User talk:Deranged bulbasaur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Caroline Bridgeman

I disagree with your assertions that Caroline Bridgeman's page is unencyclopaedic.

Caroline Bridgeman was a governor of the BBC as well as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (a category on Wikipedia containing many names).

I also think you should have contacted me directly before putting up a tag as WP:AFG. Jill Teed 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere did I imply bad faith on your part. Furthermore, nowhere did I imply that the whole article is unencyclopedic. When a tag is put under a specific section, and it says it can apply to either a section or an article, it applies to the section. Just because she's notable doesn't necessarily mean her children are, or that a list thereof should be in an encyclopedia.

Actually when I referred to good faith I was referring to your not having, again, contacted me directly before putting an undeserved and ugly tag on a page I created.Jill Teed 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In any event if you check the page now, you will see why it was not only acceptable, but necessary to include her children (3/4 of whom are important in their own right and have their own pages on Wikipedia). Also, her husband's page lists the same four children and you did not tag that page. Please try to be consistent.Jill Teed 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you persist in this harassment just because I tagged a page of yours, I will seek administrator intervention. Furthermore, I highly suspect you're just adding your genaeology to wikipedia, which poses a conflict of interest.

This claim of "harassment" is ridiculous--all I am doing is responding to your erroneously tagging my page and showing why you were in error. It seems you simply don't want to acknowledge your mistake.

The tag was not a mistake when it was created. I'm glad you addressed the issue and rendered it irrelevant, but a list of random descendents without any indication in sight as to what the significance might be *is* {{unencyclopedic}}. If you think that kind of tagging is personal effrontery, you're being far too sensitive. In any case, I don't see the problem. Seems like standard operating procedure to me. You fixed the issue, and I let the tag lapse. Coming here to gloat over how you were right all along and how I shouldn't dare to tag your articles is, frankly, juvenile. Deranged bulbasaur 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Contact an admin if you want, I've done nothing wrong. And I am in no way related to the Bridegemans or any other English family; also your meaningless and unfounded accusation goes against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

If you retag my page, I will regard it as harrassment and contact an Admin. myself.Jill Teed 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Page "regagged." Contact an admin if you want.

Just so you know, DB, the idea behind WP:PROD is that anyone can remove the tag. If you still want it deleted, you're not supposed to keep restoring the prod tag, but rather nominate for deletion. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've done no such thing. I have not once restored the PROD tag. In fact, I repudiated my own rationale. He's creating all this fuss over what was a simple {{unencyclopedic}} tag on some random list of names. He's since fleshed out the list of names, so I let that tag drop as well.

If you don't believe me, consult the history of the article in question. In any case, I'm in danger of letting my anger get the better of me, so I'll just drop it. I regret having proposed the article for deletion.

Chasemcc

I did not realize that was against the rules i will delete it immediately. can you provide my with another alternative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasemcc (talk • contribs)

Not really. You could conceivably add mention of this commercial activity to your userpage as something you're involved in. Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Chasemcc 12:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick Fanuzzi

DB, Please jot over to the Fanuzzi Talk page and see if it passes muster. Thanks, Pepto gecko 02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I was just wondering why the article on Joe McKnight hadn't drawn the WP:SD flag since the article subject closely mirrors my deleted article. Is there some criteria that makes it a keeper? Thanks - Pepto gecko 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Opalelement Talk Page

"Deletion of User talk warnings: Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked." I deleted them form my talk page because they were handled already and i thought they weren't needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opalelement (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

They are needed in light of the fact that you still create pages that are insufficiently notable. Jcink.com was just now deleted, FYI.

Yeah i saw it was deleted, I really have to contest, what do have to do, get a petition? I could get about 100 signatures or probably more, all from people who think Jcink.com helps them and can help others, which is why i made it... It helped me alot and it can help others, and isn't that kinda the point of wikipedia, to help others? Just tell me what i need to do to make it stay and i will. Opalelement 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A petition by the *users* will probably not be helpful. You can petition the wikipedia administrators at Wikipedia:Deletion review by following the instructions there. In the future, please sign your posts with ~~~~

There is a request for Jcink.com on Requested Arrticles in J-M. Can I make the Jcink.com article now that someone has actually requested it?

Manuelcragi

Sorry, can you help me... I don't know how to do that, I didn't want to do vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelcragi (talk • contribs)

It's what you *are* doing, not what you aren't doing. When somebody adds a tag like {{notability}} to an article of yours, don't remove it unless you provide a rationale, or do something substantial to correct the underlying concern. Also, it's customary to add new material to the *bottom* of pages like this.

Ok, sorry for both things, I'm still learning (; I already modified the content saying that the project is in pre-production in my university, the art institute of vancouver, we are going to shoot the pilot very soon.

Twin souls

Any chance you could add all the Twin souls characters and the pre-production into your AfD? Saves the trouble of doing them all individually. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. Sounds good, though.

Well, I think I did that right. Alexander Reim and Twin souls added to the afd.

HipHopDX

HipHopDx is a professional, popular and well-reputed web site. Countless Wikipedia articles contain links to reviews or articles published on HipHopDx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyvoltron (talk • contribs)

For the specific guidlines on website notability, see WP:WEB. The article does not reference "multiple non-trivial published works" which is the "central criterion" for website notability. If you want to dispute the tagging of the article, it's best to do so on its talk page. Few people will see your reasoning if you only put it here.

Fermin Fautsch

The page Fermin Fautsch has been nominated for deletion. Because you have edited it, you may be interested in contribution to the discussion here. Philippe Beaudette 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

DowneLink

What's it need to be significant. It's a valid site with lots of users that is in the beta testing stage. What needs to be added to show that the site has significance? I'm working on adding a link to the website, would that be it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tk03759 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm afraid that is not sufficient. For the guidelines on website notability, see WP:WEB.

What about as a stub? Tk03759 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The page must be made to reference reliable sources (WP:RS). The page must assert the notability of the website it is about. These requirements are not abrogated for stubs.

I think I understand now, and I'm going to remove the "hangon" tag so that the page can be deleted. Once the site comes out of beta, more information about it should circulate and I'm sure it'll wind up on wikipedia. Tk03759 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rage

you deleted my page and said that i insulted someone. i didnt insult anyone though. i made a page for my teacher who wrote a book about the slave trade in west africa. i wrote a small thing about his youth, and a few quirks he has. thanks for deleting my page, ill make sure to never make anything again, since you of course know Walter very well, and must know that those things are untrue and insulting, right? have fun playing pokemon bulbasaur...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyjschmidt (talk • contribs)

I don't have the power to delete pages, and furthermore, I don't even know what page you're talking about.

"Please do not make personal attacks on other people as you did at Walter hawthorne. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Deranged bulbasaur 05:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)" do you still claim you didn't delete my page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyjschmidt (talk • contribs)

Yes

AutoVaughn

I understand that it does look like it's just another random article that Wiki doesn't need. However, I don't have all the information in front of me and it's too late to call them to get it all. So, if there's a way to put off the deletion of the page as they are a factual band and they do show up on wiki under Jaci Velasquez. Just trying to make it a little more complete as I, and many close friends, do know the band personally. Also, I apologize for the poor formatting of this response and the entry as I've never made an entry from scratch before. I've just done some minor editing. I will look into the way of creating an article. Quietpopcorn 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Quietpopcorn

There's probably not a way to forestall the deletion, but you can always try again. You can save the text of the present article before it's deleted, then add the information that will make it satisfy the notability guidelines. I would however like to draw your attention to WP:COI.

Shuyi wang

Hi, i just wanted to apologise if i shouldn't have deleted that previously. I'm still rather new to this. Thanks for the tip though.CEP78 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. That article will be gone from history in no time, and now you know what to do in the future.

AfD

Sorry if I upset you, wasn't intended to be a personal attack. jimfbleak 11:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No harm done.

Page on Julian Fane

Would you mind telling me why you have nominated my recently added article on Julian Fane for deletion? Sebras 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your input

You input is required at Talk:Muhammad/images#Original_Compromise_found. Please help us in reaching compromise. regards. --- ALM 13:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tag to Pasion Mura

I have already posted an AFD tag on the page. Before, I had tried to speedy-delete it, but the author contested the deletion. Can you please remove the tag from the page? Thank you. Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Henry King-Tenison

Heja, for your information, according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names the title is usually used with peers. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Ah, I see.

Thanks for the explanation

Aloha and mahalo ā nui for you explanation of deletions. I will keep that in mind for next time.Dcbnmlt 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Nipples on Batman

Wow - that was quick. OK.... let me ask you this - what is your criteria for verifying that something is an 'Internet Phenonemon'? A citation of someone else describing it as such?Mikejstevenson 12:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume that you mean the article in question was just deleted. There are no separate guidelines on "internet phenomena." I only mentioned it as one because articles about them frequently fail established wikipedia guidelines like WP:NN and WP:ATT. The Nipples on Batman article, true to its type, clearly failed in those respects among others.

Oh, I guess it's still around. In that case, it *will soon* be deleted for failing those guidelines. Deranged bulbasaur 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Drake Bell

How do you add a hangon?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake&Josh (talk • contribs)

Put {{hangon}} at the top of the page.

Honeycut

Honeycut was reviewed in several San Francisco newspaper, got the annual SF Weekly music award, has released a CD which is also reviewed by the record label and available at music stores in San Francisco (e.g. rasputin) and through amazon. I think it clearly meets the criterion for notability. Am I wrong? BTW I am not affiliated in any other way with them than liking their music.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgoerner (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps you should add that to the article. If I recall correctly, it was all of one sentence long when I tagged it.

I understand that, but I lost some typing because of you tagging it... On the page quoted by you, it says: "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." No problem. Hopefully it is long enough now not to be marked for speedy deletion... Matthias

I'm very sorry that you "lost some typing," but the article, as it was when I tagged it, clearly met the speedy deletion critera. If band articles with no assertion of notability were allowed through, wikipedia would be bogged down in a morass of unverifiable, self-promotional drivel. I'm glad you improved the article and recreated it, but alleging some impropriety on my part for tagging it in its original state is silly. Now *I've* "lost some typing" on the issue, and I'm tired of it. Go away.

Also note that the counsel not to delete articles too quickly is for administrators who happen accross already tagged pages that are mostly empty. They're supposed to give the creator a small span of time to actually put content in the article before deleting it. I didn't delete your article. I just tagged it for deletion. You're obviously not observing that distinction properly.

Hey, I understand, and I am sorry. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoerner (talk • contribs)

Ok. No harm done. For what it's worth, I'm sorry if I came off as irascible.

No problem. Good to know that there are people taking care of the wikipedia standards!

Page on WaferTech

WaferTech is a major company in Clark County, WA. It's also the largest pure-play semiconductor foundry in the United States. This article should be kept although it certainly needs to be polished and linked to external mentions of WaferTech. Thanks! --rms1 Rms1 06:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Rms1

It would be better to argue that on the article's talk page than to argue it here. Be aware, however, that the primary criterion for the notability of companies is non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Deranged bulbasaur 07:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ingenuity

Thanks for the rapid deletion. I didn't realize I had to have sources given that tons of pages here do not. I have plenty of sources, but now that my page is deleted, I really don't feel like going through the trouble of recreating it from scratch. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean by deleting content you are completely unfamiliar with.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vobios (talk • contribs)

It's not my fault that your page did not meet wikipedia guidelines. I don't have the power to delete pages unilaterally, so at least one administrator must have concurred with my judgement. My guess is that there was a greater problem with it than lack of sources, since that's not one of the WP:CSD.

I did not imply it was entirely your fault. It's the fault of the system. Anyone is free to add a tag. Deleting the page entirely based on a small technicality is irresponsible. It was clearly not spam or harmful in any way. It would be nice to have a chance to defend myself. Vobios 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Magsamen

Hello, I completely rewrote this article and found a few citations. I think it meets notability standards now due to her awards. Please review my changes and consider advocating for keeping the article. --Mus Musculus 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WaferTech

Some additional third-party references have been added to WaferTech. --Eastmain 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/U

The RFC/U page has enough cruft every day, no need for your self nom. C'mon now. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not cruft. I want to know if my username violates policy. I presume that's what a *request for comment* is for.

No, its a point violation. We don't need test cases, and that's what you said it was. Please refrain from this type of activity. pschemp | talk 00:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a point violation even though I legitimately want to know whether or not I can keep this username?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deranged bulbasaur (talk • contribs).

I dunno if it's a point violation, but it's certainly silly and unneeded. Pschemp and I disagree, as a rule, on just about everything, but if she hadn't pulled your self nom, I would have. That should tell ya' something. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're "not sure" whether I committed any misconduct in my nomination, but you're willing to withdraw it from consideration nonetheless?

YOu've been editing for over a month and no one has complained. That's proof enough. We don't need "test cases" for something like that. There are better things for people to be spending their time on. Go improve the encylcopedia instaed of wikilawyering please. pschemp | talk 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd rather not, when a pall of doubt hangs over my identity here. There's a difference between trying to prove a point and trying to discover what's acceptable and what's not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deranged bulbasaur (talk • contribs).

If you're uncomfortable with your own username, you can request that it be changed or just create a new account. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not uncomfortable with it. I want to know whether it's allowed or not. The common sense definition of a "request for comment" certainly admits of cases like this. I'm not convinced that your removal of my nomination was well-founded.

And what's the use of signing my comments on my own talk page when it's obvious I've made them—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deranged bulbasaur (talk • contribs).

It's certainly not obvious that you've made them, and your unwillingness to sign your message might reasonably be interpreted as impolite, but that's between you and whoever raised you. Regarding your username, I have no dang idea why you think it's controversial. You're sure it's your username that's causing the problem? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It contains a trademark, doesn't it? That has been grounds for previous renamings, hasn't it? Maybe it's the singular workings of my own brain, but that seems to invoke doubt about it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deranged bulbasaur (talk • contribs).

For that matter, why must you necessarily think it controversial before it's a valid rfc? I'm still waiting for somebody to point out where I've erred. [EDIT CONFLICT]

What trademark? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is a trademarked character from the Pokemon series of video games produced by GameFreaks. Deranged bulbasaur 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This type of use of a trademarked term is not actually in violation of trademark law, but both the policy and the inforcement leave room for wide latitute in interpretation. You say I'm "wikilawyering" but the question is clearly applicable in my situation, and I'm not just trying to assert some abstract point in a way that would violate WP:POINT. Deranged bulbasaur 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I'm out. There is no happy ending to this. If you'd like to pursue an RFC/U about your username, include a full description of why you think it's an issue. Your initial post did no such thing. If you decide to re-submit yourself, consider for a moment what your end goals regarding this are. The RFC/U regulars tend to be... conservative in their unique interpretation of WP:U. Are you going to be happy with the answer? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what was deficient in my original submission. If you would like to articulate to me what I should include besides an additional clarification that Bulbasaur is a trademark (obvious from the context) I would be happy to do just that. Deranged bulbasaur 01:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like you got your answer —dgies^t_c 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Other's talk pages

Hi Deranged bulbasaur,

I found you since I watch Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and I looked over your edits a bit. I wanted to comment about your reverting of blanked messages by User:Opalelement on User talk:Opalelement From Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page:

Archiving of one's own user talk page is not required. A user may simply delete any comments they have read, whether they have acted on them or not. The only exception to this are warnings of vandalism and other abuse on anon IP talk pages. These must be retained so that admins can readily apply or remove edit blocks.

I had the same thought that everyone was supposed to keep and properly archive their talk page, but that is not the case. People can and delete comments at will. Just wanted to pass that along that you were wrong to revert and warn them about it. Cheers and happy editing. --EarthPerson 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems pretty screwy. You'd have to review the entire history of someone's talk page to find a pattern of abuse. What a time waster. Oh well, I guess I don't make the rules, so I won't do that any more. Deranged bulbasaur 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I happened to be reading Wikipedia:User page and it says "Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon." I guess the question is whether "often frowned upon" is tantamount to "forbidden." In any case, my original belief that you can't remove such warnings comes from seeing IP users warned or blocked for that very thing. It didn't occur to me that the policy would be different between IP users and registered users. In my opinion, it should not be. Deranged bulbasaur 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. But, I think a quick gauge of an editor is both the contents of their talk page and how they use it. So I plan on archiving most of mine, except for blatant attacks or vandalism. Which so far have been pretty light. Cheers. --EarthPerson 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Saahar

hello Sir!

my topic saahar was under contraction but you delted that topic now i want to again creat that can i make that now if u dont mind.

Qadeer Mangrio

You don't need my permission to do that. The deletion log says it was removed for lack of context, so if you have remediated that problem and the article now has sufficient context, by all means go ahead and recreate it. Deranged bulbasaur 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Magsamen

Hi. I wanted to reply to your comment at this AfD. Hagiography is the study of the saints. When I looked at the article to be deleted (by which time it had certainly changed considerably), I saw that she was a categorized as a children's author. I took your use of hagiography to mean that you felt the purpose of the article was to make idolizing page about a NN author. Sorry about that. :) (I accidentally replied to the closed AfD and this thought to post this here.) Cheers. --EarthPerson 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

re

Hi... I do not put that vandalism on American back bear...:-9 yours Flavio/Tigre Reietta 14:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Youthinkleft

I noticed that the page I created has been tagged for speedy deletion, may I ask why? --Schweermo 05:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a page about web content that does not provide information to validate the importance of the topic. See WP:CSD to learn more about the criteria for speedy deletion and WP:WEB to learn more about guidelines for web site notability. Deranged bulbasaur 05:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Schweermo 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The other top

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#New noms to top or bottom? Uncle G 10:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Deranged bulbasaur 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)