User talk:SunCountryGuy01

Unblocked

I've unblocked you, per our conversations by email. Make sure you don't let anybody else use your account in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I will most definitely refrain from letting any other person use my account. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 12:33, April 7, 2011 (UTC) 12:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, let's hope that doesn't happen again, eh ;) Did you still want to be on the RFA task force? Worm^TT · (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lord knows I dont want that to happen again. Yes I still want to be on the task force. RfA system still needs a lot of reform. Cheers. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 13:04, April 7, 2011 (UTC) 13:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good-o. You've got a bit of reading to do... but I've restored your name. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Task Force. Don't stress out too much, it's only human to make the odd stupid mistake from time to time. Take good care of yourself :o) Pesky (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

picture

A picture of Walcott is a great idea. But then there is the copyright issue. Gogue2 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Seriouser

Hello — I'm just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Seriouser, a page you tagged, because of the following concern: It's not patent nonsense. It may be a hoax, but the intended meaning is clear. Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion under the blatant hoax criteria. I guess I need a little tidying up in the CSD department. Still a little lost from my recent block. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 22:07, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Gfoley4 invoked the (controversial) IAR speedy deletion criteria; I'm not sure why, since it qualified under G3. Also, don't stress out over having been blocked — it's happened to some of our best users (even Jimbo!) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Badminton at the 2011 Pan American Games – Mixed doubles

Hello SunCountryGuy01. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Badminton at the 2011 Pan American Games – Mixed doubles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at your nominations for speedy deletion and I have deleted something; however, I have left two. I don't think they should be deleted, but I'll let you receive a second opinion. David Lee Smith is not an unequivocal copyvio of this, from what I can see. And Luna The Hedgehog cannot be speedied, in my opinion, because it's an article about a fictional character and does not fall within the purview of {{db-web}}, for me, at least, even though it is a bit of a borderline case... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Luna the hedgehog appears to be a character in a utterly non-notable youtube series of the same name [1]. I can't fault Suncountryguy for nominating it for speedy. Do you really intend to bring it to AFD? Yoenit (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand it - that's why I did not decline the speedy -; in such a case, however, I believe a PROD would be best. That said, if another admin wants to delete the page per WP:IAR or as a definite WP:SNOW, I'll most definitely not object. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. Yoenit (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And someone else did get to it in the end... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SunCountryGuy01. You have new messages at Yoenit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ACC

I just requested access to tools to become a member of the Wikipedia Account Creation Team. I would like to become a member of the ACC to help users have access to tools that user who are registered have access to. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 22:45, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I assume all the messages about "16 permissions in a month is too much" just went over your head? Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the massage above I requested access to tools to help other users create accounts. Plus ACC wasn't a userright last time I checked. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 22:53, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Account creator is a userright... Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I requested membership on the Account Creation Team. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 22:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I assume you did not read the qualifications? Yoenit (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done per Ironholds et al. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I expected that. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 02:23, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Addendum : You already had a declined request to join ACC under your former user name from all of 3 weeks ago. Your creating a second account on the ACC tool with your application today (numbers 799 & now 805 too) would be sockpuppetry at ACC. It is also not in keeping with appealing declined applications and heeding any counsel given in the initial decline reason from Pmlineditor. Consider the advice in my declining your application redundant to being declined for multiple accounts at ACC. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I thought we agreed the hat seeking was going to stop and you were going to make yourself useful in the mainpsace? If you keep this up, I will go to AN and get consensus to ban you from requesting any permissions, access or rights for a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bored

I see you found something to do but here are a couple of ideas anyways:

• Wikify drive is happening right now
• Look up coordinates using this tool. I find it is rewarding to look up coordinates for places in my immediate vicinity. Category:Articles needing coordinates --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken signatures

Your talk page posts are all signed as either of the following:

01:09, April 8, 2011 ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]])
01:09, April 8, 2011 ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]) 01:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct format is:

01:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use non-standard date/time stamps in your signature. They are incompatible with the gadget that converts timestamps to local time and the presence of duplicate times is even more confusing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I have corrected this. Cheers. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 04:25, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

It still doesn't work with my "local time" preference. Maybe remove the link to UTC? —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

About the red links in the "Giovanni Battista Rizza" entry

Hello SunCountryGuy01, I saw that you removed the red links about [[Integral representation]], [[Lucilla Bassotti]] and [[Rizza manifold]], so I wrote to ask you if mine practice of placing links to future projects (still not existing entries) is considered as a bad practice somewhere in Wikipedia: I did it so many other times. Ah, also I want to praise your new section button: it is very friendly and relaxing. :D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't an exact Wikipedia policy to not have red links on an article. Actually they are welcome and you are completely welcomed to place tham back. I just thought they were placed in the wrong spots. Firstly, no editor will create an article on Integral representation. It has already been created I am assured. Where I dont know. And I did my research on Lucilla Bassoti, she is not a notable subject for a Wikpedia article therefore making it difficult to make the article seem important and not worthy of AfD. And when I removed the [[Rizza manifold]] link I just was removing it because I thought it was an non-otable subject as well. I will reiterate, if you want to place them back it is completely within your rights to do so. Thanks and cheers. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that you had some good reason to do so, (can I call you so?) Jesse. Obviously I am not going to revert your edits, since there is no reason: I did this only once, but the guy was a true villain and also he deleted edits only on the basis of his own prejudices, without ever considering the citation in referred journals I gave him, a entirely different situation. However, I still have a few other questions:

1. Can you give me the name of someone who has been involved in the "integral representation" entry affair? I think this is the right choice, but I would like to know the details: if it is possible, I would like to know who assured you about that. Well, if you cannot, no problem, I'll ask to an expert.
2. Probably Lucilla Bassotti is not notable and it would be a long time lasting redlink (if not a eternal one :D), even if she won the Antonio Feltrinelli Prize in 1986: but I do not understand why do you think that Rizza manifold is not a notable Wikipedia. It is a topic on complex differential geometry and it is not mainstream: it is a complex manifolds supporting a Finsler structure, first studied by Giovanni Battista Rizza as Shoshichi Kobayashi acknowledges (Kobayashi, Shoshichi (1975), "Negative vector bundles and complex Finsler structures", Nagoya Mathematical Journal, 57: 153–166, MR 0377126, Zbl 0326.32016 {{citation}}: External link in |journal= (help), I did not place this reference in the entry yesterday, so this may have confused you). Why do you think this topic is not notable?

Ok, I think this is all. Thank you for your attention and best regards. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the link about Lucilla Bassotti would be a redlink for quite sometime before an article is created unless you created it. She is on the borderline of notable. And in reference to the Integral representation link, I dont think the article is covered because I dont see it here. You should probably create if you are an expert in that area. If you need help with cleanup or wikification. I am your man. Not really the best person to go to in reference to math. Could give you a couple websites to find good references that meet policy if you need them. I am not a mathematician so I would no about the Rizza manifold link. In all honesty I thought that that was a link to a person. I removed the links because I dont really like to see redlinks. I think it is untidy but that is my opinion. Thats all I think. Have anymore questions you know where to find me. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• So, to summarise, SCG:

1. You removed one link because it links to something that's already been created. You don't know where it's been created, you have no idea if it's been created, but you're sure it has.
2. You removed another link because you had researched the individual and found she was not notable, despite the fact that our inclusion guidelines cover people who have won prestigious awards and consider them automatically worthy of inclusion.
3. You removed a third link because you thought this was also non-notable. You are not a mathematician, you have, as far as I'm aware, no mathematical training, and have presented zero evidence in support of your assertions.

This follows up a block, almost 20 requests for userrights because you claim to know what you're doing, and repeated speedy deletion declines. SCG, editing Wikipedia involves understanding the policies behind it, and you simply don't. Before giving advice to a user about notability, or tagging articles for deletion, read WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC and associated pages - familiarise yourself with them. If you don't, this will probably be a very short stay. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)