User talk:Tsuzuki26

	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to an internet forum in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. --JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to a blog in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. --JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The community and blog links are mandated by the artice because it is largely about them.

"Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself." - WP:EL

--Tsuzuki26 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

links

One of them gives me an error message, one is a collection of links, and the last is a Yahoo! user group which doesn't seem particularly useful. I'm guessing it is required to log into Yahoo! to access that last one, so it excludes a large number of Wikipedia readers. Also, I'm not sure what qualifies as a scholarly source.

We can bring the discussion to the talk page if necessary, so more people can chime in. --Lethargy 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the broken link. --Tsuzuki26 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see this is already posted on the talk page. My bad. --Lethargy 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ellwood

I am at as loss as to why you would give support to your buddies Taylor and Lupa, as regards inclusion next to Carroll, Burroughs, and the rest. It is streacking the rules to the breaking point, and others will not allow it to stand.

Sorry about that.

It just looks funny. Ask anyone who has even a moderate clue. You know it. I know it. And tens of thousands of chaos magicians/occultists willagree. He is an unknown. Giving lectures a couple or few of times, publishing a book that does NOT sell well, or living the meme, does not qualify here. You cannot use Wiki to make your self known. This will not stand.

But, best of luck.

(Above unsigned comment by 71.219.150.102 18:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC).)[reply]

He's no Saintstephen, I'll give you that. But if he's notable enough to have an article that I did not start, he's notable enough to be listed in the proper category. If you want to dispute his notability, you can do it over the article itself. And what does Lupa have to do with anything? --Tsuzuki26 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article was started by Rosencomet who is now under investigation for spamming Wikipedia with non-notable articles. Please see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in the Article for Deletion process? Did you remove the flag from the Taylor Ellwood article? Also, I think Lupa comes into this as Taylor has just started an article about her. As she is his wife, this is not appropriate. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Taylor Ellwood. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to vandalizing the page, 71.219.150.102 had placed the notice but did not create an articles for deletion entry. I reported them, and they were dealt with, so I felt safe in removing it. I apologize if that was the wrong course of action. --Tsuzuki26 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology.

I am at as loss as to why you would give inclusion next to Carroll, Burroughs, and the rest. It is stretching the rules to the breaking point, and others will not allow it to stand. I apologize if that was the wrong course of action.

It just looks funny. Ask anyone who has even a moderate clue. Tens of thousands of chaos magicians/occultists will agree. He is an unknown. Giving lectures a couple or few of times, publishing a book that does NOT sell well, or living the meme, does not qualify here. You cannot use Wiki to make yourself, or your wife, known. I apologize if that was the wrong course of action.

But, best of luck.

(Above unsigned comment by 71.219.142.137 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC).)[reply]

You may be right. But vandalism isn't exactly the best way to prove a point. --Tsuzuki26 01:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP edit you reverted, while possibly POV and not encyclopedic in tone, is not necessarily vandalism. I realize you have tried to work out your differences with the other user and it has not gone well. However, if the other user can provide a source for that information s/he can include it. It would need to also be phrased differently, though; as it is phrased now it is asking to prove a negative. I don't think you were wrong to revert the edit *on this basis*, however I would strongly recommend that you do not characterize edits with which you simply disagree as "vandalism". --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonomicon

Thanks for that! Maybe this should be stated in the article or at that books entry in the article as it is worthwhile information - what Wikipedia is about! I certainly found your info useful! FK0071a 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy

Just dropping in to say hello!!! CaliforniaKid 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

afd

AfD nomination of Paradigm piracy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paradigm piracy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradigm piracy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sticky Parkin 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Escaflowne_vhs.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Escaflowne_vhs.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Escaflowne_vhs.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Escaflowne_vhs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ray Sherwin

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Ray Sherwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]