9 19:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Oops. The photos were not Caltrans as I thought they were. You can still view them at the external link section. - Lucky 6.9 21:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship

I have nominated you for Administrator status. Please go to the WP:RFA page and accept the nomination. 63.173.114.137 22:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently this was removed due to my anonymity. I'll have it back up in a few moments when I create an account. 63.173.114.137 22:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)