User talk:Anthem of joy

Welcome, and thanks for your work on Romeo Montague

Hi Anthem (and welcome to Wikipedia).

I just wanted to drop you a note and thank you for taking on the Romeo Montague article. It was, as are many articles on Shakespearean characters, in rather poor state (possibly because few since William Hazlitt and his Characters of Shakespear's Plays have written in depth on the characters as such, rather than the plays overall). Don't worry too much about the list of performers: the Wikipedia Manual of Style generally discourages lists of information—particularly sections that consist only of a list—preferring instead prose sections imparting the relevant information. My suggestion would be to just drop the section alltogether and instead think about how to construct a section on notable performances or interpretations of the role. For instance, one could compare Leonardo di Caprio's Romeo in Romeo + Juliet to Claire Danes' Juliet (Danes is credited with being the first actress to make the delivery of Juliet's lines seem natural on screen); or di Caprio's Romeo with Leonard Whiting's interpretation in Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 adaptation. Touch on David Garrick's production in 1750 and Charlotte Cushman's interpretation in 1845. And so on. The critical editions of the play from Arden and Oxford should be good sources to use for this historical context, even if they do not touch so much upon the individual characters. The main Romeo and Juliet article could be a good starting point for this context.
Anyways, glad to see you here, and thanks for working on the article. --Xover (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Moving

Why you want to delete the article ARMENIAN MOVING.This article is true and wrote on real facts and sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan from Karabakh (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Not sure if you noticed, but the above user also made a comment on your "User Page", User:Anthem of joy , and I just thought you'd like to know since it's...not the type of information people typically like to have there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that too. Judging by his talk page and contributions, I think he's having a really hard time grasping how things work here on wikipedia. (No offense to him.) And I was going to remove his comment myself, but since there was no older version, I could only blank the page, and I didn't want anyone to misinterpret that as vandalizing your page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Hi Anthem, I just wanted to let you know that there was a request for comment on articles related to "Yes, Virginia, There is a Hercules". Seeing as you participated in the AfD, I was wondering if you would like to participate in the RfC. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ya, the RFC is at Category talk:Hercules: The Legendary Journeys episodes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional female robots and cyborgs

Twinkle never tagged the page or created the AfD nomination page, so I removed the transclusion from today's AfD list so you can try again. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re:List of Fictional characters with ADHD

I had already proposed deletion of this article once and someone removed the PROD. I did an AFD and stole your comment. Feel free to 2nd it on the AFD page. --Mblumber (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture

Thanks for taking the current event tag off of the Rapture article. I couldn't figure out how to do it. Voyager640 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ivan Stoiljkovic (magnetic child)

The article Ivan Stoiljkovic (magnetic child) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E Subjects notable only for one event. There is 'media' coverage but he is likely to remain a low-profile individual.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lateg (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Mathews Brett CSD

You tagged Harold Mathews Brett as a G12. I've looked at the article briefly, and while I see that it leans quite heavily on this, I don't view it as "unequivocal".

It has been listed at Copyright violations, and my preference would be to let the experts there review it and decide whether it should be wholly thrown out, or if a bit of editing would suffice. One option is to remove the CSD, but for you to add a note to the entry on Copyright_problems expressing your belief that it should be removed, but you would like other input.

Copyright is a tricky area, one we want to get right. I want to be a hawk on the subject, and make sure we don't allow any violations, but at the same time, I don't want to lose an article that could be salvaged. I've spent some time in the copyright area, but still know I have a lot to learn, so I'll be asking one of the experts to see if this advice makes sense.--SPhilbrick T 20:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly more of an unequivocal copyright violation when created. I'll remove the tag for the moment, but much of it is just a paraphrasing of the source at the moment. --Anthem of joy (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're on the same page:) I was trying to replace the tag with a {{close paraphrasing}} tag when you made the change. I'll add it.--SPhilbrick T 20:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Jfgslo has started an RFC on whether it would be appropriate to merge or redirect an article that you recently participated in an AFD for. Please join the discussion so that we may try to form a consensus at a centralized location. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cpro

Hi Anthem of Joy, good spot on User:Cpro, that was certainly vandalism. But its always worth looking at the history before tagging pages for deletion. In this case it looks to me like an IP vandalised the page. So I just reverted to the last version by User:Cpro. Cheers and happy editing. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Barcolo

Hi. Thanks for tagging this article for speedy deletion. However, if an article has only just been created and does not yet contain any relevant information, the creator might still be in the process of adding material. Tagging it just a minute after creation might scare them away, so it's always best to wait a little while before tagging new articles with no content - the WP:NPP guidelines suggest 10-15 minutes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to second what Boing said. It would probably be better to give a new article a few minutes to gel. My first article was also deleted before I added content. It is also a good idea to Google search before tagging for deletion. As it turns out, the subject is notable in a why-don't-we-already-have-this-sort-of way. He started the company that made the barcalounger.viz http://wnyheritagepress.org/photos_week_2008/barcolo/barcalo.htm Cheers, Dloh cierekim 13:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was a bit too hasty with Twinkle there. Thanks guys. --Anthem 14:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I've done some work on it now, it looks better). --Anthem 14:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Nice ketch on the spellin'. Dloh cierekim 14:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, nice work! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Well, the page, "User:1007D/MOTHERFUCKABILLY!!!", deals with having the size of an article larger than 100 KB. It visually shows an article being repeated for about 10 times, describing that articles can't be too long. 'I () () `'/ I> <pronounced "one-hundred-seventy"> 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I've do it, but I'd bask that idea to waiting period until I can learn to handle deletions. 'I () () `'/ I> <pronounced "one-hundred-seventy"> 21:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can do so. 'I () () `'/ I> <pronounced "one-hundred-seventy"> 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Amy Less obsession with the Kardasians

Thanks for your note on this. I wasn't sure which speedy deletion criterion fitted it best, though it seemed a very clear candidate, and went for "patent nonsense" without fully checking. I'll know better next time! Thanks again for the heads-up, and for the deletion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:1007D/MOTHERFUCKABILLY!!!

I have declined your speedy-deletion nomination, because WP:CSD#U1 is only for a user to request deletion of his/her own user pages. 1007D can put db-u1 on it if s/he wants it gone, but otherwise if you think it should be deleted you will have to use MfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anthem of joy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am unrelated to Claritas. I have never broken any Wikipedia rules or guidelines, and I am not sure on what grounds I have been blocked. Can someone please explain what evidence I need to provide to sort out this misunderstanding ?

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence says you are. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anthem of joy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, there has been some sort of misunderstanding. I have always contributed to Wikipedia positively and have made no disruptive edits. I again ask to explain how I can show the check user evidence to be irrelevant.

Decline reason:

You cannot. The only thing you can do is give a good, honest explanation as to why you felt the need to create some eight different accounts. And then convince the blocking admin that you will not do so in the future. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{Unblock|Ok, I'll be honest here for once, as my deception's lame and not doing any good. I started off editing from Claritas. I good-hand/bad-handed for a short period of time by creating one article with purposefully incorrect information in it. I then revealed it to be essentially a hoax because I realised that what I was doing was damaging the project. I was never involved in !vote-stacking at afd etc. I thought I would retire from the wiki, and did so on Claritas, with over 5000 edits and William H. Prescott to my name. However, there were some interesting discussions going on about Transformers, and I used an account I'd previously created User:Blest Withouten Match, to start some discussions, in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. I reiterate, I never stacked votes in discussions. When my IP ban ran out, I created some more accounts, but voluntarily told MuzeMike about what I was doing because I felt I needed to take a long break from the wiki before I started again. Then in April, having not edited for months, I created this account, and have since done over 1000 productive edits. Per ignore all rules, I think there is no good justification to prevent me from contributing to the project. I am not editing under any alternative accounts, and my recent contributions have been productive. I am a very young editor (I won't give my exact age due to policy) and I think I am mature enough now to edit without sockpuppeting or any other disruptive behaviour. I have not used any other account but this one since April, and I took a clean break from Wikipedia for months before that. There was never any real community consensus to block Claritas in the first place, and I feel I should have been sanctioned less. In any case, my contributions speak for themselves. If you'd rather that I didn't improve the wiki, it's WIkipedia's loss. This seems to be the way you're going - I'm not sure why you've moved the Adamah article out of mainspace, the sources are all online and the information can be verified easily.}}

Rather than unblock you, I think it would be a good idea to see what consensus there is regarding keeping you blocked or allowing you to edit: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Claritas/Anthem of Joy. BOZ (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. That's more than I expected. Could you possibly provide a link to Adamah (wherever it is now) to show that I have contributed some useful content ? --Anthem 12:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference as well, its at Wikipedia:Article incubator/Adamah. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just wondering, are there any recent edits of mine you consider disruptive ? Or am I going to stay blocked because of my history, not my actions ? --Anthem 13:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

Truth

Well, I'm going to scramble the password of this account now, as no-one trusts me. You probably won't find me editing from this IP until sometime in 2013. Till then, enjoy yourselves. If you think any accounts are my socks, I'll verify whether are not. I've sent an email to one user about your current suspicions, of which is seriously misguided. I do seem to be the only user who still really believes in Wikipedia's best policy. Oh, and get my gender right please. Anthem 15:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If tothwolf's wondering about the e-mail I sent him, it was deliberately trying to be annoying and unclear. All of the users there are unconnected with me. --Anthem 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not give you the prerogative to willfully deceive the community, which is exactly what you have done several times, now. Not that you care anyways, per [1]. –MuZemike 21:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it, do you? This is not a playground, and it's not a social networking site. It's an encyclopedia, and any editor who cannot understand that is not welcome here. Ever. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]