Constitutional congress

your userpage

I've blanked it; in future please dont use it for posting personal essays or promotional material. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although my page is not an essay, essays are allowed none the less"...that hardly promotes keeping it now does it. Please dont quote wikipedia policy at me; if you'd read the policy itself you'd have seen the first line that reads "Essays on Wikipedia are editor-created pages that typically address some aspect of creating and managing an online encyclopedia.".

In any case, if you want policy quoted at you; see "what wikipedia is not"; Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: (most relevant examples "1) manuals, 4) text books". Userpages should not be used as places to put massive reams of non-relevant information unless they're going to be included in an article. In any case, i've listed it under "Miscellany for deletion"; maybe a consensus from multiple editors will convince you. Ironholds 10:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Constitutional congress

User:Constitutional congress, a page you created, has 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/User:Constitutional congress and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Constitutional congress during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ironholds 10:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: talkpage post

Hey, thanks for the speedy message :). The problem is you've stuck it smack on the front of your userpage, and it reads like an essay rather than a page. If you look at the page United States Constitution you'll see much of the info is already covered. Ironholds 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted this response on my talk page but I thought I'd post it here just in case you miss it. You should take a look at United States Congress#Powers as it also has most of the information that you've already posted. Skiguy330 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment? I monitor new pages, so i (of course) saw yours. here's a little hint; if your page is being considered for deletion because it's inappropriate for a user page, then creating it as an article just means extra work for people like me. Inappropriate pages being recreated elsewhere doesnt somehow make them wonderful and worth keeping! If you read Skiguy330's comment above, much of the info is already contained in other articles. Why bother even creating the page if you know it'll be deleted? Ironholds 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, do so if you know the correct procedure. I'll meet it head on. I've already quoted the policies repeatedly on the deletion page for your userpage; many of them cover your article as well. see WP:NOT; wikipedia is not an essay repository. Tell me when you get this "harrassment" complaint up. Ironholds 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please note you dont have to create a new header each time; just add : to the first line of your reply to get the inline seperation you can see in my posts. Second, WP:BITE works on the basic idea "dont be mean and scare them away, they cant be expected to know all wiki policy". Now, i was initially very polite, and you started throwing policy at me (albeit heavily misunderstood policy). If you are going to claim that you DO understand it, which you have, then BITE no longer applies by your own admission. Thirdly; it reads as an essay. An appropriate page would be a definition of what constitutional congress is, the history behind it, so on. not "Many people think our government can do anything they want. This couldn't be farther from the truth. They only way they can do what they want is if the people allow it. The only way people allow it is by allowing themselves to be uninformed and uneducated.". Even ignoring that the article is american-centric (you shouldnt have "our people" just "in america..." and so on) it reads as a personal opinion rather than a well thought-out article. Ironholds 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"But I can't get anything done cause you want to be a jerk and just go delete happy". I'm not delete happy, i tried to give you advice on what was wrong with it, you dont seem to have taken it. The point you're missing is this; i've said it reads like an essay, and gave you some advice on how to change this, advice you've failed to take. And i know exactly what a constitutional congress is; i'm studying fricking politics at university! If you really want to get an admin involved, feel free, although i feel it would be a waste of his/her time when we only have 1500-odd. If i was delete-happy i would've nominated it for CSD rather than AFD. the whole point of AFD, as well as it being for articles not within the CSD categories, is to debate over the worthiness of an article. If you can convince the editors involved that this is a worthy inclusion, it will be kept; your time would be better spent doing that than calling me a jerk. Think of it like a debate; you're not going to win if you spend time you could have spent arguing your point flipping the bird at the other team. Ironholds 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hey, thanks for the speedy message :). The problem is you've stuck it smack on the front of your userpage, and it reads like an essay rather than a page. If you look at the page United States Constitution you'll see much of the info is already covered. Ironholds 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted this response on my talk page but I thought I'd post it here just in case you miss it. You should take a look at United States Congress#Powers as it also has most of the information that you've already posted. Skiguy330 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)"

Funny, that looks like editing advice to me! What i meant be the lettering; if i was "delete-happy" i would have nominated it for speedy deletion, which involves little to no debating and an admin would have deleted it off-the-cuff. Instead i put it through "articles for deletion" which involves debating so that you could voice your opinion. Instead you've acted like a five year old, blanking pages you dont approve of, insulting me and then going crying to admin when i reply maturely. If you have problems with the way things are done on wikipedia there's an easy solution; instead of wasting your time posting and my time replying, stop contributing. Ironholds 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Constitutional congress

I have nominated Constitutional congress, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional congress. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ironholds 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Constitutional congress, you will be blocked from editing. Dont blank valid MFD discussions. If you're this immature you're not likely to garner much support. Ironholds 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Constitutional congress

I have nominated Constitutional congress, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional congress (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mblumber (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Constitutional congress. sanawon 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Constitutional congress

A tag has been placed on Constitutional congress, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Tell City, Indiana

Yours is a perfectly reasonable question. I reverted your changes because both of them were promotional in nature. The first did not maintain an encyclopedic tone ("great view of the river") and was unsourced; the second was basically an advertisement for that particular publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)