User talk:TylerJG

Welcome!

Hello, TylerJG, 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: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! --Scott Grayban 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Accurizer 00:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove Speedy Delete Tags

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating this page unless you can find reliable sources that suggest this phenomena actually exists. Wikipedia is not for things you made up, so you must prove that you didn't. And if you can't produce sources, it's simply not notable enough for an entry in the encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 05:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no vandalism

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to John Stossel, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commufist

Yes, the hand gestures article is indeed poorly documented. However, Wikipedia:Notability is required to spin off an independant article, so a whole article on commufist could not stand unless a relaible source exists to back it up. I suppose you could add a line about it in the article on hand gestures, but without a reference there, other editors are free to remove what you've added. Cool Hand Luke 06:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker has a reference in the form of that CBS sports article. But yes, you could probably find pages on wikipedia that should be deleted according to out policies. We try to catch these pages when they're created, but a lot of them sneak through. Cool Hand Luke 06:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's that a news organization published it, yes. A blog article would not suffice, but if you published an article in some sort of edited periodical, yes, it would establish notability. At least enough that any question of deletion would have to be resolved by a vote in WP:AFD. As is, the article had nothing that suggests any kind of importance at all. Cool Hand Luke 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You're right about that. It's not an independent source at all. Therefore the article has no real sources, just like you said. However, it seems there exist sources that confirm the existence of the hand gesture. If someone wanted to, they could fix up the article. A search for "commufist" turns up 17 google hits, most of which are misspellings of "communist". It seems then that your article is totally unverifiable and cannot be included. I suspect that you or one of your friends just made it up. The policy WP:NFT completely this.

Incidentally, wikipedia will automatically sign and date your comments if you add "~~~~". Cool Hand Luke 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable source. Google is not a reliable source, but it shows that sources do seem to exist for the subject. By the same token, google shows no one has ever written anything about the "commufist" online. This makes it doubtful that any reliable source has ever covered the topic. Besides that "commufist" is a neologism. And you basically admit that your friends just made it up, which is against WP:NFT. Sure, every creative work was made up at some point, but some topics have notable coverage. Notable topics are appropriate for an encyclopedia. "Commufist" is not an appropriate topic at this time. Cool Hand Luke 07:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd read Wikipedia:Reliable source you'd see it does not have to be online. If you have offline book or newspaper references, feel free to cite them, but these sources must be verifiable and notable. You have nothing except your friend's assertions.

I'm through with this dialog because it's clear to me you have no interest in Wikipedia's goals. Incidentally, User:Tregoweth also deleted "Commufist" as a nonsense article made-up term (again, see WP:NFT), and he has no connection to Mormonism. Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]