User talk:Voltron

Thank you VoltronForce. I will do as you suggest. The article was not intended as advertising, but as an informational piece on a par with the piece which is still available about Alcoholics Anonymous. Please let me know what makes that piece different than advertising so I can best honor your suggestion. I really do appreciate your help.

Rewrite the page so it doesn't look like an advertisement. Ad pages usually get deleted. --VoltronForce 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Henrysteinberger"

Spam in Voltron: Fleet of Doom

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Voltron: Fleet of Doom, by WWGB (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Voltron: Fleet of Doom is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Voltron: Fleet of Doom, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during July 9 2007 to Wikipedia:Consensus

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please review our external links policy before adding more links to pages. Thanks, WLU 16:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to see the links you were referring to, in order to give you my opinion. However, the best way is to carefully read WP:EL and WP:RS in order to determine for yourself if they are appropriate. As a rule of thumb, 99.9% of web fora are out, as are most personal websites. The rules-in-practice are slightly more lax regards non-scientific and non-controversial websites, but they are still there. My reading and understanding of the policy is that the analysis of why you can't build a proton pack is pretty much not allowed irrespective of the page as the source isn't particularly reliable while asserting factual information. Webpages showing or discussing the props and building of props are tenuously acceptable. However, you might also want to read WP:IAR. I'm just a casual editor, if the regular editors feel they are acceptable, who am I to argue? The 'why you can't build a proton pack' link might be more acceptable as an in-line citation than as an internal link. WLU 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Eberts

Hey there, just so you know, that cross mainspace - userspace redirect was created automatically by me when I moved that user's autobiography to his userpage. It was also me who speedy tagged it. It's always worth checking page history with R2 and R3 cases as most of the time, they're automatically created as results of moves and not needed. Have a nice day, - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question

Is it my username that makes you wonder, guy? Pitifully I possess neither an Apple Comp nor an iPod (though I think iPod is great). I still worship Microsoft and wish having a Zune. :) @pple 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note about your user page....

Just as a note, user pages are not allowed to be used as article space (see "copies of other pages" under the linked heading), nor are they for material unrelated to writing Wikipedia. Your page gives the appearance of doing both, and you might therefore consider changing your page to be more in accordance with the general tone and content of other user pages here on WP. MSJapan 05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zelda Classic

The Zelda Classic article has NOTHING to do with the original games' article - it was an article about a Zelda clone that was removed due to a lack of 3rd-party citations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.75.213 (talk) 21:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Voltron

However, the film is not in actual production. Take a look at notability guidelines for films; it has not entered production yet, so it does not quite qualify for its own article yet. The reason for this is that anything can happen between now and the start of production to halt the project. See Logan's Run (2010 film) for such an example. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it isn't. There's a lot of films that are developed in the film industry, but they never quite take off. The oldest example of which I know is The Giver, for which rights were bought in 1994, yet no film has been made in the various attempts since that year. Take a look at User:Erik/Future articles -- I collect headlines for a film until it finally enters production. There's a lot of things that can happen to halt the progress of a project -- budget issues, choosing directors and cast, etc. In fact, there's a screenwriter strike that may be coming up in October, so after that month if contracts expire and a new deal is not reached, we may be seeing less films for a while. It's a touch-and-go industry, hence the notability guidelines for films which keeps information limited to a film adaptation section on the source material's article. Take a look at User:Erik/Link repository#Redirected projects -- these are films that had articles created, but there was no indication that they'd make it to production. There are still a few examples of future films floating around that have unwarranted stand-alone articles (Halo (film) is such an example), so the idea is that because a film doesn't enter production, there's not always sufficient information for a full article. Hence, the content is better housed elsewhere. Without production, we have no production information, no plot, no critical reaction, no box office performance, etc. -- making for a perpetually small article, you know? Let me know if you have any questions, and I'd be happy to explain anything further. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamgodjesus at RFCN

The user got blocked before I could do so, so I removed the report. Names like this can probably go to WP:UAA, but if you have any doubt, then WP:RFCN is the correct venue. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to User:Padishah5000

Voltron, I wanted to thank you for removing the vandalism to my user page. I just noticed that it had been blanked by an anonymous IP address, and that you undid the damage. You action is very much appreciated! Padi 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Badedit

Template:Badedit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. szyslak 05:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussion is archived: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Badedit. VoL†ro/\/Force 04:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little more info plz

Care to tell me what user talk page I cleared? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.79.35 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I cleared the contents of MY page which was defaced by a wikipedia troll like you, and then oh no! you, the wikipedia troll, reverted it. I'm glad you guys are on top of things. Maybe you should do some research before you revert changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.79.35 (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 MLB Schedules

Yes, I am interested in helping with posting the 2008 schedules that are available. Please let me know what I can do to assist you with this process. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am interested in helping. Lemme know what you need done, and I'll let you know what I've done thus far. Thanks! Eagles Fan In Tampa 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock category

The spelling is category as in Category:Blocked IP ranges. -- RHaworth 09:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"During the duration of the block, editors much registor an account off-site." Sorry that reads like gobbldegook. The words are, I presume "must register". I think the sentence may mean "even if you find yourself blocked while editing anonymously, you may still edit from the same IP address if you sign in / create an account". If so, may I suggest you use my wording? -- RHaworth 10:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Would just like to say your question has been answered, and I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to express a better self-description. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for replying to my message. I agree with your statement that new users, assuming all of them, don't understand Wikipedia policy. This meaning that indef blocking them would mean they would automatically realise that their username has been blocked and therefore create a new-one straight away. It would also seem a waste of resources blocking users that aren't long term vandals, as not only does the larger number of editors that register because they have been blocked previously, slow down the servers but it means yet more backlog for admin to workthrough. And as you say, it should only be used for editors that are long-term vandals. But, users that get caught up in the time of the moment, may also need blocking for around 30 minutes to cool down from their situation. And finally, any other user, IP or not, should be blocked for around a day or so to let them know that Wikipedia as an entity should not be used to their advantage. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support comment. If I do make admin, ask me for any admin-related jobs. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Since you started editing a few months ago, I see that you've become a regular contributor to the encyclopedia and have been helping out with administrative tasks. Please accept this barnstar as sign of appreciation. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate this. While I don't have enough edits for an RFA at the moment, I'm hoping I can keep pace and have enough by the end of the year. I've reached a milestone 800th edit. VoL†ro/\/Force 22:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the right path, but don't be in a rush. If you do good work, sooner or later somebody will tap you on the shoulder. If you'd like to gain experience with admin work, you could help investigate cases at WP:COIN. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Based on behavioral and checkuser evidence, it has been concluded that you are an alternate account of banned user Eddie Segoura. As a banned user, you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Voltron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is nonsense. This account has not once edited abusively. Nor have I had anything to do with the blocking user. Of this they're targeting someone else and I've been the lastest victim. Of course the blocking user had to go on a deletion rampage and wipe out a lot of hard work that may other users will have to spend time reposting.

Decline reason:

Checkuser and behavioral evidence is sufficient, and you can see from my barnstar above that I have nothing against you, other than the fact that you are gaming the system. If you want to return, do so through official channels by requesting that you be unbanned. — - Jehochman ^Talk 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Voltron (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If there is any evidence supporting it, show me now. You claim checkuser evidence. I don't know anyone else who could have used my ip. The burden of proof rest of the blocking user to show the user in question logged in from my ip. Blocker has been known to take action based solely on edit patterns. Am I the only other user interested in baseball?

Decline reason:

Ed, please cut it out. If you want to ask to be allowed to return as a normal editor, then do it properly. You know the policy full well and you know how to appeal and how to ask for a second chance. Otherwise you risk your accounts being blocked when you get caught. — Sarah 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 09:49, Tuesday, November 19, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Speedy deletion nomination of Mio Card

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 Mio Card, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]