User talk:AngelOfSadness/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page

My Page Deletion

Why you deleted my page with out giving any reason. I already put hangon tag on that and you just deleted it with out caring that tag also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chfarooq (talk • contribs)

Actually I deleted it for two reasons a.) the article did not assert notability therefore made it speedy deletable under that critera b.) You had already clearly re-created the page in your userspace as it seemed you were the subject of the subject (presents a conflict of interest which means you should avoid writing about yourself), therefore the article in the mainspace didn't need to be there aswell. Also {{hangon}} tags do not prevent deletion of the article (especially with the words Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria written on the hang on template), it just informs the deciding admin to look over the article talkpage for comments from other editors to determine if the article has to be deleted or not on other grounds etc. The article unquestionably met the speedy deletion critera therefore I deleted it. Cheers AngelOfSadness talk 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Holiday

Enjoy your trip! Going anywhere exciting? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Yes if you count Germany and Austria as being exciting places :) AngelOfSadness talk 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you have a safe and fun time on your holiday. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do and thanks :) AngelOfSadness talk 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly do! Take lots of pictures! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

your deletion of the Fireball Run article.

I'd like to know why is it you deleted the article on the Fireball Run? As noted your refered to blatant advertising- which it was absolutley not. just because you do not have a fond understanding or "like" of things automotive and motorsports does not give you the right to rip it away from others.

I'll have you know the event was widely considered the most successfull ameture rally in American rally history. The event assisted in locating 12 missing children.... like NASCAR, CHAMPCAR, and Cannonball Run, the Fireball Run is a major motorsports event.... it is not for you to police what is "included" in the worlds encyclopedea.

Please replace our article at once- or give CLEAR justification for removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.201.165 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the person who created it seemed to be in a conflict of interest when creating it (their username seemed to be promotion for Fireball Run as it was clearly named after it), and so seemed to be promoting Fireball Run on Wikipedia with the username and by creating th article. If the editor had other contributions than the Fireball Run article, it wouldn't have seemed like the article was there purely to promote Fireball Run but this was not the case. And also no one "owns" articles per WP:OWN. Cheers. AngelOfSadness talk 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers :) AngelOfSadness talk 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your user page and signature

Both violate the Wikipedia guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Appearance_and_color

Considering you are an administrator... maybe you should set a better example for other users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Um...I don't see how her user page violates any guidelines. AngelOfSadness' user page is somewhat elaborate, but it's bare compared to some user pages. As for her signature, perhaps it could be changed a little, but it's not bad overall. Why do you think her user page and signature violate those guidelines? Acalamari 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say at least 80% of the content does not "present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Honestly, you really don't see it? I know its not the worst but that is not an excuse to not fix it. Nearly every user violate this guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.108.58 (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "About Me" page hasn't been edited by myself in over nine months and 50% of it's content is directly Wikipedia related and the rest is in there as I created that page in accordance to WP:USERPAGE this time last year. If you looked at WP:USERPAGE it says underneath the "What may I have on my userpage" heading Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. which some of which I have on that particular page and so I don't see how I'm violating that policy as, like I said, I created it accoring to the guidelines. As for my signature, a few weeks after I originally created it(it had a different color scheme), another editor told me that the colour usage in it was making it difficult to read for colour blind people and so I changed it accordingly with the help of the other editor who suffered from colour blindness and apparently the newer one is a lot more readable. Seeing as the signature has been like that for the last ten months and no one has had a major problem with it in that time, could you be more specific as to what part of the guideline it is violating. Cheers AngelOfSadness talk 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome home!

How was the trip? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope it was a good one. :) Welcome back. Acalamari 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It was great and thanks for asking. But now I'm trying to remember how to type and hopefully will get the inspiration on how to be an editor/admin again. :) AngelOfSadness talk 18:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Fetterati

Grateful for your advice please. This article was speedy deleted as a copyright violation. This is wrong, as it was taken from a web site that allows GFDL re-use. How do I get it back and stop someone else deleting it?--Whipmaster (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the actual grounds for deletion was non-notability. That's wrong too.--Whipmaster (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted revisions, the article didn't assert much notability so I can understand why the article was speedy deleted under that critera. However, you can discuss the deletion of the article with the person who permormed the deletion, User:NawlinWiki, on their talkpage. Hope this helps. AngelOfSadness talk 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Poston‎

This is about a real comedian named matthew poston from the nebraska area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew32 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But the article does not asert the importance or significance of the subject therefore was deleted per the Speedy deletion critera. AngelOfSadness talk 23:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

virginia association of counties

I am the director of communications for the association. I have permission to use the copyrighted material. Please stop the deletion of the page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharter (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the article was already deleted by the time you posted this message but anyway first you'll have to read Wikipedia's guidelines of general notability to determine if the association is notable and then determine if the donated text asserts that notability (Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials about the steps to take with the copyrighted material). Then when creating the article, third-party independant sources will have referenced to back-up the assertion of notability in the article. Please bear in mind that because you are connected with the association, it presents a conflict of interest and that the guidelines state that you should avoid creating or editing articles which you are connected with or at least avoid breaching policies and guidelines such as neutral point of view and verifiability of content when creating the article. You can read Wikipedia's guide to writing your first article to help get started or you could request for the article to be created by another editor and they could create the article in accordance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But of course, I should mention, that when requesting article creation be sure to assert the notabilty of the company along with reliable sources to back up the content to improve chances for the article being approved for creation. Hopefully this helps AngelOfSadness talk 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nora Campos

Good job beating me to the punch! I was just about to revert and then got an edit conflict. Sigh... I was so close! Noooooo! *Sarcasm ends here* Keep at it. With the crap that the ignorant masses throw at us, it's nice to know that there are speedy editors out there to take care of things so we slow-pokes can go back to arguing about whether the Main Page is the wrong shade of blue. Cheers, and thanks again!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. It's a shame that the masses these days seem to be only companies here to advertise or high school kids here to vandalize (Geez that almost sound like a song :P) but at least there's a good number of us here to clean up their messes :) AngelOfSadness talk 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mut ( dog)

Cor ! An administrator agreeing with me ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you were correct in your assertion so... :) AngelOfSadness talk 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jagger Joseph Blue

Give me a reason why you protected Jason Goldberg and Soleil Moon Frye pages over their transsexual baby girl named Jagger Joseph Blue. 60.53.88.127 1:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, my guess is violation of multiple policies and guidelines, including at worst vandalism, and at best those on original research and biographies of living persons, edit-warring, the 3-revert rule and refusal to discuss your proposed edits on the article's talk page. If you can find a reliable source supporting your assertion, cite it; otherwise it doesn't go in the article. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What Clubjuggle has said is exactly right and page protection in this case was more than warranted (because of: BLP violations(unsourced and unverifiable content/original research), NPOV violations, vandalism, edit-warring, 3rr etc. all coming from a seemingly dynamic IP and with no other IPs were making constructive edits which could be prevented in semi-protection). So there's five good reasons for the page protection. If you feel it's not a BLP violation/vandalism/original research/NPOV violation and indeed have a reliable source for the claims, please cite your reliable source at either one/both of the article's talkpages. Cheers AngelOfSadness talk 17:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bodac

Is me and my bodies band were just trying to promote if u can help build a wikipedia page with us that would be awsome ty so much and rais hell to those who should be punished ty.

Famt13 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

First thing you shouldn't write about things that you are connected to as it presents a conflict of interest. Secondly Wikipedia is not an advertising service so using Wikipedia to promote a non-notable band doen't go down well. Thirdly, I deleted the article because it did not assert the importance or significance of the band therefore, given the article's then-state, it was deleted under the speedy deletion critera. Cheers AngelOfSadness talk 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

bodac

im the smartest one in the band and there is no conflict in interest were like green jelly[[1]] at the moment we suck but we want to show people we can put at leat a wiki up since it cant manage a myspace right now please help us ty. Famt13 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No: conflict of interest(on wikipedia) is when someone creates a Wikipedia article on a subject which they are close/connected to like a band/company/family relation and other editors disagree with the article's existance (as in the article does not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines). Anyway, first I have to ask if the band (not the article) has achieved any of the critera of WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles before any article creation can commence. Also if you have any third-party sources that are independant of the subject to back up the claims that would be great. AngelOfSadness talk 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you very much for the note of welcome, I've been here a while though.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Ok, well I thought I would welcome you considering no one else had taken advantage of the honour yet :). But if you have any questions, you know where to find me and I'll be happy to answer them :). AngelOfSadness talk 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, it was nice of you to do so. Sorry if I came across as overly hostile or a little unappreciative in my earlier message.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

You're welcome and if you're wondering I didn't think that you came across at all hostile or unappreciative. AngelOfSadness talk 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) You even got to change my count to another milestone. =D -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And congrats on the 300th vandalism on your userpage :D. Shame the vandal was so boring :P AngelOfSadness talk 14:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it...

I was considering an RfA (after User:Rick Block suggested it). Can I get your thoughts? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the clear blocklog, the vandal fighting, content contributions, helping newbies, history of civilness and communication with other editors are all a plus for the Rfa. However, I will say that because you've been on Wikipedia for such a long time but have only the two thousand edits, it could be a problem for some of the Rfa !voters (and unfortunately I have seen some people vote neutral and sometimes oppose but it really depends on the individual candidate and who !votes in the Rfa). Especially, when there are months of gaps in your contribution history that could also be a slight problem and Rfa !voters would expect a good reason for that. I, personally, wouldn't oppose a candidate on that but quite a few people expect a lot out of an Rfa candidate(and it seems that some almost expect that the Rfa candidate shouldn't have a real life :D) even though adminship is no big deal. Maybe wait a few more months (like about two at least) to clock up some vandal edits and make some more major content contributions and then hopefully that should be enough so the !voters should be focusing too much on the time gaps/number of edits. If they see that you are a vandal fighter, can deal with vandals/newbies properly and has a number of major contributions to a number of different articles (they don't have to be upgraded to GA, FA or anything like that). Hopefully this can help bubt so far you have done wonderful work so keep that up :D AngelOfSadness talk 14:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Troyrodriguez361

Thanks for your help with Troyrodriguez361. He's quite persistent; it took me a long while to track down and revert all his vandalism. Tell me it's all worth it.... ;) justinfr (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. And I'm hoping it's all worth it. I have all of the deleted articles from the Afd on my watchlist so if they're re-created, I'll be able to delete the pages again (salt them if the re-creation get out of hand) and issue blocks to the socks. Shame that the socks don't know that the Afd's and sockpuppet reports have just made any future deletions and blocks a hell of a lot easier for admins to take action. All I can say is watch out for any more vandalism related to this user and his socks, as I'm sure they haven't given up yet. But, honestly, I have seen worse from persistant sockpuppets creating hoax articles so this guy is really not a problem. Also cheers for having the Afd and sockpuppet reports so detailed as it is that which made this whole thing a lot easier to take care of. :) AngelOfSadness talk 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above could you please look at Special:Contributions/Mrclickettycane who after stating I create hoaxes. I believe that hoaxes give us all something to laugh at. on their user page went on to create Dr. T. Rodriguez (economist) which looks like a serious article but has same name as your old friend, and the ref's aren't checkable -Hunting dog (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup it could be. But considering this user made other seemingly helpful edits before that, I think it might be best to leave it to another admin to decide upon that possible sock's fate. I'm only saying this because, every one of the other socks sticked to only making hoax articles, participating in the Afds of those articles and making edits inserting the name/projects the person is allegedly starring in into various articles to make the subject seem notable. But given that this particular possible sock made edits which, by the looks of it, have nothing to do with this hoax, I am a little weiry in placing a block. Although the original Troy made quite a few constuctive edits before this whole hoax thing aswell so that similarity could cause the recent user to be blocked as a sock. Although there is the little note the user made at the latest Afd saying they are not the real Troy but just someone going along with the hoax for research (seems like they were disrupting just to make a point), I'm going to take their word for it. However I wouldn't rule out a request for checkuser if the latest sockpuppet report comes back with uncertainty. With the other socks, it was quite clear cut as to what and what not was a sock, but because of my uncertainty, I'm going to leave it to another admin. AngelOfSadness talk 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

knot feeder

Hi Angel of Sadness, I was wondering what further references would be needed to confirm that Knot Feeder consists of band members from notable bands (specifically Mike Banfield), in order to meet the notability guideline for music. Thanks! Blabla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablabarb (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The references needed basically need to be a)third party sources b)that are reliable(preferably sources that have a reputation of fact-checking) and c) are independant of the subject. Usually articles by well known newspapers/magazines, online news sites etc. are great for referencing to back up notability. I don't know anything about this particular band so do you know any more infomation about them (like what record label they are signed to) which could help assert more notability per the guidelines of Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. AngelOfSadness talk 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Will you be willing to take me on as an apprentice? I dont really know how to work this thing, but I am smart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Of Anger (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would but I have zero experience in new user Adoption. In the past, I have answered, or at least tried to answer, any Wikipedia related question a new user left on my talkpage but it's not quite the same as Adoption. I also won't be available very often in the next few months to take on an Adoptee. However there are many listed Adopters at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters that are currently available to take on new Adoptees and who also have experience in new user Adoption. I'm afraid that I can't be more of help than that but if you follow the above link I'm hoping you will be able to find a more suitable Adopter. Cheers. AngelOfSadness talk 15:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Desmond ' dessie ' rosewood

I can't see how this can possibly qualify as patent nonsense. Taemyr (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as, for example, the first line read "Desmond (or Dessie to his friends )Rosewood is a reindeer famed for his outstanding work within the public sector in the united kingdom and throughout the european union" . It however did seem to be "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever" which is what patent nonsense is as stated by WP:Patent nonsense. I could be wrong on this but I tried to find sources to help make sense of the article as well as trying to verify claims of significance before deleting it and I didn't find anything. Given the lack of sense (CSD#G1), context (CSD#A1), assertion of significance (CSD#A7) it could be obvious misinformation (CSD#G3) therefore making the article speedy deletable under two/three(if including G3) other speedy deletion critera categories. AngelOfSadness talk 15:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention the reason that the article meets G3 as if you checked the website of the charity that the reindeer allegedly works for, you would see it doesn't exist therefore making it seem like misinfomation. AngelOfSadness talk 15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, searching for Rosewood also fails at the missing persons UK page. It's just that I don't like it when speedy criteria gets stretched. Taemyr (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

With that particular article it met at least four categories of the critera and usually the deletion log of similar articles don't list all of the CSD critera that the article met at time of deletion. So I deleted it under what the speedy deletion tag had said which was patent nonsense. AngelOfSadness talk 15:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)