User talk:Me-123567-Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Me-123567-Me, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  GreenJoe 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a Cheeseburger[edit]

Cheeseburger.png  :) West Eddy (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Political party leaders[edit]

Just to let you know, I've asked User:West Eddy to cool it on a couple of things, including (a) their continual pointing out of the fact that you identify yourself on your userpage as a Green Party supporter, and (b) the fact that since an article about a political party leader can never just be deleted outright, but would indeed have to be either kept or redirected to the party's article, AFD isn't the correct process to follow. He does have the right as a Wikipedian to propose discussions about the articles, but I have advised him that he should be using our process for proposing redirects rather than the one for proposing deletion — and that if he initiates any further discussions on political party leaders through AFD, I'm going to speedy close them as being the wrong process for the situation.

As well, I also wanted to clarify something that I may not have been sufficiently clear about the last time I posted to your talk page: while it remains true that a political party leader's article can be redirected to the party if it isn't properly written and sourced right now, I may not have been explicit enough that even that result does not mean that the article must subsequently stay a redirect forever. Even if a discussion does end up closing as "redirect to party", if you or anyone else is willing to take the time to write a stronger, better sourced article in the future then you do still have the right to convert it back into a standalone article again. The only thing you couldn't do would be to convert it back into a standalone article that doesn't have any quality and sourcing improvements over the one that got redirected.

Hope that helps. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I actually think that a lot of the issue results from people misunderstanding the nature of what WP:AFD is in the first place. A lot of people think that a delete result creates a permanent injunction against a topic ever having an article, and thus we have to unconditionally keep certain classes of articles even if they're not actually useful or valuable in their current form — but, in fact, it's merely a judgement on the quality of the article as it actually stands at the time of deletion, and can be nullified by an improved article about the same topic.
In reality, if a person goes on to achieve more genuine notability than they had at the time of the first article, then a new article can be created again — for example, Cadence Weapon was AFDed in 2005 when all that could be written about him was "up-and-coming rapper from Edmonton who's working on his debut album", but once that album actually came out and he actually started garnering real media coverage for it, he became a legitimate article topic again. And similarly, Ontario MPP Monte McNaughton had previously been deleted as an unelected candidate with no real claim of notability for anything else, but became a legitimate article topic again once he actually won election to the legislature.
And, of course, that also applies to cases where a poor article currently exists but a better, more substantial article can be written: if the new article is a significant improvement over the old one, then the new version has to be included or excluded on its own merits again and cannot be rushed into the trash can just because the old one was.
So it's much more helpful to think of AFD or merger discussions as being about the quality of the article as written, rather than a judgement on the inherent notability or non-notability of the topic itself — because a good, well-written and well-sourced article can be kept even if a poor-quality one about the same topic was previously canned. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Anne Brooke[edit]

Hello Me-123567-Me. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Anne Brooke, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Green party leaders[edit]

Because you have shown a bias to Green parties, promote the expansion and existence of related articles, and participated in a number of West Eddy's Green politician AFDs, you are an involved editor, and cannot close the related discussions. Thanks for understanding, 117Avenue (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You were still involved because you didn't like West Eddy's nominations. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that they were performed by an unbiased user. 117Avenue (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Closing AfD in which you are an involved editor. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —West Eddy (talk)

Deletion nominations[edit]

Stop x nuvola.svg

Please stop making frivolous and out-of-process deletion nominations at WP:AfD. You have made at least three. In all of the following, it has been clearly explained to you that articles do not get deleted simply because some of their content is unsourced...

If you make any more such frivolous nominations, you may find yourself blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Just a good faith gesture from me to you, in light of our recent interactions. West Eddy (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Bogus warnings[edit]

I'm experienced enough an editor to know that your supposed 3RR warning on my page is bogus and meaningless, that I was neither in violation of 3RR nor close to it (and in fact less close than you on that particular page). Delivering false warnings is inappropriate; I've pointed that out to you when you've done it to others, and it's no more appropriate in dealing with me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my action at "Universal Life Church"[edit]

I believe that I unknowingly made a change and stomped on top of a change that you had made. This was a complete mistake on my part, quite unintentional. If I had realised that you had an opinion on the matter I would have made no further changes without asking you first. What actually happened was that I thought mistakenly that one of my edits had got lost when I accidentally closed a window, so I re-implemented the edit, never noticing that you had made a change in the meantime. At least, I think that that is what happened. Too many windows open, combined with stupidity on my part. Best wishes.CecilWard (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Universal Life Church edits[edit]

Hey, what's the problem? I made the update yesterday, adding Felipe Rose and Eric Anzalone from the Village People AND INCLUDED THE LINKS TO THE UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH (per the non-blog instructions). NOT a blog! Seriously? You removed my updates? Do I need to scan their ULC certificates? LOL In all seriousness, why don't their ULC minister pages on the official ULC website work as a proper reference? Please inform, as I am in contact with both Felipe and Eric, and I was attempting to update the page at their request.

Abby

Abby.heinz1 (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Will the Huffington Post work as a third party?: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/12/village-people-vegas-wedd_n_1089681.html

Abby.heinz1 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I put in Stevie Nicks as per her page here on Wikipedia and you took it out.

Speedy deletion nomination of Judith Van Veldhuysen[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Judith Van Veldhuysen 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 a person or group of people, 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.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Green Party of Prince Edward Island[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Green Party of Prince Edward Island requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 21:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Yukon Green Party/meta/color[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Yukon Green Party/meta/color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Yukon Green Party/meta/color[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Yukon Green Party/meta/color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 00:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Yukon Green Party/meta/shortname[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Yukon Green Party/meta/shortname requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Darcie-Lanthier.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Darcie-Lanthier.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

same sex marriage[edit]

He Me-, if you want to have a separate article, it might be best to put a split-proposal template on the relevant section, in stead of going ahead directly. Anyway, per BRD, I have reverted so the discussion can take place at the proper venue. Cheers! L.tak (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He Me-, on my talk page you indicate, that dispite my 2 reverts, you are going to go on anyway. I think that is not the way to go. If an edit is disputed and you are reverted, you should discuss it on the talk page; otherwise, we risk into getting into an edit war, and that's certainly not what I am after, but again: going on anyway is not the way to go…. L.tak (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:RSU logo.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:RSU logo.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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Werieth (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Opinion polls in Ontario general election, 2014[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you removed most of the opinion polls on this page. The edit summary you left was "Clean up". I don't see any reason to remove the opinion polls, especially the one from Ipsos Reid and Oraclepoll Research. The two by Innovative Research seem redundant, so I wouldn't mind deleting one of them, but I just want to know why you deleted the others? -- Kndimov (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Accidents happen! :) -- Kndimov (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Ontario Libertarian Party from Ontario General Election, 2014[edit]

Hi. I noticed you removed the Ontario Libertarian Party from the Ontario General Election page. This edit was done intentionally by myself, the candidate for Hamilton East - Stoney Creek. I think this was a mistake. We are running a full-slate in this election, and are running more ridings than the green party in this election, although not all the names of our candidates have been publicly released. Given this information, I feel it is right we receive our own category. Since your edit did not fall under the category of "clean-up", I have respectfully undone your edit, and I ask in the name of fair access to information that you do not repeat the edit. Thanks very much. I can be reached by email at mark.burnison@gmail.com

Mburnison (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What right do you have to determine which parties get included and who don't. And yes, the fact that we are running a full-slate does matter. You have no right to have removed our party. Such a self-serving act of vandalism cannot be tolerated.
What you did is a dirty political tactic. The media will hear about this.

What, pray tell, is this "other criteria" that you claim we need, beyond running a full-slate. I am happy to provide references for the full-slate and any other info, so are the countless others in our party who now know about the edit.

I am to understand that you get to decide what is consensus and what isn't. Who made you boss? But I will play your game. I have contributed.

You have failed to provide any reasonable argument supporting us not having our proper place on the list of electors. We have not hurt anyone. We have not provided any false information. You appear to stand on your own in this argument. We do not need to provide an explanation for why the names of our candidates should be on there. We are running in the election. We are running a full-slate. I do not need to answer to you. You need to answer to us, as you were the one who vandalized our candidate information.Mburnison (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Me-123567-Me. You have new messages at Negative24's talk page.
Message added 10:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-24Talk 10:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Libertarians? - Ontario election[edit]

What an interesting discussion, thank you for notifying me. -- Kndimov (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you might find this interesting: The three users who ganged up on you on the talk page, Mburnison, Livefree.sw and Brainstewie have only ever edited the 2014 Ontario election page and its talk page... suspicious huh? On top of that, the accounts were created at 03:44, 03:32, 03:45 (respectively) on the same day - 11 May 2014. I don't know about you but, this looks a little bit like sock puppetry or meat puppetry. Of course this is only a suspicion right now, an admin would have to check this out to make sure. -- Kndimov (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Meat puppet yes, sock, maybe. I can't say for sure, it may be three independent members of the party, will have to look at their contributions. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have directly asked on all of their talk pages, I think that is prudent before filing an SPI. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have checked their contributions and it looks very suspicious. They are all ganging up on the discussion. Half of the posts there come from these accounts! -- Kndimov (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I turned the formal discussion into an RFC. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is suspicious. We will see if they have a reasonable excuse. I think it could have been handed by discussion rather than an RfC, but c'est la vie. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Brainstewie made only one edit, and it was to rewrite part of what Mburnison said earlier... -- Kndimov (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
All their edits are limited to that article and its talk page, or my talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Correction: He also rewrote party of what Livefree.sw said as well. -- Kndimov (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Presumably you are referring to this edit? That could be a mistake, a comment by another user removed when commenting. It happens some times, particularly when there are edit conflicts. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ya, I got halted several times on this thread for edit conflicts myself :P . However I find it strange how the account has only one edit. -- Kndimov (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

They might be members of the party. I am not sure. I know most of us are outraged that Me-123567-Me vandalized the page by removing our information. I am sorry that this has caused a problem. I simply do not see why our candidates' information cannot be posted on the page. I wish no harm or ill intent to Me-123567-Me or to anyone, for the matter. My intent is not to break the rules. My intent is simply to provide voters access to our candidates' information. Wikipedia is the perfect place to do this. If I am/was doing something wrong, Me-123567-Me should have informed me and allowed me to change it, or simply moved our candidates' names into the "Other" category. One has to admit his ties to a differing party is suspicious. I did not change any other information on the article. I only added our candidates' names. I don't see what's wrong with this for love nor money, sir/ma'am. I just cannot. Please feel free to reach me at mark.burnison@gmail.com and I will be happy to provide proof of my identity and references for each of our candidates that I had added. If there is anything I can do to better improve this page, I would be happy to, but refusing us our own category (given our full-slate status and the rise in popularity of our party) and/or repeated total deletion of our candidates' information is simply wrong. We libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. My desire is not to fight. If Me-123567-Me truly cares for content, and his actions are not motivated from his ties to a rival party, then I am sure he would not object to allowing us to add our candidates' information. Thank you very much and best regards, Mburnison.Mburnison (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:YNDP-new-logo-web.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:YNDP-new-logo-web.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)