User talk:Polynomial123/Archive1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Polynomial123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Bosque Real Country Club, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Abce2 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Bosque Real Country Club

A tag has been placed on Bosque Real Country Club 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 club, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Abce2 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Abce2 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. Abce2 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to 1995 PGA Tour. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Boracay Bill (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Rory Sabbatini, you will be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Rory Sabbatini was changed by Pinkgirl34 (u) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2009-04-20T21:03:18+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unblock on hold|1=PhilKnight|2=I understand that I have been blocked because I continued vandalizing Wikipedia even when the warnings were issued. I understand that vandalism is wrong, and I'm willing to stop vandalizing, and make useful contributions from now on.|3=Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

please specify the reason

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

What sort of edits would you be looking at making (what articles, what sort of work, etc.)? From your contributions, I'm not seeing too much of use. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know from my previous contributions, it seems like my account isn't very useful, but I'm willing to turn over a new leaf and start contributing constructively. I'll contribute by making spelling corrections in articles and participate in article for deletion discussions. [[User:Pinkgirl34|Pink]][[User talk:Pinkgirl34|Girl]][[Special:Contributions/Pinkgirl34|34]] (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Your "Click" pages

Your "Click" pages", which you substantially contributed to, have been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pinkgirl34's Click pages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of the pages during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Please be more careful when making additions to articles, such as this one (diff). Not only is is unnecessary, it is also untrue. Woods did not go out of bounds, but merely lost his ball in the heavy rough. Also the ref you added to Stewart Cink does not look like a particularly reliable source to me, and it was not required given the BBC ref that was already there. Regards, _wjemather ^bigissue 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certain. It is all fully referenced. See day 2 - as it happened, the relevant entries are from 16:57 though 17:16. Regards, _wjemather ^bigissue 12:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now why would a nice user like you edit another user's userpage that you've never visited before...and edit an unblock notice that was modified by an admin who then reblocked the user so they couldn't edit their page anymore because of unblock abuse. Further, why would you use an edit summary about not being a sock of the user? Syrthiss (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited these uer pages because in my opinion it seems unfair that these people are blocked. I used the edit summary so people wouldn't suspect me of being a sockpuppet. Pink girl 34 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I see that you've done it to other userpages. However, to jaded admins like me someone stating they are not a sockpuppet is often an indicator that they are indeed a sockpuppet. Perhaps instead of editing unblock notices that have been denied (especially in cases of unblock abuse) you might raise your concerns on the admin's talk page, or on ANI. In the case I reference above, FisherQueen purposely broke the unblock template when she reblocked the user. Your repair caused me to see a new unblock in the pool, take time to come to the same conclusion that FisherQueen did, write a reply, and then find out that the user had already been reblocked. Syrthiss (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. But I didn't see that the unblocked template was purposely broken.Pink girl 34 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jauarback

I'm not sure why you reverted the talk page, but it is an imposter account and is in fact, blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did it because an IP address edited a user page without the original user's permission. But now I've realized that the page was changed because it was an imposter. -- Myfavourite colouris pink 01:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. That's what I kind of figured. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I know it's none of my business...

Re your message: The number is off more than one. I probably should just set it to ∞ and be done with it. One of these days I might. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not click here

I was curious about the links that were on your user or talk page (I can't remember where I saw them) and also your involvement in the push for more drama and then no drama. How is it all going? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that...the links are now moved to User:Pinkgirl34/Sandbox. And I'm participating in the Wikipedia Dramaout, but I chose the wrong userbox at that time. -- Myfavourite colouris pink 16:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding pages for this click game thing. Uncyclopedia is the place for that, not here. Triplestop x3 19:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion hasn't concluded that these pages will be deleted. -- Myfavourite colouris pink 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Polynomial123. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Triplestop x3 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

What was the point of this edit? diff. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with having that? It's just some extra spacing, not really much difference...right? -- Myfavourite colouris pink 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not constructive as it unnecessarily increases the article size. Also edit summaries should give an accurate description of any changes made. _wjemather ^bigissue 09:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, the edit wasn't very constructive, but 2 bytes isn't a huge difference, though, and there's no change made in the content at all. I was just trying to add humour in the edit summary, since it's inappropriate to add humor inside the articles. -- Myfavourite colouris pink 10:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly fail to see how inserting the word dog everywhere could be considered amusing. Regardless, this is an encyclopaedia not a joke book. Please employ proper edit summaries. Regards. _wjemather ^bigissue 13:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll explain why this is a joke. I wrote 'dog' in the edit summary because the person before me wrote 'cat', (I know 'cat' means 'category') which makes it humourous. I understand that Wikipedia is not the place to make jokes, but the advantages about these jokes is that I'm not disrupting the project by inserting jokes in articles. I'll use the edit summary properly in all the other edits, though. -- Myfavourite colouris pink 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not humorous, simply infantile. Making dummy edits just for fun is not exactly the kind of editing that would have been expected when your block was lifted, nor are they the kind of edits you indicated that you would be making in future. I would have thought you would now want to contribute in a wholly constructive manner rather than finding another way to disrupt Wikipedia. _wjemather ^bigissue 16:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these edits, although appear to be dummy edits, are still constructive, such as this edit that you undid earlier. -- Myfavourite colouris pink 18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I undid that edit because it was correct before you changed it. The club consists of more than just golf course(s), so it should read that it has them. I will change it back again. Next time you have an edit reverted, please discuss before reverting again (see WP:BRD). _wjemather ^bigissue 18:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then. I didn't realize that, because my article creation was intended to be just about the golf course. -- Myfavourite colouris pink 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then. -- Myfavourite colouris pink 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

{{uw-vandalism1}}

Okay, I knew what I was doing wrong. But I think it would've been better if you posted the templates ABOVE the content and not blanking it. HTH, Chevy Impala 2009 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you shouldn't have blanked the content. If you put that on a blank page, people would think you would have used the wrong template and you should have used the one that said that it had no content. So I think it is better off to let people know what the content was in the article. Chevy Impala 2009 02:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I read the template and it also said to blank the page so the nonsense can't be displayed. Oh, oh, oh. Did my eyes go on vacation or something? Chevy Impala 2009 02:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Im glad to see you've changed from a prolific vandal into a prolific content contributor and are even getting into reverting vandalism now. I've been watching your edits for the past couple weeks because I was worried you would try to sneak in some subtle vandalism as you had done in the past. I don't see any evidence of that; in fact you've inspired me to get back into article editing, which I'd mostly abandoned a year or so ago. I think you're still making a few mistakes, but you seem to learn very quickly. So I will stop watching you now, so that you can be more comfortable. (Though I imagine we will still cross paths when we happen to edit the same pages.) If you ever have a question, I'll be happy to help, and if I can't help, I'll find someone who can. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be typing out speedy deletion templates and other warning templates by hand, you might want to consider installing Twinkle. It makes things a lot easier and quicker, which can be a good thing for someone who wants to get into anti-vandalism long-term. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear about that, and thanks for the suggestions. And by the way, I use substitution for the warning templates instead of by hand. Installing Twinkle seems like a good idea to find vandalism faster, since I like reading vandalism more than reverting vandalism. -- 科学高爾夫迷 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

You don't have to put {{hangon}} on an article which you didn't create yourself. You can simply remove it yourself – as long as you give a very good reason in the edit summary. Or to be on the safe side, add a comment to the talk page of the article. A reviewing admin will take this all into consideration. Hope this helps. :) – B.hotep •talk• 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A word about Copyright in the United States of America and Denmark

Hello, Regarding your decision to deny a copyright violation of a clear copy&paste of the short arts biography/review of the Danish gallery artist, I'd like to advise you that both USA, the Netherlands, any other country where Wikipedia's servers might be located and Denmark are a signatories to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Therefore, without any specific expertise in none of these countries copyright law, I can reassure you that probably all webpages consisting of more than a few non-trivial senteces are indeed copyrighted works in each country. Copyright is automatic: you don't need to include a statement like "Copyright (C) 2009 Jarvis-Hansen: All rights reserved." to a page for it to be copyrighted - the only requirement is (usually, depending on the jurisdiction) the labour done to produce the work.

In the current copyright law that is in effect in most countries, a page can only be freely redistributed if it is licensed under a copyleft license, like GFDL or CC-SA.

Also, this is definetly not the only problem with the page: it has no wikification nor reliable sources either. Clearly the page's creator (who apparently is the artist herself) did not bother to make the least effort to create a proper Wikipedia article; it unfortunately seems that she just dumped a section from his own page to the Wiki, hoping that someone "out there" would enhance it to a decent article. Unfortunately, it is impossible to enhance this page by the sources that she provided (none) and lack of her own contribution. Also, the new article makes no assertion of significance, and would therefore probably also fall under the article A7 of crtieria for speedy deletion.

Based on this, I have re-nominated the article for speedy deletion, again under the article G12 for speedy deletion, and should you decide to re-contest and the article remains unimproved, I will again re-nominate it under A7. hydrox (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry, while writing the above the page already got deleted. It was about this Annelise Jarvis-Hansen, content of which was directly from here. hydrox (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work patrolling new pages

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. →javért ^stargaze 01:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZHWIKI

你是否在ZHWIKI上有user account？ -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, actually, I only edit in the English Wikipedia, but I do read the Chinese Wikipedia. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 01:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Allan

Why this revert? This kind of content does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Regards. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be perfectly constructive, and it just needs some citations, and maybe a rewrite. The edit appears to be in good faith, too. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a one-off edit by an ip should give it away, but little research on the Berwick Montuna site would reveal that these proclaimed experts are merely club members. I'm sure he would have had proper professional coaching, and it is highly doubtful that they are responsible for Allan having a career as a pro golfer. _wjemather ^bigissue 22:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but if they have been coaches for Steve Allan before, so would it be appropriate to add that? Or it isn't notable enough? Thanks, -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would say that this information is not worthy of inclusion even is it was true, but without any possibility of independently verifying it, the info should definitely not be included. I would recommend that you read through the various Wikipedia policies WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, etc. so that you can make better judgements for yourself. Regards. _wjemather ^bigissue 22:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to WP:ANI#Problem editor

Although I can understand your sentiments in objecting to WebHamster's comments, your follow-up post on their talk page was totally unhelpful in defusing tension and de-escalating the situation. I strongly suggest you stay away from their talk-page for the duration of the block; any further instances of baiting like that (which was in itself highly uncivil) will lead to you being blocked. EyeSerene^talk 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

Even if not direct "wikistalking", surely you would agree that some problem exists? DJ 02:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a problem with voting against your comments, because that's just her opinion. I'm not sure if I'm misrepresenting you by stating this, but maybe she has spotted a controversial edit that you made earlier, so she starts following you to revert any of these types of edits. And then maybe she saw your votes for AFD, so she decides to vote as well. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I still find that behaviour rather odd - this has been going on for about 2 weeks. Thanks anyway, though :) DJ 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]