User talk:Sandor Clegane

Welcome!

Hello, Sandor Clegane, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! (Emperor (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

PROD warnings

It is a courtesy to add the PROD warnings to the talk page of the person who created the article so they get a chance to address the concerns you have. I've done the three for the comics articles, but it is worth bearing in mind fr the future. (Emperor (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Josh Stewart (musician)

I declined the speedy you placed on this article, as there are assertions of significance in it. It would warrant an AfD discussion before being deleted. Also, another admin had previously declined a speedy tag on it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Katrina Carlson, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, you only have to remove controversial or potentially libellous material. Nothing that you removed fitted that description. – ukexpat (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Katrina Carlson, you will be blocked from editing. ukexpat (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP, in particular the following: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The material that you removed did not warrant immediate removal as it was not contentious. Thank you. And please don't template the regulars. – ukexpat (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing these edits as vandalism is totally inappropriate, as it implies bad faith. I thought you knew better than this Ukexpat. Kevin (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kraven's First Hunt AfD - one or three articles on this?

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt you incidate you are also nomiing two other articles but they aren't tagged for AfD. Could you please clarify this on the AfD? -- Banjeboi 02:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account

On your user page you say: "I'll be using this account if I need to make any 'controversial' edits that might garner such reactions."

WP:SOCKPUPPET says "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that they provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification)." That section is more specific - if you aren't prepared to make the account connections public then you should inform the relevant people so they can check there are no problems.

This lack of transparency could be a problem. Some of your earliest edits were to PROD three Spider-Mn articles all started by the same editor and you failed to notify them of this (which a new editor might do from ignorance of the guidelines). Then when the PRODs were removed you nominated them and another Spider-Man article by the same user for AfD.

This could definitely raises concerns that this account is being used to pursue an agenda or even a vendetta and you need to be more proactive about this (rather than asking concerned admins to contact you). I suspect there is not be a problem but you do need to take further steps to "avoid any suspicion of sockpuppetry" and I thought it best to flag this now so you can address it before someone else sees this as a potential issue and takes it further. (Emperor (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Technically there is nothing wrong with an article on a single issue but it does need to demonstrate notability (and personally, as I said in the AfD, it should explain why it needs its own article).

For the details on who to contact see WP:SOCKPUPPET#Alternative account notification. (Emperor (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for that. Is there anywhere people can go to or a person to speak to who can confirm this if there are concerns raised? (Emperor (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is to confirm that the Arbitration Committee has been informed as to the identity of the other account operated by this user. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Vernetti

I tried to add citation, references and reliable sources.

You can check.

The 3 first citation are from the official web site of the Italian MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the 4th one links to the web site of the Alliance of Democrats (also on en.wikipedia) an indipendent network of 70/80 political parties around the world.

If you have any other suggestions are welcomed.

This is the reason why I don't understand why you insert the quote "This is and autobiography" and

"This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources".

Could you remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianni Vernetti (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bests

Jack Passion

Why did you move Jack Passion to User: Jack Passion? This page is clearly intended to be an article, not a user page and it does assert notability: "reigning world champion of beards" which is true. Check out [1] - the guy clearly meets the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your history, I see you have done this for other pages where the page title & user name match. I don't think this is appropriate unless the article is clearly intended to be a user page. If it is an intended article and the person is not notable, then moving it to user space doesn't really solve anything because promotional material isn't allowed in user space either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hound

Hey, I just saw your user name and I had to tell you I like it. Ther only thing your userpage is missing is the three dogs of House Clegane. Cheers.

Sandor Clegane, HellinaBucket has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State atheism

I have a hair trigger when it comes to reverting unexplained removal of sourced material. Please include an edit summary with each edit so others can better keep track of article changes. Thanks, and cheers. Nick Graves (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State atheism

What was wrong to what I did to the "state atheism" article, wikipedia admits that Jainism is compatable with atheism because it considers the universe eternal. None of the cited sources refer to North Korea and Afghanistan as state atheist. And Dinesh is outright wrong about communism being inherently atheistic because as wikipedia itself admits in the "Christian Communism" article, Thomas J. Haggerty and Camilo Torres were indeed communist and yet they were priests So what was wrong with what I said?

Susan Singleton

It was already deprodded once, if you want it deleted you'll need to take it to AfD. Fences&Windows 01:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Susan Singleton

An article that you have been involved in editing, Susan Singleton, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Singleton. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed speedy deletion tag: Miłosz Horodyski

Hi Sandor Clegane! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Miłosz Horodyski- because: the article makes a credible claim of importance or significance. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS

Hi. I've just been taking a look at this policy: WP:CANVAS, and would consider this edit 1 to be against what it suggests. Can I ask you to not do this in future? Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Manaz

I declined CSD-A7, but feel free to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Liam Catterson

Hello Sandor Clegane, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Liam Catterson has been removed. It was removed by Liam Catterson with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Liam Catterson 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) 19:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

MEgan Fox

According to Kevin in his first chiming in, this is about reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight. The newer sources, specifically from MSN.COM and from ABCNEWS meet what he claimed and what others also agreed with him on, meet the Reliably Reported Standard. As to Undue Weight, it says we have to judge based on the reliability of the information, not the number of editors, that is right in the UNDUE WEIGHT criteria, with a specific quote as

""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.""

So, the question is, to both Kevin and to Sandor Clegane, you were saying one thing, both agreed, and now that the two issues you both specifically cited as making the entry are being met, you are now changing the argument to what now??? Whippletheduck (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what was agreed upon. You and Kevin both said that RELIABLE REPORTING and UNDUE WEIGHT were the two main issues here. I've met both issues, as you BOTH said an entire paragraph was too much I've dropped it down to one sentence, and UNDUE WEIGHT flat out states that Sources trumps prevalence of Wikipedia Editors". So I'm putting it back in and if you remove it, I'll send it to 3R.

Deal? 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There was precisely zero consensus for inclusion either at Talk:Megan Fox or at WP:BLPN. Kevin (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HAH!! PPOR where I have said ANYTHING politcal on Wikipedia, I can't remember EVER doing it!!! You on the other hand have constantly brought poltiics into this discussion page. If I were a conservative and against what Megan said, why did I not chime in on it immediately??? I've said constantly that I enjoyed looking at Megan enough to look the other way on this issue, although I did say that I still think the mention should be made. Anyhow, go ahead and revert it again so I can go to 3R on you!! Whippletheduck (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I noticed you failed to address any of the "politics" that you threw on me in your previous response. Tells me that you are a liberal that is out to defend megan at all costs. 2) as said previously, there are probably a lot on the left that would applaud Megan for what she said. Another reason to mention it. 3) if that part about UNDUE WEIGHT is understood, then it flat out says that if something is properly sourced, then all the stuff all the arguments by the majority are not what is considered.

You are out to defend Megan at all costs. I'd say something about (object used to propell wind to produce cooling that rhymes with VAN) plus (word for male adolecents usually younger then 13 that rhyimes with TOYS), but that might be to obvious.

Well/ I'm working on the 3RR noticeboard right now, trying to figure it all out, as it's the first time I've done it to someone. If I understand it correctly, I seem to have the right on my side, regardless of what you and the term I referenced above think. You BOTH said that at the time, the sources were not good enough and an entire paragraph undue weight. My new revisions conform to both so I think it will stand. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, does the first Revert count as part of it? [[2]] revert #1, you kjnow what, you are right ,that is only 2 reverts. Sorry, you just saved me a lot of typing at 3RR notice board, which I am still on the preview stage and still trying to figure out.

I am going to CUT AND PASTE my work and save it in macword (ha, would a conservitive be using a MAC, by the way?) that I have enough saved if you REVERT it again though. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Wonderwall is the name of MSN's official page where they report on celebrity/entertainment news. Shows what you don't know, or are you just that far in the tank to protect megan???? Whippletheduck (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Kipkay

Hello Sandor Clegane, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Kipkay - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 08:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

icloud

Any reason or maybe conflict of interest why you want to constantly remove icloud from the [Web desktop] section, 'Comparison of web desktops'? This list becomes more accurate with the inclusion of icloud, which is one of the well known and respected web desktops available with a large user base. All other major web desktops are listed. Why deny one single company to be in the list?

I believe the meaning with wikipedia is to provide as accurate information as possible and not withelding information. Do you have a conflict of interest, representing one of the other web desktops? I cannot find any other reason for not letting icloud be in the list with the objective information I entered. Xcerion (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]