User talk:Doubledragons

Speedy deletion of The Joy of Gay Sex

A tag has been placed on The Joy of Gay Sex, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The New Joy of Gay Sex

A tag has been placed on The New Joy of Gay Sex, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page The Joy of Gay Sex has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page The New Joy of Gay Sex. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to The New Joy of Gay Sex. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. otisjimmy (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: Don't pay any attention to that 'vandalism' charge, Otisjimmy is being a dick, and wrong, to boot; he needs to WP:AGF. More below. Anarchangel (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who thinks that I'm vandalizing the two pages that I created by adding appropriate and related content.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

Committing vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia, you should revert the changes; you may also warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them. Note that warning is not an absolute prerequisite for blocking; accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked without warning.

In short, if you are changing MY edits that make the article better, then YOU are vandalizing.

--Doubledragons (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rape camps

The article Rape camps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Largey redundant entry which does little more than repeat the title. Also self-contradictory, in that it acknowledges that the camps have primary uses other than rape (eg POW camps). Even the article cited uses the term only in scare quotes.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Hairhorn (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rape camps

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rape camps. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape camps. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEMOLISH (essay): "Saying that the definition is a misnomer is the strongest of the flimsy reasons to delete this article, which says a lot since it's still very weak. If the stub is flawed, improve it. Don't delete it. Wikipedia is a community project."
WP:AGF (guideline) - Mind reading: As is evident by the reply, even saying you think that you know what the other guy is thinking provokes the response, 'no I didn't', even when it is offered in good faith as a guess to establish some common ground. "Obviously, there is some sort of other logic going on here, where you think that rape happens, but rape camps do not. I'm guessing this deletion request is fueled by some anti-feminist ideology, but that's just a wild guess." and "Next, you'll say something to the effect of..." WP:AGF until it hurts. After that, you may prefer to not 'suicide agf' when someone is obviously performing their actions in bad faith.
WP:STAND (guideline) is arguably the only pro-inclusion wp rule.
WP:DELETION (Policy) should really be all that we look at at AfD, but you are going to be seeing the others a lot, and your arguments are seen in the light of the others.

My assertion that your text is related to these rules is less important than the actual Essays which are less important than Guidelines which are less important than Policies. Good luck. Anarchangel (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brian Todd

The article Brian Todd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

News correspondent who has not been written about in sufficient detail to write a biography

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Kevin (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

February 2010

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. -WikiFew (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Orchards

Category:LGBT and the LGBT topics template are not added to every individual small business that happens to have a gay owner; they are only for the handful of articles which are the most broadly relevant to the worldwide LGBT community as a whole, such as the basic introductory articles on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender themselves. They are not appropriate additions to the article on Liberty Orchards, because identifying individual gay-owned businesses isn't what they're for.

Please note, as well, that you can be temporarily or permanently editblocked if you persist in editing disruptively. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cashmere LibertyOrchards-Aplets-CotletsFoundersMark-Balaban-Armen-Tertsagian.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cashmere LibertyOrchards-Aplets-CotletsFoundersMark-Balaban-Armen-Tertsagian.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Body hopping

The article Body hopping has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable subject, the unsourced definition does not establish notability of the list, which also appears to be original research

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]