User talk:Omegakingboo: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:23, 13 June 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Omegakingboo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Movie Codec Forums, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Movie Codec Forums

A tag has been placed on Movie Codec Forums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coverage in newspapers will support the claim of notability! Provide links if the articles are online. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of MovieCodec Forums

A tag has been placed on MovieCodec Forums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Derdev789 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Derdev, and the speedy deletion for this was already dropped before.Omegakingboo (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC) As for the deleting of the rest of the content, "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers". That was this part, it was describing the content. Now I see above, it's already gone through this.Omegakingboo (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Hey! Why am I banned? I'm not a sock puppet, Derdev is from MvC and that's why he came on and edited the page. We are not the same person! Please unban me, I'm not a sock puppet.[reply]

{{unblock|Derdev is not me, I promise you this, he is from MvC and came to edit the thread. Check our IPs, thank you and please unban me. Also, I am the creator of the MovieCodec Forums thread, not Derdev. And I did not spam my own article thank you, and for the Goku thread, sorry for that, I was confused and trying to add a redirection}}

Since both you and Derdev789 are blocked right now, I think an angle of discussion is omitted in the AfD discussion. I'm willing to unblock you (but not Derdev) at this time. There's an additional restriction on the unblock: that you not revert any edits to the MCF article. If something has been deleted and you think it should be re-added, discuss it on the talk page, but do not re-add it yourself. Is that acceptable? —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is, I also made a mistake on the thread though, in google you search "i am lonely" not just "lonely". I will be working to find more places MvC is mentioned and/or featured. Would site that show website stats count?Omegakingboo (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the stats, no. Website stats aren't a measure of the notability of the site. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were unblocked on the condition that you do NOT revert the clean ups of the article. You have now violated that restriction and this has been noted. And no, the massive details about your individual forums are not important. Wikipedia does not exist for you and your friends to advertise your forums nor to help you "get more attention", it exists to provide information on already notable topics. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

see above

Request handled by: —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I completely understand that, but taking off the one paragraph is stupid. The Lounge not only is the home of the notable thread, but it gets more attention than even the main site, please undo and put the paragraph back since it is the most important pieceOmegakingboo (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) of information on there. NOT the ridiculous wall of text, the small paragraph, thank you.[reply]

No, it is not important in terms of Wikipedia articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It is the home of the thread that is notable, so it is the only notable thing about MvC, it deserves to have it's own article instead of the site itself. Would that be okay? Since it is more notable than Movie Codec, The Lounge actually gets media attention as Movie Codec does not. I just thought that since it's part of Movie Codec that it should go there, it is notable to those polices also.Omegakingboo (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't notable either. It doesn't deserve its own article anymore than the entire forums do. It is all part of the forums. The only thing minorly notable is the guy who wrote the thread, he could have his own article (as noted in the AfD). Movie Codec is not notable. Its forums are not notable. The Lounge section of the forums are not notable. The thread is a one-time event and really not that notable either. And FYI, calling someone an asshole is a violation of Wikipedia's civility policies. You need to understand this is NOT a social site, this is NOT a place for advertising your forums, nor is it a place where you can act however you want like you can at MvC. There are policies and guidelines here and they will be enforced. I'm not "trying to get you banned" you are getting yourself banned by refusing to read and follow the rules here and continuing to act in inappropriate and abusive ways. Even some of your own forum members have noted that creating the article was silly and doesn't belong here. Why not try listening to them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are being one but sorry, I'm new here. But it would be the thread that was notable, not the creator, since the thread is what got attention.Omegakingboo (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the thread itself is not notable. It was, again, a one-time event. The creator, however, is also a published author who could probably meet our biography notability guidelines and could have an article when briefly mentioned the thread. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "lonely" person? How do we know the creator of the thread?

Articles for deletion nomination of MovieCodec Forums

I have nominated MovieCodec Forums, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MovieCodec Forums. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite unfair as I cannot defend the article while banned. And for the last time, I am not Derdev. http://lounge.moviecodec.com/topics/69626p4.html#msg2480998. Why do you hate me so much?Omegakingboo (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will I ever be unbanned? T_TOmegakingboo (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 Well you are being one but sorry, I'm new here.  But it would be the thread that was notable, not the creator, since the thread is what got attention.[[User:Omegakingboo|Omegakingboo]] ([[User talk:Omegakingboo#top|talk]]) 19:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 :No, the thread itself is not notable. It was, again, a one-time event. The creator, however, is also a published author who could probably meet our biography notability guidelines and could have an article when briefly mentioned the thread. -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
+You mean the "lonely" person?  How do we know the creator of the thread?
 ==[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:MovieCodec Forums]]==