User talk:Evilsboitoy

January 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Sith. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lcarscad (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CatharticLament

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article CatharticLament, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of CatharticLament. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of CatharticLament

An editor has nominated CatharticLament, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CatharticLament and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Evilsboitoy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. RJC ^Talk 08:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that use of sockpuppet accounts to influence a deletion discussion/vote is strictly prohibited. Accordingly, I have permanently blocked the accounts Degradedfaces (talk · contribs) and Wumpilicious (talk · contribs); further disruptive edits will result in you being temporarily or permanently blocked as well. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the article

Looks like you have taken the deletion of your article quite personally. I apologize if I had angered you, but I stand to my decision to delete the article. Let me analyze your message at the deletion page, point by point:

Yes, Degradedfaces and Wumpilicious are friends of mine who support my idea, so what if they made comments 'shortly' after me.
Please see the policy on sockpuppet accounts, especially the part about "Meatpuppets" (i.e. editing Wikipedia on another person's behalf). On the other hand, I may have jumped to conclusions too early; should the users e-mail me and confirm that they are different people from you, I will probably reconsider the block.
My god, you people act as if this is some horrible act. Have you read some of the stuff on Wikipedia? Yet, you want to criticize me.
That some of the other Wikipedia content may also be inappropriate is not an argument to keep your page. Just tell me what page(s) you refer to, and I'll clean it (them) up, ask other users to do it, or - when the page seems unsalvageable - nominate it for deletion or delete it myself.
The page does no harm and does not ask anyone to do anything other than accept the idea of the movement of catharticlaments.
See the policy of What Wikipedia is not; in particular, it is not a place to promote new movements or ideas, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Your article was about the phrase "cathartic lament" - and there seems to be nothing special about the phrase; the article cited no references for the conclusions it made (making the page a piece of original research which is outside the scope of Wikipedia); and after removing the unsourced material, we are left with a) trivial information about the etymology of the words "cathartic" and "lament" and b) a list of websites that use the phrase.
Many pages were referenced in that post that I have nothing to do with, so I have no personal gain.
Do you declare that neither you nor your friends have any connection with ANY of the listed websites, or that that's true for just SOME of them?
Wikipedia is not reliable by any means and putting my post on the cross doesn't make any more so. So go on and delete the page because it may add to the other useless information on the site.
I am not sure I follow your reasoning. So Wikipedia contains some unencyclopedic material (which cannot be completely ruled out due to its open nature), and for that reason I should not seek out and remove the inappropriate content? That makes no sense.
And, for the record, you made note that all three signed their name then put the four tildes, that is because that is what the page says to do. It states to sign your name before the four tilde marks.
No; the instructions mean that you should sign yourself BY typing the four tildes. It is interesting that those two of your friends have misunderstood the instructions (posted on your - and not on their - talk page) in the same way as you. (Okay, perhaps you told them.)

The bottom line is that the article you have created was inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and such was the consensus at the deletion discussion/vote page, your and/or your friends' listing of websites where the phrase is used notwithstanding. (If you disagree with the deletion, you may nominate the article for undeletion at deletion review; however, if an article clearly violates the policy, its deletion is unlikely to be overturned.

Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]