You've reached User talk:Scientizzle/Archive 1, an archive of User talk:Scientizzle.
Please do not edit this page. You're encouraged to leave a message on my regular talk page and link to the archived discussion.
Welcome!
Hello, Scientizzle/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, 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! Melchoir 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to make a tiny request that you try to avoid leaving messages on people's user pages; nobody will come and punish you, but creating user pages takes up space on Wikipedia. Rather, try leaving messages on the Talk Page, instead. Thanks! -M o P 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, whoops. Sorry 'bout that... --Scientizzle
- Don't worry about it. I do that from time to time too, and I'm always shocked when I discover it later ;) ×Meegs 20:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about vandalism... I really appreciate you taking the time to revert vandalism, but I'd like to suggest that when leaving messages for users, as in the case of 206.169.23.119, don't immediately jump to the test4 template. To be fair, they do need to be given warning before going to their "last warning". Some anon users genuinely don't understand that their acts of vandalism are in fact wrong. Oh and also, try to use the template {{subst:test4}} instead of just {{test4}} or whatever template. Thanks and keep up the good work. --IapetusT|C 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I tend to use a lower test# for innocuous edits, but for blatantly inappropriate & rude edits (with several in a row) I have less patience... -- Scientizzle 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after your comment on the talk page, the article was nominated for deletion. You should weigh-in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games obsession. By the way thanks for labeling the sock puppet info – you're almost certainly correct. I'll let them go for now since they're mostly using one account, but it could be useful in the future. ×Meegs 20:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I think I'm the one you're talking about (sock puppet). I have only one account. I have noticed that on Wikipedia our school's IP address that is recorded is the same for everyone, hence why I created my own account. I don't appreciate being called a 'they' (if that's what you mean, anyway), and what exactly do you mean by 'useful for the future'? Cheers. Erm, I'll try and do one of them timestamp things. Can't find the wiggly button. Chris90uk 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Sorry for the misunderstanding. If your explanation is correct (I'm willing to believe you), you got caught in the net of users who try to undo the crap your classmate Danny does. Your edits, and those of Danny's sock puppets were focused on the same articles and your account is similar in name to each of his ("90" in each of them), ergo we suspected Chris90uk was also a sock puppet of a blocked user. -- Scientizzle 20:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, sorry about that, I saw it as fairly funny, shan't happen again
NapalmMan 19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. -- Scientizzle 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw from your votes on AfD that you have some opinions about this. Why don't you have a look at the full guidelines (linked above) and then share your thoughts on the talk page. Mangojuice 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm submitting stuff from webpages I have created...it appears to be a copyright infringement, but I'm the author of the stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PTW16 (talk • contribs) .
I do not know why the "AJ Brown" article was deleted so quickly. I am AJ Brown so I do not know how on earth it could be considered an attack article! I protested it's deletion on the grounds that I am going to be expanding the Warwick Students' Union wikipedia section with links and information on all Sabbatical Officers for next year (myself included). This is of significant interest to many people at Warwick University and would build on what information is already provided on the Students' Union's wikipedia article already.
I do not yet fully understand wikipedia regulations, and deleted tags by mistake. To give me a last warning and threaten to ban me instantly is a huge over-reaction. I am trying to contribute a substantial amount of material over the next few weeks which I know will be of interest to a significant group of people!
If you can, please advise me on how best to proceed with this. AJ 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with the lack of notability for the Sabbatical Officers of Warwick Students' Union. 18,000 students go to Warwick University and the Students' Union is one of the most active in the country. There is already a substantial wikipedia article on the Students' Union and the natural expansion of this would be to have wikipedia entries on the Seven Sabbatical Officers for next year, detailing what their role is and what they have accomplished so far. This would be of significant interest to a number of people and thus easily meet notability requirements. Thus, I argue that I can create and maintain seven articles for the seven Sabbatical Officers next year.
- Also, is it possible to e-mail you or is editing this page the only way of contacting you? AJ 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked over the requirements for notability I am certain that the Sabbatical Officers meet these requirements. They are the seven people who run the Students' Union and are elected in a huge election each year. There is considerable interest in their actions.
- New article(s) detailing their roles and responsibilites would fill up substantial amount of space and is significantly different information than the Students' Union itself. For example, if you look at the Students' Union site currently it has a wide amount of information about the history and structure of the Union, and only a very brief mention as to the seven Sabbatical roles (which I just added myself). If I wish to know what the President does, or what the Welfare Officer does then the page is of no use. Adding the job descriptions, contact information and day-to-day actions of seven roles to the page would be very odd, severely cluttering the page with information on a quite different topic.
- Perhaps I should not have started with myself, and undoubtedly I was playing around with the interface to see what could be done with it. Now that I have experimented and read the rules I am certain that articles on each of the Sabbatical Officers at Warwick would be of significant interest to a significant number of people and the material is substantially different to the material already covered on the Students' Union page itself.
- I already have access to the detailed information required for these articles and wish to be able to provide it to a wider audience. If it helps I will do the first article on the President (which is not me) and will definitely assert their notability to ensure it meets wikipedia rules. AJ 23:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a better approach would be to create articles for each position, so an article for "President of Warwick Students' Union" and an article for "Welfare and Equal Opportunities Officer of Warwick Students' Union" etc. Then a redirect could be setup from the individual name to the position article. There is substantial information (literally pages) that could be written under each position detailing what the role entails. I am pretty sure these roles meet notability, specifically as they are high-profile political positions which receive substantial press coverage (in the "Warwick Boar" student newspaper, which is one of the best in the UK).
The seven articles could then be updated each year with the information of the new person, while the role and responsibilities would remain constant. This provides people with information about what the individual has been doing, and also general information about the role, which may help students understand the roles and may help people decide if they are interested in running in an election for it.
What do you think?
AJ 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at this article per your AfD and I get the impression that there's something I'm not getting. It doesn't appear to be a search site - seems to be more of a portal, because it uses google technology to search and it lists links. But.. do we really know anything about the company? Maybe they are a big deal in Europe? Aguerriero (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're probably right about it being a portal. It still doesn't appear notable from what I've looked at. AfD may be the best way to unearth info that you & I couldn't find. -- Scientizzle 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thx for helping out.--Greece666 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure. -- Scientizzle 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of the Boxipuss was a mistake as there was a misunderstanding between user: Porge and I—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Alan Sieve (talk • contribs)
- Will do. -- Scientizzle 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dude please give me some time to work on this, this wikipedia stuff is extremely complex.
ironhide1975 (User talk:Ironhide1975)
- I'm not trying to ride you about this, but give you tips to make editing easier. -- Scientizzle 23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well walk me through as I am very new to this. I added as much content as I could please advise what else I need to work on.
ironhide1975 (User talk:Ironhide1975)
No problem... I mean a man should be able to admit when he's wrong. I was obviously confused about the purpose of wikipedia and what its here to accomplish. Thanks for the tips!
Easter rising 12:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I warned User:Tyler-07 for two cases of vandalism: [1] & [2]
Since then, Tyler hasn't been happy with me:
I'd appreciate it if you leave admin duties to the admins. You are not an admin and therefore shouldn't be leaving warnings on people's pages especially when you don't know the background. The vandalism was done by a clone sharing the same IP address. Thank you. Tyler-07 13:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. Even though I'm not an admin, I regularly revert vandalism and warn those that perpetrate the acts. If you have proof that your account did, in fact, not vandalize the articles that I listed, leave that on your talk page under my warnings or ask an admin to clear your name--if you clear your own talk page it only makes you look guilty. Removing warnings can be considered vandalism. Your talk page is meant to be an ongoing record of your interactions with other editors. Removing potentially important information makes it hard for others to act in good faith. -- Scientizzle 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, my name is already cleared. If my name hadn't been cleared, the admins would not have unblocked me. So please consider that as clearing my name...and I'd rather not waste admin's time on this matter. Tyler-07 18:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't feel that Tyler's claim was accurate and asked an admin to weigh in[3].
You are just an acute pain in one's ass Tyler-07 21:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. Happy editing! -- Scientizzle 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One can logically begin to thing that you possess obsessive compulsive disorder. Tyler-07 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia may be of benefit if you spent less time cluttering people's talk pages with useless links and irrevelant bogus and you devoted your time to editing articles or contributing to them. You may find yourself more friends in the world by not belittling others and not annoying them. Peace out Tyler-07 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. Happy editing! -- Scientizzle 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have nothing better to say except your petty links and "happy editing"? asshole... Tyler-07 02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just trying to be civil, as per WP:CIVIL. You should try it, it's fun. Happy editing! -- Scientizzle 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JUST SHUT UP! AND STOP WITH UR STUPID POLICY BULLSHIT! ITS VERY ANNOYING!Tyler-07 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I would much appreciate if you start minding your own businesses and leave my page alone...Thank you Tyler-07 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tyler, Tyler, Tyler. What can I do to convince you to stop leaving rude comments on my talk page? You made several such comments before I left a real vandalism warning on your talk page. Then you respond with more rude comments and blank out my warnings. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you, as per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, because you've consitently violated WP:CIVIL. I'm not the only one that's made it clear that Removing warnings can be considered vandalism. -- Scientizzle 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not receive cheers from you as you left on my talk page. Thanks Tyler-07 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, I'll be less cheerful if I have to warn you yet again. -- Scientizzle 02:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you accomplishing my adding useless content to my talk page? Think about that for a while. Tyler-07 02:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave me the fuck alone you nosy little bastard. Stop fucking with me or my pages. Thanks Tyler-07 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scientizzle,
I am writing in response to the copyright infringement of the Glynn Academy page. I have express permission from Glynn Academy, of which I am an alumni, to promote the education and history of Glynn Academy high school by using the accurate depiction used on the Glynn Academy website. I did however forget to cite the article at the bottom of the page. Since I am new to Wikipedia, would you please tell me how I am supposed to go about fixing the page so it may be viewed by all interested parties.
Thanks,
Satosten
- Certainly, I'll be glad to help...gimme a second & I'll have the proper info--I'll put it on your talk page. -- Scientizzle 19:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude quit deleting my pages because you think they are jokes! The relm of human knowledge is not limited to your interpretation of it. --Cs weaver 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a beginner with Wikipedia. I'd like to know what is the minimum amount of hits with Google a program should have to be eligible to an article on Wikipedia. Actually I did a program (PtiMemo) and wanted to make an article about it.
Thanks, Ivan.chollet@lynanda.com 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll answer this on your talk page in a second. -- Scientizzle 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicism
Catholics believe that the Bible cannot be reliably interpreted without the aid of tradition and Church teaching, and that evangelism requires more personal contact than simply giving away the text of the Bible(Catholic Propaganda. Catholics NO evangelize). In some cases free distribution of Bibles has simply led to these copies being used for profane purposes.(This is too much derogatory toward evangelicals,and MUST TO BE DELETED JUST NOW!).
- Wow. Just...wow. Don't do drugs, kids. -- Scientizzle 00:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your information. I have blocked User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate for 2 weeks and his sockpuppets indefinitely. - Mike Rosoft 12:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I saw the tags on you put on Olivegreen Complex have been reverted, I added them and they've gone again. If I keep re-adding them, I'll just end up hitting 3RR. Any ideas on what to do next please? Inner Earth 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Olivegreen Complex was so n-n it's already been deleted! Thanks for the help. Inner Earth 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Scientizzle!
Could you please help me? I would to change my subject "French singer" in French singers".
And, in this subject, I wrote a lot of other singers (all of the most famous French singers), and somebody deleted them (or, maybe, it failled). How can I do reappeared thoses other singers?
Miss.Karina
I removed the sign on Vanna as they are on the biggest indie label, Epitaph Records. I'm in the middle of writing it so it will be further expanded and so forth. Thanks! Dark jedi requiem 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it's getting there. I'm still working on it though. I'll probably be working on it the next hour or what ever off and on when I find stuff. Dark jedi requiem 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome thanks for the tip, I'm a little new but im trying to do what I can. If you want to take a look at Ugh-free Spelling, it seems like a bit of a joke...maybe you have an idea of how to clean it up/get it deleted.
Thanks again, Vaniac 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! I'll keep giving you tips 'till I get a bit more of a hang of getting articles deleted...
, Vaniac 20:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I forgot something. Antares33712 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem...just glad I could help. -- Scientizzle 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL!...That is all. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad I could be a little entertaining... :) -- Scientizzle 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though a lot of admins expect the others will do the housework. I am mainly an article writer - see my userpage, but have deleted about 600 bad articles in my first week already. I've had no article writing in the last 10 days, and had to waste two whole days investigating a proclamation of sockpuppetry and then found that the user in question, apart from extreme edit warring, had 20+ insult posts, including four racist posts. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise that I wasn't adding warnings to the talk page... Sorry! Still kinda new to wiki. Sidasta 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, no problem...done it myself a couple times. -- Scientizzle 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but I wasn't sure either, and I feel like there's a Belvedere vandal as well, but I'm not sure exactly who that is. After a while, with all the socks and copy-cats, they begin to look the same. Mak (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have put KAMANDA all in caps because with african names people cannot always distinguish last name. ~ infolit June 9, 18:35
Actually, I'd just gotten the letters backward, it's not ARS Syndrome, it's RAS Syndrome --Kaz 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting some vandalism on my talk page. Cheers mate! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problemo. -- Scientizzle 02:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Not exactly sure where to post this but you can email me back at <email removed>
I posted a bunch of links to quite relevant sections and you have deleted my links. It was not an advertisement. If you went to my website you would see the vast amount of exercises for each muscle group (which pertained to the article). If you note, EXRT is a similar site which is already posted on your site.
Just curious,
Rod
<email removed>
Do you realize that the rules for proposed deletion are to never add the {{prod}} tag more than once? If the tage is removed, you must use AfD instead. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, fine. It's off. The thing is, I'm not sure the article should be deleted. Firstrade Securities sounds relatively notable from just simple Google searches, but the article creator keeps ignoring my notes about WP:CORP and removing the {{notability}} tag w/o addressing the issue. The prod tag was being used more as a (failed) attention-catching mechanism. I'll probably put it up for AfD later today if WP:CORP hasn't been met. -- Scientizzle 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your enthusiasm in trying to crack down on vandalism and nonsensical articles, in certain instances (i.e., the Jon Nathanson article, you are entirely off base and exceding your authority. As a senior editor of Wikipedia, I am giving you a warning about this behavior. If you persist, I will enable a temporary ban on your account. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Love (talk • contribs)
- Riiiight. About that...a "senior editor" would have more than a dozen contributions, don'tchya think? This "warning" is comical, I should put it on WP:BJ. -- Scientizzle 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry, that was suppose to go to the user page. If I accompanied it into an article, I'm very sorry.
This user's IP number leads to user MostWanted05. This user is disruptive and is known to use various IP addresses when writing articles. Unfortunately, this user has been known as the 86.xxxx.xxx.xxx user. This user is on request for comment for behavior. His record can be found below. Thanks for responding on my talk page. LILVOKA. 16 June 2006 13:34 (UTC).
A brief resume of the user's conduct.
I was in the middle of changing the redirect to St. Patrick's High School, but now it's a disambiguation page. Thank you! -- Usgnus 17:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
moved from my user page--RE: joke article creation "Raptor vocals"
hey i don't know who you are
but stop deleting my article
it may have humor
but it isn't non factual
i am in the armory show
i do raptor vocals
i will take off the abnoxious stuff
just stop deleting it—Preceding unsigned comment added by ARZE555 (talk • contribs)
- Your article was completely unencyclopedic. It did not belong on Wikipedia because it failed every basic tennet: it was a joke article on a that cited no verifiable & reliable sources, it had piss-poor formatting and spelling, and it just wasn't very funny. At all. Besides, all I did was apply a speedy delete tag, an admin that agreed with my assessment deleted the article. -- Scientizzle 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
moved from my user page--RE: hoax article creations "Cumulus Robotics" & "Jon Nathanson"
Agreed with the above "vandal." Scientizzle is indicative of a large and pervasive problem with Wikipedia -- namely, the rampant and self-important editor. Scientizzle, and others of his ilk, fancy themselves final arbitors of all that is factual and correct on Wikipedia. This arbitration and self-important "expertise" extends into articles in which they have NO knowledge or expertise whatsoever. And yet, they take it upon themselves to delete or criticize any and all articles they see fit, with little reason other than malice or dislike for the author of said articles.
Scientizzle is an abomination, and his activities on Wikipedia serve to constrain the democratic flow of human knowledge, not spread it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.251.78 (talk • contribs)
- I find your statements laughable. I'm sooo sorry that I've hurt your feelings by exposing hoax articles that you and your ilk have created. Also, I'm deeply sorry that these articles are going to be deleted. I'm terribly saddened by the warnings and blocks you've received for your repeated blatant vandalism. Tell you what, I'll withdraw the AfD nominations of Cumulus Robotics & Jon Nathanson if you can provide any verifiable & reliable source that backs up the claims in these articles.
- Until you do that, I'm just gonna have to keep warning you and getting you blocked as you keep disrupting Wikipedia. -- Scientizzle 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Birdmessenger 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem. :) -- Scientizzle 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For reverting vandalism on my user page. Appreciated -- Samir धर्म 04:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. -- Scientizzle 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the prod2 thing on the Afd. Thanks for the info.
Riadlem 21:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, no biggie. -- Scientizzle 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The User:Otomon page has been vandalized and in the end totally deleted, it had way more text than the line I added less than an hour ago, I'm trying to rebuild the page to add text about the misadventures of Otomon, thank you very much for deleting the foundation of the rebuilding of the User:Otomon page, if you know how the page got totally erased please help me revert it. ;)
Vlame 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) vLame[reply]
It's not cystal balling Blizzard says there making it so there duh making it the have a studio set to make it and it is cystal balling to say for example that a StarCraft movie is coming out but to have an article on a new movie is fine in fact his dark matierials article for the movie has started and it's at the same point no ones saying it's going to be deleted. Jamhaw 14:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]
- Actually, it is. The rights have been sold and nothing else has happened; at best, the link to the press release should be part of the Warcraft or Blizzard articles. Additionally, I just discovered that this is a repost of deleted material (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft (film)). I have tagged it accordingly. -- Scientizzle 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look it's getting made so why don't we put the information down so when it is made we will already have plenty of info so that rather than restart we just add the new info some people can be so shortsided sometimes and as for the article being deleted it was a huge article before with tons of good info but the guy just ignored me when I asked why. Jamhaw 18:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]
- It's Wikipedia policy that "expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". If you can show that it is almost certain to take place -- unlike 99.8% of other projects that have purchased movie rights but no other progress to-date (i.e., a written script, a director...anything at all), then you have an argument. A consensus of editors aggreed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft (film) that until the movie is actually in production, such an article is against Wikipedia policy. Speculation isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Scientizzle 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, thanks for helping out with that User:Jimjones005 guy on the Takeover article, is there any way to get him kicked off? 67.101.77.46 19:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if he continues to add the same content over and over, he could be subject to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule warnings and blocks. If that user continues to be a problem, take it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for more help. Hope this helps some... -- Scientizzle 20:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I did was vandalism, but as a friend of mine had created the whole flaming turquoise thing himself (and came up with that term) I just thought that it kind of counted as vandalism, and changed it. Anyways, since it probably shouldn't be on there anyways (as flaming turquoise is not a real color) I will go ahead and delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispus (talk • contribs)
- Thanks. -- Scientizzle 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am JimJones005 and I just wanted to say that User:67.101.77.46 just coppied and pasted my warning of his(her?) vandalisim of the takeover article onto my user page. I don't know why editors insist on punishing people who make good faith edits to add to wikipedia with warnings and the deletion of their facts. We all might disagree sometimes, especialy since anything Non-Dom always seems to get deleted, but I hope you will understand. I'm going to re-insert the so called vandalism back in there tomorrow, and if you, or anyone else reverts it, I will call upon an admin. I like to think that you were just confused as to what was actualy going on, and happen to be on the wrong side of this insident. At any rate, sorry for the misspellings (native tongue is Hebrew). Jimjones005 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect. I properly posted a vandalism warning on your talk page, I did not vandalize your user page, as you did mine. 67.101.77.46 15:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there -- FYI I got an edit conflict with you while cleaning up the new navy shower page. I saved my version and I'm going to go back and try to reinstate your edits too... Tkinias 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, relax. How can my edit to Strafing be considered in any way vandalism? For the record, here it is in its entirety:
- Some gamers misuse the term strafing to describe the practice of side-stepping, despite the fact that this usage is completely unrecognized outside the so-called gaming community. The origin of this error is uncertain, but might be traced to early computer games misusing the term in their keyboard settings. One Wikipedia editor claims that this occurred because "it was percived [sic] that strafing meant that one was moving in a straight direction whilst firing, and this turned into moving sideways whilst firing."
There's no personal attacks there. Nor do you justify your harassment on my talk page, as you claim to have done in your edit summary. I'll also point out that you're losing my good faith by characterizing my edits as "vandalism." Anonymous 198736 23:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the changes I made to Leiutenant Yung Sam Kim's page; he had personally contacted me with the information I provided. I was merely doing my duty to bring such information to the good peoples of wikipedia. I do not see how this constitues vandalism.
"I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Thanks, Scientizzle 22:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)" I don't know if they had been made when you added that, but just to let you know you can't with draw the nominations now that a delete vote has been made. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. I'm still not sure it's notable either, but when in doubt, keep. Good luck with contacting the author. Wikibout-Talk to me! 23:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been to the tommy dougless (Tommy Douglas) page before and you accused me of vandelisum why>? --67.68.11.240 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll respond on your talk page too...That warning happened in April. Someone at your IP address vandalized Tommy Douglas on April 28 and I warned accordingly. To avoid things like this, this happens all the time to shared IPs, you could always sign up for a username. -- Scientizzle 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be ready to try the AfD process myself next time :-) Sandy 00:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, happy to help. -- Scientizzle 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism? I was making a correction. It seems that someone earlier had placed the Nazi Germany article about 3-5 times inside its page. If you take a look at the actual article, you'll see that the article itself is still there. Just that all of the extra wording had been removed. Leoni2 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I've removed the vandal warning. -- Scientizzle 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted. Leoni2 21:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be joking. Adding that Proteus is a Mardi Gras Krewe in New Orleans is nonsense? Do a simple google search my friend. You'll find it's actually quite a large organization.
Well, what do you have to say for yourself? My post wasn't "nonsense" or vandalism; it was 100% factual.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Planescape:Nameless (talk • contribs)
- All I have to say is: your addition was unreferenced and your previous edits were vandalism. If you think Proteus the Mardi Gras Krewe is sufficiently notable, by all means include information that meets WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. -- Scientizzle 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have all the information or the time to write a fully referenced post about the Krewe, but it seems ridiculous that in a page about Proteus there should be no mention whatsoever of the very large and exclusive Mardi Gras Krewe and Parade that run annually in New Orleans. It's not on Wikipedia at all. So please revert the changes, and if you're really interested, write an extensive and informative post on it yourself ;). Planescape:Nameless 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, by the notability guidelines, the Krewe of Proteus would seem to eminently qualify. Why don't you do a Google search for "Krewe of Proteus"? Planescape:Nameless
I'm not going to write an article for you. If it's a notable topic, write it yourself. I'm not going to revert the changes, either, since it was an unreferenced addition. I guess you could request the article at Wikipedia:Requested articles... -- Scientizzle 05:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a request for this user. He has vandalized my personal Talk page and the Superman Returns talk page. I see that he is not stopping. Bignole 04:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Freddie1988 has been blocked. -- Scientizzle 05:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to participate in these additional votes:
Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Scientizzle for trying to help me with the article I posted in good faith under my name which was from a link not added by myself from my girlfriends page (Louise Robey)
I don't understand why I have had that article deleted when most of those flaging it said it was notable if true. Still I am upset that in doing so they deleted my link to my Sister who is one of the worlds finest designers of baroque furniture and objects.
Regards Mark Fairfax-Harwood. springvalestudios@btinternet.com
I can't remember which was the original account now, but I deleted the polemic as contributions by a sock, and replaced with the indef. Thanks for notifying, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Why did you re-edit our eAthena page to link back to ragnarok online? eAthena is not ragnarok online, it's a server emulator. And it's not illegal since eAthena runs it's own libraries. AEGIS is the only illegal servers since it's running true Gravity hacked software. Roman19223 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
moved from user page -- 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Pictures are by definition considered a reference, which exactly what Wikipedia is founded on. So through the laws of Wikipedia qualification, these images steadily apply. Lilnessaslove 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)lilnessaslove[reply]
There's this thing called e-mail. When I don't have the history of an individual, I usually e-mail another user I've seen who has more experience in editing that particular article and ask them to apply their two sense. By doing that, it helps the people who haven't read the rules and keep delating images a little more satisfied.Lilnessaslove 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)lilnessaslove[reply]
- I'm really not sure what you're saying...are you saying that you emailed another user to create one of the articles you've also created today?
- Frankly you don't seem to have grasped what to do here at Wikipedia. I strongly urge you to head to Wikipedia:Tutorial. Please read WP:BIO to learn the notability guidelines of biographical articles and check out WP:COPYRIGHT to learn about the copyright rules that apply to Wikipedia content. Seriously. -- Scientizzle 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I emailed another user to EXPAND on an article I created. See the difference? I've fully grasped the concept, it is you who seem to be a bit lost in the dark. In section one under the terms and conditions of how to approprietly make an article, it clearly states that an article has no reason to be deleated if it shows room for expansion. Go look it up yourself.Lilnessaslove 03:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)lilnessaslove[reply]
- Do you want to be more specific about the page to which you're referring? Help:Starting a new page doesn't contain that statement, neither does Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Create_new_articles nor Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
- But, if you check out Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles it says "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion." Your articles have no context, they're just pictures. Now, for example, you added a pic to Luke Mijares, an article that has context but needs expansion on notability. Note that it hasn't been deleted? -- Scientizzle 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the talk page before you responded? It really helps a situation when you take the time to read everything before you approach the issue. Like I said, what you consider "POV" is taken from quotes she and her family themselves provided. Last I checked, that eliminates the theory that they are my own personal opinion, furthermore ruling out your agenda to make this based on my own personal opinion. Let me do you a favor, let me cite it, will that help you out a bit?Americanbeauty415 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Americanbeauty415[reply]
- I nominated it on Afd.--Ávril ʃáη 05:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my reasons for this entry using guidelines from Wikipedia:Notability (music) - see Talk:Ellery (duo)
Talskiddy 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that--I think you've made a solid case. If it hasn't already been removed, I'll take off the {{notability}} tag myself. -- Scientizzle 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you or someone please write about the gang destroying army on RuneScape
Colbyson 23:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for moving that, eaolson. Response: You must be referring to this article, which has been deleted three times. As I said on your talk page, the group doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines of WP:N. I've no interest in writing about the group, since I know nothing of it and it doesn't appear to be worthy of a Wikipedia article. But, feel free to write another article again, just be sure it's different--and much better than--your previous attempt. Honestly, make sure it meet WP:BIO before clicking the "save page" button, otherwise it will be deleted posthaste. -- Scientizzle 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- K Colbyson 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- right now im working on a bigger one if that is ok with you.68.17.232.40 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, doesn't bother me...but make sure it meets WP:BIO notability guidelines lest it be rapidly deleted again. -- Scientizzle 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vandalism reversion on my userpage. Bobby Boulders sockpuppets are running wild today. Let's both keep an eye out! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem...I'm surprised they haven't hit me, actually. -- Scientizzle 19:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scientizzle, thanks for your welcome to wikipedia! I have a question pertaining to my article Petroglyph Fan Forums. I am a staff member of the forum and we decided to go ahead and add the forum to wikipedia because one of our rival forum, Lucas Forums added their own forum to wikipedia. If my article pertaining to Petroglyph Fan Forums cannot meet wiki guidelines, why does the Lucasforums article meet standards? Both articles are near similar, as I used their article as a basis for my own. Thanks!
Popcorn2008 20:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]
- Ah...I've checked out the other article, and it seems to have the same problems as your (but an 8 month head start). I'll tag that one for notability concerns as well. If you review WP:WEB it'll give examples of the type of information that you should provide. If notability guidelines aren't met it's very likely that an article will be deleted. Check out WP:V & WP:RS for important sourcing information. WP:CITE will give you a good way to cite any sources, too. The article is currently proposed for deletion, but it won't be acted upon by an admin for at least 5 days, so you've got lots of time to add to the article. Good luck! -- Scientizzle 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay sounds good, If I cannot add in the required guidelines at least the other article will go under Admin review as well. Popcorn2008 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008[reply]
