Yournumbertwofan
May 2008
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Rush Limbaugh/to do, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The article Zane Gordon-Bouzard has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.
Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Marmaduke
editPlease do not add this non-notable blog information to the article without first discussing it at the talk page. There have already been discussions here and here concluding that the blog is not notable enough to be written about so much in the article. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your personal assertion that "a lot of people read the blog" is not enough; nothing is considered notable unless you can actually give real sources proving that the blog is significant. Just looking at hits or an Alexa rank is not enough; internet pages can only be included if they have received significant coverage in the news or some other sort of media. You can't include the blog just because you think a lot of people like it.
- You claim that you are done being childish...but your insistence on calling Wikipedia a "clusterfucked internet bureaucracy" and my edits an "ego trip" lead me to believe you are not acting in good faith. —Politizer talk/contribs 07:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- As for the "ridiculous hierarchy here on what is supposed to be a website which is editable by all who visit it"...please be aware that, while Wikipedia is free to be edited by anyone, there are guidelines about what constitutes an appropriate edit; just because Wikipedia is freely editable doesn't mean that we are required to accept everything that you write in it. Just as you are free to add information, others are free to remove it if it's inappropriate. You may want to read What Wikipedia is not, Notability, and Five pillars for information on Wikipedia's policies. —Politizer talk/contribs 07:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- And, for your information, I did bother to check the blog, which is how I came to the conclusion that it's non-notable. —Politizer talk/contribs 07:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no "system which allows certain users to override others simply based on their own personal experience, without any further insight"; new users are welcome to make appropriate contributions, and people such as admins do not have any special extra authority over regular users (see here). Your contributions were removed not because I think I have more authority than you do (in fact, I am also a new user), but because that same information has been removed multiple times, by at least 3 different editors, so there was a consensus not to include it. I gave you the opportunity to open a discussion with other editors, who would have treated you as an equal, but instead of taking that opportunity you continued to engage in a unilateral edit war and to act like a child towards editors who tried to communicate with you.
- As for "condescend"ing you, if you're referring to the edit where I gave you links to policy pages...well, I was trying to help you out by showing you information that would help you make edits that won't be deleted in the future. If this is how you react to help, then I'll remember not to bother being civil with you in the future.
- I've tried to communicate with you about these issues, and I would have been willing to consider re-adding your blog information once you gave sources, but given your childish actions and name-calling I am inclined not to bother dealing with you anymore. If you continue to act in the way you have before, your edits will simply be reverted, and I am willing to bet that no one else is going to show you any more sympathy than I will. —Politizer talk/contribs 07:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Where to begin... First of all, the edit war I am referring to is how, after I asked you to discuss your edits at the talk page, you continued to make edits to the article without consensus. An Edit war is when a user repeatedly edits an article against consensus and refuses to discuss his edits, and that is exactly what you were engaged in before you left a message for me. The reason your edits became labelled as vandalism was because you were edit warring; the first time you posted the information today it wasn't vandalism, it only became vandalism after you did it repeatedly while refusing to talk to other editors.
- As for your claim that you did not call me any personal names... actually, you said that I am on a "bizarre ego trip", which is a pretty clear personal attack. As for my use of the term "childish," I didn't use it until after you had already used it on your own to refer to yourself.
- You say "It seems as if you didn't even consider the several links I included in my last post"... Actually, I have already looked at all of the links, as you can see from this edit (note: 10 minutes before your message) in which I struck out the links I found non-reliable and left the others.
- As for my "bizarre ego trip to protect the integrity of the Marmaduke article"....you seem to be under the impression that I sit around all day doing nothing but stare at the Marmaduke article and waiting for someone to edit it. If you must know, I have about 400 articles that I am involved in editing, and the only time I even think about the Marmaduke article is when it pops up in my watchlist. If you take the time to actually look at the article history, you will see that I am not the only one who has been trying to "protect" the article; numerous other editors have removed this same information. I removed your information quickly not because I was on an "ego trip," but because it had already been removed by another editor several times just a few minutes before (again, see the article history) and there was a standing request to have a discussion at Talk before adding any of that information.
- If you want to find some other editor to offer a second opinion, that's fine with me, but continuing to insult me is not going to make me any more inclined to listen to you. Within your first 6 edits you have edit warred, vandalized two user's pages (mine and User:SRE.K.A.L.24's, who was not even involved in the Marmaduke dispute), and insulted me and other Wikipedia editors, and that is not a good way for you to get started here. —Politizer talk/contribs 08:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you have an honest desire to include beneficial information, citing sources properly and not giving the information undue weight, then you may get in touch with another editor to discuss how to go about writing the information (User:J.delanoy and User:CliffC are involved in that article and might be able to help). It will have to be with another editor, because I have no desire to work with you after this. —Politizer talk/contribs 08:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- You should also take the time to read the page about edit warring, because your comment "WHATEVER THE FUCK AN EDIT WAR IS" implies that you don't care about edit warring, but it is actually a very important policy to understand, because people can and do get blocked for breaking it. This is not a threat; it's just a suggestion so that you can cover your own ass if you start editing again. —Politizer talk/contribs 08:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you have an honest desire to include beneficial information, citing sources properly and not giving the information undue weight, then you may get in touch with another editor to discuss how to go about writing the information (User:J.delanoy and User:CliffC are involved in that article and might be able to help). It will have to be with another editor, because I have no desire to work with you after this. —Politizer talk/contribs 08:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your contribution was deleted the first time because at the time it had absolutely no sources to back it up, and no sources to prove that it was notable. On Wikipedia, unsourced information may be removed without warning, and the fact that your stuff stayed up for several months just means that no one was paying close enough attention to fix it. My removal of your information had nothing to do with authority; when information has no source, anyone could remove it. You could go to other articles and remove unsourced information now if you wanted to.
- Posting sources to the talk page is a good start, but those sources are still useless unless you include them in the article with inline citations when you add your information. If you don't know how to do inline citations, you can ask another editor for help.
- As for stating your points "eloquently and passionately," I wouldn't call a ten-line all caps rant "eloquent." "Passionate," maybe. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP
December 2008
edit Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Politizer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 06:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Marmaduke, you will be blocked from editing. Now that you have continued to add undesirable material to the article without discussing, when you have been explicitly asked to discuss with other editors, these edits will be seen as vandalism from now on. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:41, 5 December 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 User:SRE.K.A.L.24. \ / (⁂) 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
.
Yournumbertwofan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked because I was re-editing the Marmaduke page to include information which was continuously being edited out despite as many as 5 sources which I had added. This is rididulous.
Decline reason:
No, you were blocked for vandalizing various user talkpages and other forms of incivility. Which you did, so the block stands. When it expires, you're welcome to discuss content issues on the relevant pages if you can behave maturely. — DMacks (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
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.
- (edit conflict)No, you were blocked for this edit to my user talk page, which was blatant vandalism after you had already received a final warning for vandalism. This block has nothing to do with your edits at Marmaduke. —Politizer talk/contribs 10:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)