User talk:COMPFUNK2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

subst:

When warning users, please don't forget to substitute the warning templates. For example, use {{subst:uw-create1}} instead of {{uw-create1}} Cheers and happy editing,-- Ashbey  Ӝ  19:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your CSD tagging.

• Please note that CSD A3 is only applicable to articles with no meaningful content and no context (e.g. section headers, external links, a re-phrasing of the title). Articles that are clearly unnotable, like Duncans diner, should be tagged with CSD A7. Keep the good work up, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanx. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

Ok, now this is what i dont get, you seem to like to accuse me of Vandalism for no reason. I have done nothing to be accused of such a thing. Now, you pulled me up for so called vandalism on "When I Grow Up" which was for writing the certifications at the top of the page i would say, seeing as that is the only thing i have done. Well if you were smart enough to scroll down the page to where the certifications have been writen you would see that i got the information from there and i was only doing what is done on every other artists music single page seeing as it hadnt been done. I thought i was doing something nice. If your going to accuse somebody at least do it of something worthy. I would never vandalise Wikipedia ive been a part of this site for a while now. I got blocked last time because i forgot to put the refernce links in whilst i was editing and i have leart my lesson. --Brandontepapatapp (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• My apologies. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Islamabad

Why did you deleted my topic . Regarding Visiting Places in Islamabad. What vandalism did you find in that. --Ummairsaeed (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• It was explained in the edit summary. I didn't say it was vandalism; the way it was presented made it look like a violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you really saying I am MC Hammer?

I'm not MC Hammer!!

Thanks for the tip though I am still workout how to make a page. But I tell you now - I'm not Hammer ... and my park article is a real park. Hammer Buddy (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say you were Hammer. If I were suggesting that, I would have used {{uw-auto}}. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see! I'm not his buddy anyway. I wish! I just translate his songs into other languages. It seems that Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Ah well. Thanks anyway Hammer Buddy (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD tagging

I've removed your tag from Nofal; while it is worthy of deletion (see the current AfD) it is not nonsense. Ironholds (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Candace Cameron

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Candace Cameron a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Candace Cameron Bure. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry; I forgot about that process. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Broadcast Communications

Hi Compfunk,

I'm not sure what you were doing with this edit, but removing a reference to the Museum of Broadcast Communications and tagging the article as "unreferenced" is ill-advised. Your edit summary indicates that you believe the museum is not a reliable source. Can I ask your reasoning behind this? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say it was unreferenced; what I stated is that there is a different between a source and an external link. ...Actually, come to think of it, maybe a {{citations missing}} tag would be more appropriate. I'll add it now. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of tagging, myself. Tagging an article only alerts the reader that there may be issues with the text; it doesn't resolve those issues, just leaves an ugly-looking tag on the article. I've gone ahead and added several in-line citations for stuff that was easily googleable. Feel free to add some to the article yourself. :) Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

List of minor characters in Peanuts

Thee is clear opposition to the merge, as at least two other editors besides myself have stated clear opposition. I would suggest that you please not merge the content as there is a clear objection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Hi, I've declined the speedy deletion nomination of Magandeep Singh as host of a TV show is to my mind an assertion of notability. However it isn't clear whether our criteria under wp:entertainer have been met as there are no third party sources cited so it may be deleted under a slower process if someone prods it or takes it to AFD for a proper deletion discussion. But I see no harm in giving the author a few days to confirm notability. WereSpielChequers 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article for speedy deletion

Did you look at the source? It's going on as we speak according to http://www.comcast.net/ --Demertius840 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to read this. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I just found this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Binghamton_shootings will you delete the article I just made? --Demertius840 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting trivia

All credit to you for being WP:BOLD when deleting sprawling lists of "in one episode of Seinfeld, a character mentions this" trivia, but be careful about losing valuable information which might be hidden in there - the Bogeyman trivia included four significant books and films based around the myth, which clearly deserve a mention in the article somewhere. I've added them back, in prose format. --McGeddon (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But where are the sources? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If sources are your concern here, it'd be useful to flag the section in question and give people a while to provide them. But I'm not sure we particularly need a source for the simple claims that that Fungus the Bogeyman and Boogeyman (film) are pop culture representations of the bogeyman myth. --McGeddon (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm familiar with Wikipedia policy. I'd say that "Fungus the Bogeyman is a story about a bogeyman" was borderline WP:FACTS, but you can tag it if you like. This was just a heads up that you may be accidentally throwing out rare but significant cultural references, when cleaning out the Seinfeld jokes. All the best. --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

haste

I removed yor speedy tag , and substituted one for "underconstruction" You tagged it within 60 seconds of the first edit, which had an edit summary that he was still working on it. People have the right to develop articles on Wikipedia; there is no requirement to use an external editor. Since all high schools are considered notable, if there's nothing there in a few days--which is possible, if you've discouraged the new editor sufficiently--, you might consider adding some basic facts yourself. DGG (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's really fair to say I was hasty. Even if a nonsense article claims to be under construction, that doesn't necessarily change what it is. If it isn't nonsense, I apologize, but whatever happened to being bold? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be BOLD if it means BITEing the newbies--we need all of them we can get. 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I already said that's not what I was trying to do. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I realize that. I was just pointing out the unfortunate effect i thought you might not have seen & explaining my view that we should be tolerant here. This was just an almost empty article with an outline, not nonsense. But not a bigdeal. DGG (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"citation needed" tag...really?

**You can also see this on That 70's Show talk page.**
By my count, there is exactly ONE cite tag in this entire article...yes, we need someone to back up the fact that Ashton Kutcher took the "stupid helmet" with him. But that's the only call for a cite that I can see. Every thing else seems well documented or does not need a citation because it's common knowledge (i.e. - the ridiculously unnecessary "scene transition" section that I am very seriously removing for notability...that doesn't need documentation.) You have tagged an entire article for inline cites but I really don't understand where you're feeling they're missing. One cite request does not call for an article tag. Honestly, after scanning through your talk page here, it seems you may be just a wee bit overzealous with the tagging, anyway. If you have a valid rationale for this tag, that's awesome and I sincerely applaud your efforts to keep Wikipedia in check. So please let me know.. Either make your inline requests or take off the tag. I will wait my obligatory two weeks for a response before removing the tag myself. Thanks.ocrasaroon (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Calm down and read this. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly calm. Just need an explanation. If citations are needed, please mark them inline so that they may be found. ocrasaroon (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not really sure what's hard to understand here. I mean, if several sections of an article have zero citations, what user would opt to add a {{fact}} tag to almost every statement instead of just placing a maintenance tag at the top of the article? That's what those tags are for. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 14:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tunde Adebimpe

• I could think of no better way to reference the facts than the videos, which I indeed did shoot - the only other sources being blogs or calendar announcements. I will in time add the vids to my own site, but it's hard to say that's any more reliable than YouTube. With the article being considered for a merge, I thought it important to show Tunde has a thriving musical life extracurricular to TVOTR. If you can find better refs by all means replace them. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't deny his importance; it's just, well, first, YouTube videos very rarely qualify as reliable sources (if they do at all). Second, the fact that your username on here is the same as your YouTube account (where the videos are hosted) suggests a conflict of interest. But forgetting that point, more independent references would suit the article better and avoid a merge, in my opinion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • What is unreliable, in referencing an event, in sourcing that fact to a video of the actual event? What reliability is concerned with is verifiability. WP:PRIMARY states fairly clearly primary sources may be used as long as no WP:NPOV is involved, as does WP:COI in the case of close relationships. In this case If there was a review or other report of such events actually having taken place by reliable secondary sources they would also be acceptable. The addition of a blog reference that refers to the event in the future arguably does not qualify. In fact it does supply re-inforcement that Ryan and Tunde had adopted the name for the latter show, and Brooklyn Vegan, similarly to Punkcast, is a respected chronicler on the NYC music scene. YouTube is merely the medium not the source. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, it's slightly better because of the Brooklyn Vegan source (I don't remember seeing it there before), but it could still use a few more sources like that. The fact that most of the sources come from YouTube is a little questionable. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 14:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Could you clarify - what is questionable about the YouTube sources? Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What Hurts the Most

• I think you missed the part of WP:NOT#LYRICS which says "Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them, or to illustrate some aspect of the style." That's exactly what I was doing in the "content" section before you wiped it out. Please be a little more careful next time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • But that part has no sources. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I find that some aspects of songs fall under WP:FACTS. In straightforward cases like this, it's almost like a plot summary — just as a plot summary of a movie can be cited to a movie itself, I think that the same holds true of a song and its content. Nevertheless, I've found a source to back up some of the information. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

UAA

• Please remember that personal names being used as usernames aren't violating WP:U. Thanks. -- Mentifisto 18:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That doesn't fall under self-promotion? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It does but the username itself isn't violating any policies... it's a conflict of interest so it should go to WP:COIN or such. -- Mentifisto 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I avoid WP:COIN because the templates never seem to function properly. But I get your point. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Shortsleeveshirt ubx.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shortsleeveshirt ubx.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --— neuro^(talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD

• Please use only the reasons for speedy at WP:CSD. Non-notable original essay is not among them. We use prod for that, or csd if its challenged. And , when you nominate for speedy deletion, you must say so in the edit summary, both on the article, and on the notice to the author. (same with other deletion procedures--when you put on a prod, you say PROD as part of the edit summary. This helps us admins find them.) DGG (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, shouldn't we do away with the {{db-reason}} template? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ekafstan

Good Prod. Already deleted by the time I got to it, but I had to notice that "Ekaf"stan would be "Fake" backwards. Obvious hoax. Interesting, too, that the closing admin was Fuhghettaboutit -- that's what the creator should have done. Eauhomme (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Hi COMPFUNK2. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Kakamine, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G1 because of the following concern: G1 does not apply to anything besides strings of random characters or a page that you simply cannot read because it is gibberish. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

• Could you please change your signature to something more similar to your actual username? It's really confusing to see two completely different things in the page history and on the discussion page. If you want your name to be "The American Metrosexual", you can get it changed to that at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks.--chaser (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I like my signature the way it is. And it's been like this for almost a year, yet you're the first person that's had a problem (but I'm not assuming bad faith, so no harm done). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Nominating for speedy deletion or adding a cleanup template is not a minor edit. Thanks, Qwfp (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Um...all I did was add a tag. Chill out, man. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruth Madoc

Hi - thank you for your advice which you put on my homepage. I am aware of the sandpit facility and I have added facts to Wiki before but I am by no means an expert and advice is always welcome. I intended to make an edit of Ruth Madoc but having made it, I then spotted the fact I put in was already in the article, thus I deleted my edit. Thank you for your advice though, best wishes --. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave205 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Michaelwebs

• Hello, when someone tags a page for speedy deletion, as I did to Scott bombers please leave it to them to warn the user, or at least give them some time to do so, thanks, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What's the big deal? Nowhere on WP:CSD does it say only the user that tagged the article can then add another tag to the initial editor's talk page. This isn't a race, man. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Look, I don't want to push this, so please don't take me as an obnoxious jerk, however you did ask why, so let me explain, often users will recreate a page after it has been deleted, then someone like me might come and tag it, if I then go to the users talkpage and see they already have a warning, then I may mistakenly take it as being a warning for a previous edit, then the user will end up with two warnings for the same action, it would be nice if you could just show the courtesy to a least wait ten minutes before sending out messages like that, or if you can't bear to, at least put a little note with it, something along the lines of: "on behalf of User:Whoevertheorginaltaggerwas", does that follow? if not just ask and I'll explain myself more clearly, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Take time to read WP:COOL. Have a good day. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you have a nice day too, evening Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Luka Vertel

• hello

i have received a warning/messagge from you about my article about LUKA VERTEL

i cant see ur messagge or anything.so i opened a TALK about that article.

can u explain what happened ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvertel (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• You created an article about Luka Vertel that, although is a notable person, has language that violates WP:NPOV. In addition, the fact your username is Lvertel suggests a conflict of interest. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hello,

okay, i will check it. yes, it is me who wrote the article. Actually my manager told me to write an article about me on wikipedia, he is american and he gave me all the information to write there. Is it forbidden to write articles about ourselves? should itell him to open his own account and write an article ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvertel (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please read WP:AUTO. (Also, sign your posts on talk pages with "~~~~" so that your name is added.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lvertel (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, i understand.i will delete my article and if my manager wants to write it by himself, he will do it. thank you

Can you please help me create my article.I do not want to delete it. thanks :) kytrell

Rashad Haughton

Hey there COMPFUNK2, I noticed the tag you placed on Rashad Haughton to merge to Aaliyah. After taking a look at the article, I boldy redirected it, mainly because most of the information was dependent on Aaliyah anyways. I'll casually check up on the redirect to make sure it's still intact. If it's not, we'll have to deal with it another way. Regards. — Σxplicit 06:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Update the prod tag on MacTalla Mor?

• Hi COMPFUNK2, I just saw the PROD tag you put on MacTalla Mor. The article you linked to in the reason has been deleted, so the rationale for the tag on MacTalla Mor has become hard to understand. I'm guessing it's lack of notability, but don't want to second-guess you -- perhaps you could update the tag?  :-) --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mathania

Hi Compfunk, re Mathania I've declined the deletion nomination for this as it now has context ϢereSpielChequers 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Denizg6

• Ciao, COMPFUNK2. You left a template on this fellow's talkpage claiming to have reverted edits he made to his userpage. Was this in error? His only undeleted edit is the current version of his userpage. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I didn't mean to say I reverted the edits; what I really meant was that even though s/he was writing in his/her userspace, there were still some improper things being written. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You might want to revise your message then, so as not to be confusing. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  03:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Carella211

• This user has been doing some trash talking vandalism. You left three warnings. After the third and final warning, the user vandalized the Vancouver MLS 2011. How can the user be blocked, at least temporarily? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I figured s/he'd be blocked after s/he was reported at WP:AIV, but it doesn't look like it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on Terrell Sass

Terrell Sass was deprodded by an anon editor [1]. It is now at AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrell Sass. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aviation

Just fyi - I totally understand the judgement call to redirect, but wanted to let you know I've reverted all this spam users edits and put the two redirects up for db-r3. I wouldn't mind if the articles survived, but they really are unlikely and they were spam before... Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Issuing a final warning for a first offense

• You should carefully consider issuing final warnings for first offenders. I cannot possibly report this individual in WP:AIV because the the blocking request will be rejected for insufficient warnings. Very rarely, and only for very disruptive editing, would a user get an immediate level 4 warning. A couple of hoax/nonsense articles would not qualify. Thanks LittleOldMe (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Whom did I give a final warning to for a first offense? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • To Tingish Man. LittleOldMe (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If you read that talk page more thoroughly, you'll notice that those warnings were for two different articles. He created one nonsense article, got warned, the article got deleted; then he created another nonsense article within minutes. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • A notification of a speedy deletion request does not constitute a user warning. LittleOldMe (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I didn't say it did. What are you even talking about? (And that user was indefinitely blocked anyway, so why don't we just move on?) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pleasant Plains, Illinois

• You wiped out someone's work on this article because it wasn't formatted correctly. You state that "this isn't the way we do things here." Well, wiping out someone's work because it isn't formatted correctly is not how we do things either. Please refer to WP:BITE. If you can't be helpful, then DO NOT EDIT. Rklawton (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Wiped out someone's work"? It was a paragraph! I would have fixed it myself, but I didn't have the time. And I didn't say it in a mean way (I politely referred them to a guideline, didn't I?). By the way, you're telling me to read WP:BITE? How about you biting me? And I am being helpful, which is why I stated my reasoning in the edit summary. I realize you're an admin, but you have to be respectful too, and the way you said what you said definitely isn't being. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • COMPFUNK, if you haven't got the time to fix something, getting rid of it isn't the solution, the solution is to leave it there until someone else who does have the time comes along. If I see an article with a spelling mistake, should I blank it because I don't have the time to look up the correct spelling? The answer is blatantly "no". I know what you did is on a smaller scale, but please, instead of trying to defend an indefensible position, just see your mistake, apologize, and let it go, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • PS: regarding your comment about bite, you are not a newcomer anymore, you're established Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • What I meant is that newcomers aren't the only users that can be bitten. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If that's all you have to say I'm not really interested in pursuing this conversation, good evening Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• You can argue, or you can learn. You choose. Rklawton (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If I'm arguing at all, it's because of the way you said things. But you apparently don't seem to be taking your own advice, so I'll at least be sensible enough to move on. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful when tagging for speedy deletion.

• You just tagged Salone Discussion with {{db-web}}, when the article clearly states in the first sentence that it is a television show, and it is also marked with {{tv-stub}}. I see from this page that this is not the first time you have been advised to be more careful and accurate when tagging for CSD. Please slow down and think before instantly tagging things just because you are not personally familiar with them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

• • I'll admit I'm not familiar with the program, but that isn't why I tagged it -- and I did slow down and think, thank you. In addition, I already know how to archive (note the very first wikilink at the top of this page). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then perhaps you could explain why, even though it is specifically identified as a television show, you tagged it as a non-notable website? That does not make sense, and no admin would delete it for the reason you specified. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because when I checked Google, I couldn't find any information about its existence as an actual television show, so I had to assume it's something that just exists on the web. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• You shouldn't tag things for CSD based on unfounded assumptions you make, as you can see, it won't produce the desired outcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's funny how when I make my point, people then argue a different aspect of the situation. Can we move on now, please? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's because your points are generally invalid and off topic. Furthermore Beeblebrox actually replied to your point Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't I just say I wanted to move on? What is your problem? The past few days you've been debating my activity. Maybe you need to take another look at WP:COOL. (And don't respond to this; I'm moving on.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is at least the sixth time someone has come to your talk page to ask you to be more careful with CSD tagging. Move on if you like, but please try to be more accurate with your tagging. If numerous established editors have pointed out the same problem, it may be time to condiser the possibility that there is actually a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your erroneous tagging drew my attention as well. It's easy to be overzealous with the CSD tags from time to time, but you seem to consistently misuse them in ignorance of all advice. Probably has something to do with the fact that most of the discussions on this page end with you insisting that everyone "move on" and ignoring all the valid points anyone else has made. --L. Pistachio (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that the show's production company was incorporated three weeks ago, I think it's safe to bet that the show doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being notable yet. Rklawton (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why is everyone ganging up on me? When I add these tags, it's definitely not in bad faith, but for some reason no one understands that. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2