User talk:Blow of Light/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Blow of Light. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Happy Holidays
 |
Happy Holidays Blow of Light/Archive 2. |
- Aw, thanks man! Happy holidays to you too! —BoL @ 03:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Refimprove
Just so I understand what you are doing, what is your rationale for adding a refimprove tag to Lucy Myers Wright Mitchell? I'm guessing you meant to use the inline citations tag. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, you need more references, and you need to kind of expand the article a little bit. That's why I tagged it. Happy holidays from —BoL @ 03:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually I don't. All three sentences are sourced to the references section, and the claims made are a matter of public record and history, and are not controversial or in dispute. Please be more careful or cite a guideline or policy that supports your view. —Viriditas | Talk 03:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, anyway, Happy Holidays from BoL 04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- The tag you probably want is {{Citations missing}}, however if you read Wikipedia:Citing sources, you'll see that it says, "inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations." Since that doesn't apply to this stub, I haven't yet added them. Usually, as a stub grows larger, inline citations are added, which is the proces I generally use. A Start-Class article that doesn't have inline citations is generally frowned upon. —Viriditas | Talk 04:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks for letting me know. Now I need to get back to my patrols, but Happy Holidays from —BoL 04:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- The tag you probably want is {{Citations missing}}, however if you read Wikipedia:Citing sources, you'll see that it says, "inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations." Since that doesn't apply to this stub, I haven't yet added them. Usually, as a stub grows larger, inline citations are added, which is the proces I generally use. A Start-Class article that doesn't have inline citations is generally frowned upon. —Viriditas | Talk 04:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, anyway, Happy Holidays from BoL 04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually I don't. All three sentences are sourced to the references section, and the claims made are a matter of public record and history, and are not controversial or in dispute. Please be more careful or cite a guideline or policy that supports your view. —Viriditas | Talk 03:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Your UAA reports
Your UAA reports recently have been odd. You've made many reports where the users may be acting problematically, but the problem has nothing to do with their username. The issue here is that UAA can really only respond in three ways: a username block, a username warning, or removing the report. If the problem isn't a username problem, then the only reasonable response is to remove the report.
Most of the things you report could be addressed by a warning on the user's talk page (for spamming or adding unencyclopedic content). In some cases, you may be looking for the conflict of interest noticeboard. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've never heard of that noticeboard, AN only told me to go to UAA or AIV, but there are some spam names out there. My reports have always (not really) been weird in a way, so, yeah... Happy Holidays from —BoL 04:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
In order to not bite the newbies, it's important to choose the correct speedy deletion classification (in this case, none applied to the article at all). The claim that an article "seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person" can be quite confusing and frustrating when the article in question is nothing of the sort. Just a friendly reminder. WP:TW is not a license to be imprecise or inaccurate in your communication with other users. —Random832 06:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I try to tag stuff for speedy deletion as quickly as possible so it can be ousted out of Wikipedia as fast as possible so that way we tell vandals we mean business. But, yeah, that's true, I should take more time to choose
{{db}}tags. Thanks for the reminder, and, are you offering to adopt new users at this time (I'm returning, but because of my history, yeah...) Happy Holidays from —BoL 06:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Right to Vanish
I'd advise you to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RtV Clarification. I'm not entirely positive what Keilana was thinking, but you do not fall underneath the Right to Vanish. You're just trying to escape your block log. GlassCobra 06:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not escaping any block log (wait, I am). But I'm also escaping what User:Jeeny did. I've read the ANI thread and what've you suggested, and I don't mind having those as legit socks/dopplegangers. But, I've recovered from that, and most people know who I am anyway, so, yeah, redirect away... And I'm also RtV because of my edit history. Happy Holidays from —BoL 06:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing of what you said makes you eligible for Right to Vanish. I will be redirecting your old user page and talk page. Please remove the notice at the top of your pages that says you have exercised RtV. GlassCobra 06:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, please either move your subpages from your old userspace to your new userspace, or tag them with {{db-userreq}}. GlassCobra 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's actually nice to start breathing again, now I know how horrible is Witness Protection (can I do that?) Happy Holidays from —BoL 06:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have blocked Blow of Light for one second to link his old block log to this one. Let me know if something went wrong when I did that. Metros (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, good enough. I wanted a clean start, anyway. Happy Holidays from —BoL 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"Cleaning up" my "talk" page
Thanks—but no thanks—for this edit which removed some "nonsense" from my user talk page. It may be nonsense, but it's my talk page, see? I can handle it myself, thank you very much. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sherman ES
Hi, and thanks for your contributions to WP. You just created a redirect forcing Sherman Elementary School to redirect to Sherman Elementary School (East Omaha). While its interesting that San Francisco has a school by the same name, there is no article on it, and there is no other article on any other school that share the same name. I am not going to revert your edit, but there really was no purpose in doing this, and I hope you consider otherwise next time. • Freechild'sup? 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just moved it. There are lots of schools named Sherman Elementary. —BoL 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Until there are other Sherman Elementary School articles, there's no reason to disambiguate this one particular one (I'm not saying you're wrong, but it has more to do with whether or not all those other Sherman Elementary Schools are notable; once we have more than one, yes, we should move the Omaha article). I've moved the article back. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, good enough. Now I'm not sure whether this IP posting on the below thread is crazy, it's pretty much self-explanatory. —BoL 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Until there are other Sherman Elementary School articles, there's no reason to disambiguate this one particular one (I'm not saying you're wrong, but it has more to do with whether or not all those other Sherman Elementary Schools are notable; once we have more than one, yes, we should move the Omaha article). I've moved the article back. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Abuse by Dreadstar
I do not know why you got involved but I have left a reply.
- I'm not sure why I am bothering but I have left another reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.147.121 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- No offense to the above thread. —BoL 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is this IP a PeeWee sock? Keilana(recall) 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- No offense to the above thread. —BoL 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Is there anything you need me to do? Keilana(recall) 03:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've complied the list, so I'll just go implement the IPs on the checkuser request. Let's see, the IPs are already blocked again, I've started a thread at Jimbo's talk page, someone suggested the feds. [1] —BoL 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll list the checkuser. Is he making threats in real life? If it's not serious, then I really don't think that the Feds should become involved. I really don't want them showing up at my door. Keilana(recall) 04:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's comparing a DoS attack with Virginia Tech. And about the recall, I wonder, is that necessary, I mean you are a good admin. I'm a sysop myself, at that new wiki that replaced the shops here. I'm not doing good, and just to make things clear, do NOT nominate me until after December 25, 2008. —BoL 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. I don't think that he could do the same damage over the internet as he could in a school, but that's just me. I have the recall link for accountability, I don't want to be doing a bad job and have people be too scared to tell me about it. WP:TROUT is my friend. ;) Do you need help in a certain area? Keilana(recall) 04:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I already got slapped with it last time. Maybe with the newpages patrol; I've been nominating stuff for speedy deletion lately. Check my deleted contribs. —BoL 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. I don't think that he could do the same damage over the internet as he could in a school, but that's just me. I have the recall link for accountability, I don't want to be doing a bad job and have people be too scared to tell me about it. WP:TROUT is my friend. ;) Do you need help in a certain area? Keilana(recall) 04:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's comparing a DoS attack with Virginia Tech. And about the recall, I wonder, is that necessary, I mean you are a good admin. I'm a sysop myself, at that new wiki that replaced the shops here. I'm not doing good, and just to make things clear, do NOT nominate me until after December 25, 2008. —BoL 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll list the checkuser. Is he making threats in real life? If it's not serious, then I really don't think that the Feds should become involved. I really don't want them showing up at my door. Keilana(recall) 04:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
CSD tags
When tagging articles for CSD there is no real reason for adding more than 1 tag (or 4). 1 tag will send the article to CAT:CSD and more than one will just clutter the page. Also db-repost is only articles deleted through Articles for Deletion, not speedy deletions.
And thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Michael Greiner 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize, and you're welcome. The reason why I do that is to tell the user to pretty much (WAKE UP PEOPLE!) stop recreating the articles, and repost is when a user recreates something from speedy deletion, right? —BoL 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is, but it isn't covered by db-repost. Please read Wikipedia:CSD#G4. When someone recreates a speedy deletion it is best to just tag the article with the same tag as before. --Michael Greiner 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, got ya. —BoL 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is, but it isn't covered by db-repost. Please read Wikipedia:CSD#G4. When someone recreates a speedy deletion it is best to just tag the article with the same tag as before. --Michael Greiner 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please dont nominate articles as non-notable when they are merely very poor quality articles about people who make some claim to notability. If you think the claim inadequate, uise Prod or �Afd. If the article needs fixing, try to fix it. DGG (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I should tag them more, but they'll eventually have them csd'ed. I'll use Prod or afd next time. Thanks. —BoL 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please dont nominate articles as non-notable when they are merely very poor quality articles about people who make some claim to notability. If you think the claim inadequate, uise Prod or �Afd. If the article needs fixing, try to fix it. DGG (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability of Wwekane
A tag has been placed on Wwekane requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You asked why there is no article on Kane? Try his real name, Glen Jacobs. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is. That's a redirect to the real kane. —BoL 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Foaming
Please avoid using "foamers" and other related terminology in edit summaries and talk pages, because, ironically, you were the one who put it there. —Kurykh 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ham Day (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ham Day (2nd nomination), 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/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ham Day (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ham Day (2nd nomination) 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. Marlith 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Misty Schipman
Thanks for the revert - Misty was one of the stranger deletions I've encountered. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. —BoL 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
tiger attacks
hi, I think the attacks occurred on separate years. Therefore, the title wouldn't have 2007. Blackjack48 ♠t ♣c 06:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- There have been several escapes in the SF Zoo over the years. I happen to know because I'm a resident of San Francisco, and there was a mauling last year, but, yeah, you got a point there because there were two maulings and countless escapes over the years. Thanks for the point. Now moving back to original page. —BoL 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm also a resident of SF. I'm surprised that the article is still in the works even though there's been so much coverage about it lately. I just got back into editing the wiki after looking something up. It feels good to be back :) Blackjack48 ♠t ♣c 06:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- What do you know, we got another user in da hood! Nob Hill. And this seems interesting. —BoL 06:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm also a resident of SF. I'm surprised that the article is still in the works even though there's been so much coverage about it lately. I just got back into editing the wiki after looking something up. It feels good to be back :) Blackjack48 ♠t ♣c 06:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Um?
May I ask why you labeled pingueculum as a suspected hoax article? DS (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I believe I've never heard of it. And I've looked over the history. Apparently, someone created the article in the wrong way, and had no refs and sources, that's why I've labeled it as a hoax. —BoL 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Next time you find an article like that, might I suggest that you try searching for the topic on Google before labeling it a hoax? Just a thought. DS (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet tags
If you find a sockpuppet that is not blocked, notify an administrator, as the tag you used (like at User:Cyric the One and All) state that it is blocked, when it is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't know that. Usually, in order to prevent total damage, I would usually do that, but, yeah... —BoL 01:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
inappropriate
it's inappropriate to tag as vandalism what is in fact a content dispute. please discuss the issue on the talk page, rather than engaging in a revert war. your initial edit summary in the series was "Meh." which sounds remarkably like "I don't like it". please take it to the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. I nearly got blocked for 3RR, did I? —BoL 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Your inappropriate comments
Thank you for the comments on my talk page and "article issue" tag on an article I just expanded. I'm going to try to be civil. I have contributed well over 2,000 edits so I don't appreciate a patronizing "welcome to Wikipedia" message that tells me how to use the sandbox to test out my edits. You cite my article (William Bascom) for lack of notability, lack of sources, lack of independent sources, and original research. If you had read the article in question, you would see it clearly meets the guidelines for academic notability (all 6 criteria, in fact), uses the chief peer-reviewed scholarly journal in the field as its main source, and makes no use of original research. Your tags show you haven't read the article or looked at the sources, are not familiar with notability (or the field in question - folkloristics), and your treatment of me as a Wikipedia newbie - when all you'd have to do is look at my history of contribs. and articles started - shows you haven't done your research here either. I spend valuable time when I add to Wikipedia, and I don't like having to spend twice as much time to defend spurious charges from people who haven't done the reading. Have a Happy New Year. Bruxism (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- <translation>You, too, but I removed some of the tags. And furthermore, in addition to my previous account in which I have abandoned, together I have 4500+ edits. I don't appreciate those warnings either, but, hey, no one does, really. I remember getting those comments once, I'm not the user who does that. And not only that, I've read the article. I've scanned the article. That's where the tags come in.</translation> —BoL 04:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article is fine, I've cleaned it up a bit. Don't template the regulars. GlassCobra 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- (aec w/Glass, who, as ever, says things more succinctly than I) To be sure, though, it was entirely inappropriate for you to term Bruxism's reversion of your addition of the tags as vandalism, and even more pernicious to template him. Edits made in good faith that mean not to be disruptive are, quite plainly, not vandalism, and whatever may have been the error of Bruxism's revert (I take no position on the underlying matter), templating him, especially inasmuch as you recognize that "no one...really" appreciates warning templates and thus, one assumes, that your templating Bruxism could not possibly be as constructive as discussing with him, either at Talk:William Bascom or at his talk, was in bad form. Joe 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I gotta remember that. And since GlassCobra here knows about my old account, I think it's time I should show him this edit. —BoL 05:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait... are you in RO?
You seem to know a lot about Lowell's RO program. Are you in it? alumni? And the last question would be... do I know you? haha
I mean I'd update the competition info myself, but being 3000 miles away when fall comp or 91st doesn't really help...lol Anyways, Happy New Year. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- No I am not in RO. Although I do know about it because the board voted to trash the RO. And happy new year to you too. —BoL 05:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, Kurykh does not know me... -_- - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: CSD tagging
Hi, I am concerned that comments like this perhaps border on biting newbies who create pages on Wikipedia. I've done some new page patrolling and deleting of speedies in my time, so I know how frustrating the constant influx of seemingly garbage articles can be, but please just be kind to these new users, so that they might become productive Wikipedians in the future. I do want to thank you for your work on new page patrol, however. It is really a big help.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. You know, my wikirifle does come in handy sometimes. And, yeah, I should be nice, but the speedy deletion notifications are kinda bitey, and sometimes other editors are more bitey than me, I try to explain to them what's wrong with the article. And a happy new year to you too! —BoL 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
TyrusThomas4lyf
Regarding the TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppetry issue, it's a little early to tell but Hypebuster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is operating over a similar selection of articles and *may* be a TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet. Just a heads-up. Myasuda (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Tagged as sock of Tyrusthomas4lyf. Now writing up a checkuser report. —BoL 21:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks for your help, and happy holidays! Myasuda (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Happy new year to you too! —BoL 03:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks for your help, and happy holidays! Myasuda (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year
 |
Happy New Year, Blow of Light/Archive 2. |
- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
|
Happy New Year, Blow of Light/Archive 2. |
- Ok...WTF one more time! —BoL 05:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
JROTC
Hey, it might help to just place the stats on my sandbox article. Would you like to help me in getting this article together? I asked Daniel Chin to help me, but he told me he's too biased to keep a NPOV on the issue, so I'm almost SOL on the issue (which is why I haven't touched that sandbox in a while)... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, who's daniel chin? —BoL 00:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Random question
Do you have Need for Speed: ProStreet? If you do, what system? --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 02:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- No I don't. But I have Need for Speed Underground 2. —BoL 02:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me on this page. The reason the image was showing up was because I hadn't uploaded it yet; I usually type the image name into the infobox before I upload it, to save a step. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Dang, newpages are off the hook! There's this user who keeps removing db tags on this article! —BoL 02:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Advice
I would strongly suggest you take into account the experience level of the user you are talking to when expressing a concern over the article they have created. While the templates do a good job of explaining basic policy for new users, they are not appropriate for users who have been around for several years and will likely just inflame the situation. Communicating almost entirely in templates or following rigid procedures with experienced users is not productive and leads to needless conflicts. Thank you, henrik•talk 03:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should I withdraw the AFD? —BoL 03:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, but a word of apology to C S might be in order - you acted hastily and failed to assume his or her good faith in this matter. A simple note explaining your concerns after the first removal of the CSD tag would probably have avoided all this. (No worries though, everybody can be caught up in actions and make mistakes - but it is important to be able to acknowledge them) henrik•talk 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I remember the last time I was caught up, that resulted in a block... —BoL 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, but a word of apology to C S might be in order - you acted hastily and failed to assume his or her good faith in this matter. A simple note explaining your concerns after the first removal of the CSD tag would probably have avoided all this. (No worries though, everybody can be caught up in actions and make mistakes - but it is important to be able to acknowledge them) henrik•talk 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. I created your account for you.
See our introduction to become acquainted with Wikipedia, and move on to the tutorial which, I think, gives some very good information about editing that all Wikipedians should read.
There are lots of ways you can help with the encyclopedia; check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia to find out how.
If you have any questions, you can ask on my talk page, check Wikipedia:Questions, or leave {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will be around to help shortly. Again, welcome, and happy editing! WODUP 06:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're getting ready to leave a message, right? Remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), or you shall face the wrath of the omnipotent User:SineBot! Also, every time SineBot has to sign someone else's comment, SineBot will unblock a vandal. He has untold powers even his creator never heard of! Please, for the love of Wikipedia, sign your comments!!
More advice
I seriously urge you to drop any mention of PeeWee. On ANI, you barged into the thread without knowing anything, did no investigation of the situation whatsoever, and made completely erroneous comments, which not only make you look stupid, but can also inflame the situation and can be construed as disruptive. Let me be frank: a lot of people don't hold a very high opinion of your actions already. Continuing down this path will get you extremely close to the blockhammer. So, perhaps as a New Year's resolution, maybe you should resolve to think twice before posting anything. Happy New Year. —Kurykh 06:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Three times. Avruchtalk 08:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- True. And not only that, I know about that. Happy new year to you too, and can I transfer any accounts I created over? —BoL 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by transfer? As in rename the account to something else? Metros (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. This is a sock that I created to write up RFCU drafts on PWeeHurman. I feel that I should transfer the account to someone else in order to prevent any obsession about PWeeHurman, which got me worked up yesterday. Any idea how that can happen? You want it? —BoL 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean give it to someone else? Why don't you just scramble the password so you can never log into it again? What good does it do for anyone here at all? Hell, what good does it do for you? Why do you even have it in the first place? You can't report him using your own account? Metros (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. This is a sock that I created to write up RFCU drafts on PWeeHurman. I feel that I should transfer the account to someone else in order to prevent any obsession about PWeeHurman, which got me worked up yesterday. Any idea how that can happen? You want it? —BoL 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by transfer? As in rename the account to something else? Metros (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- True. And not only that, I know about that. Happy new year to you too, and can I transfer any accounts I created over? —BoL 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Recent nomination for deletion of Soering v. UK
I have noticed that you nominate articles for deletion on a regular basis. You recently nominated Soering v. United Kingdom, which has had quite a response. In the future, if an article is part of a wikiproject, please contact that wikiproject about your proposal, in this case: wikiproject law. Those more knowledgeable in a field can better assist you in determining if an article is notable. Because you left bare commentary on your deletion nomination, I am unable to determine what your criteria was for determining notability. Leaving more commentary assists other users, substantiates the nominator's position, and forces the nominator to investigate the article further. An alternative is to tag a stub for expansion and to notify the appropriate wikiproject. Legis Nuntius (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me. By the way, what was the result of the AFD? —BoL 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- In fairness to the nominator, this article was not tagged as being part of the project until I added it some 3 or 4 days after the nomination. It also has been expanded dramatically since its original nomination. At that time, it was little more than a stub. Still, your point is a good one - this clearly would fall within the scope of the law project, and it would have saved everyone a bit of trouble if someone familiar with the subject could have weighed in first. Still, since the nominator withdrew (thanks for that by the way) no harm done. Xymmax (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I withdrew. Either way it would have been closed, because it was going on for more than 5 days. —BoL 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- In fairness to the nominator, this article was not tagged as being part of the project until I added it some 3 or 4 days after the nomination. It also has been expanded dramatically since its original nomination. At that time, it was little more than a stub. Still, your point is a good one - this clearly would fall within the scope of the law project, and it would have saved everyone a bit of trouble if someone familiar with the subject could have weighed in first. Still, since the nominator withdrew (thanks for that by the way) no harm done. Xymmax (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)