Myrrideon

Hello, Myrrideon. You have new messages at Badgernet's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Usage of Wikipedia

You are clearly new to WP as indicated by your correspondence with user:Badgernet.

In future, before you decide that a particular article is not to your taste, consult the WikiProject concerned and outline any concerns, issues or questions to them. If it is a cricket article, raise your point at WT:CRIC. You need to understand the spirit of WP and not take some of its guidelines to extremes. In particular, you need to study Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, WP:Notability, WP:V, WP:POINT and WP:STUB.

Nearly everything on WP is there by consensus and based on verifiability. Your insistence that you were right about CricInfo and the ICC was easily disproved by means of verifiability. Check your facts before you take an action that is bound to antagonise another user and bear in mind that many of the editors you will encounter have considerable experience of the site. For example, the four of five of us who responded to you on the Sukumaran issue have surely amassed well over 100,000 edits between us so you may rest assured that we know what we are talking about.

An article may contain only a couple of lines but if there is something that indicates notability and if there is one verifiable source, then it is an acceptable WP:STUB. The article may be missing key information such as a date of birth but, if you look at the categories allocated to T. K. Sukumaran you will see they include Category:Year of birth unknown and Category:Year of death unknown, both of which are acceptable (indeed, required if necessary) and widely used across the site.

Your nomination of Sukumaran blatantly ignored the fact that the article had a verifiable source (CricketArchive) and your rationale amounted to a clear breach of WP:POINT. For those reasons, both User:Andrew nixon and myself were justified in reverting your edits, including a tag that was placed without good reason and was a waste of time. Your behaviour breached both the spirit and the guidelines of the site. You were completely out of order in AfD-ing a stub that satisfied both the notability and verifiability criteria.

Do not attempt to delete articles unless you are certain that they breach a key policy. For details of these policies and other useful information, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for instructions on how to approach an article that may seem dubious. If you see a source that is unfamiliar to you, ask the author or the WikiProject about it first. Just because you have not heard about the source does not mean it is "obscure", to use your adjective.

Above all, remember that consensus rules on WP. Do not denounce an article by insisting that you alone are right and experienced editors are wrong. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, in short, you are a bully, you like being a bully, and I am meant to just shut up and take my beating like a good person. Myrrideon (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Chirundu

I didn't block Chirundu for creating the article per se, I blocked him because he had the same username as the article. For COI reasons this is forbidden. If he wishes to improve the article or comment at the AfD he is free to create a new account under a proper username and do so, as it's a soft block. Daniel Case (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)