User talk:FaithLove

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Stuart Matthew. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Don't remove this template. Also, stop creating sockpuppet accounts, they're just going to get blocked, and their votes ignored/deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is useful and should not be in Articles for deletion notices. I'm not doing any kind of sockpuppet So please stop the rumour and you're editor not an Wikipedia founder.You editor only pretend to maintain the jealousy. Stuart Matthew is an famous personality and it's important to be on Wikipedia and that's it FaithLove (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your opinion, the AfD has to remain, so that the discussion can take place. Also, given that all the other new accounts voting "Undelete" have been sockpuppets, it's likely you are, I guess the sockpuppet investigation will show.

Also, they in no way pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB, which is why it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Jimfbleak. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh common'e you guys are editor not a God.Anyways I'm not attacking anybody, I will not stop until I finish stopping you guys deleting useful articles and those sockpuppet rumour I'm not getting that why you guys have problem with that.? Even when It's useful and under Wikipedia Satisfying policy. (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2015 (GMT)

Stuart Matthew

Hi. At Stuart Matthew, the admin (User:Jimfbleak) apparently accidentally deleted the AfD page - AfDs themselves are not deleted on close. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Matthew, you'll see the comment "no independent sources, no evidence of notability, AFD'd but editor keeps removings tags, lots of SPA accounts all saying "undelete", unusual in itself", which sounds like he meant to delete the article itself. I've left a message on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be around right now. Mr Potto (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD page has now been undeleted, so you won't see that deletion comment any more. Mr Potto (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you want to talk to me, please place messages on my talk page and not my user page! Mr Potto (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was User:JamesBWatson who undeleted the deleted AfD page, not me, so if you think there was anything wrong with that then please ask him. The deletion was almost certainly an accident, and its undeletion is perfectly in line with policy. And if Stuart Matthew is genuinely of sufficient notability to warrant an article, you should not be afraid of a deletion discussion. Mr Potto (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Stuart Matthew is genuinely of sufficient notability to warrant an article and I'm afriad of from those disgusting editors who are posting autobiography on their user page with no notability and deleting the useful articles. FaithLove

The User User:JamesBWatson is posting autobiography (Me in real life) and sockpuppeting so there is no one to blame that person and why will they do so.? cause they are busy in deleting useful articles.

Most of his userpage is about Wikipedia-related activities, with a small amount of biographical information, as permitted by WP:UPYES. Also, many users, in particular admins, have 2 declared accounts- they use 1 of them on public computers, as they don't want to accidentally leave their admin account logged in on a public computer. This is a legitimate use of multiple accounts. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a rule of Wikipedia.A New Famous Person's biography cannot be on that but an un-useful people can do that. Wow what a legal rule of Wiki. FaithLove 14:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for articles and for user pages are necessarily different. Article subjects must satisfy notability criteria (see WP:N) in order to be included in the encyclopedia, but registered users are volunteer workers who do not need to be notable and their user pages are not part of the encyclopedia itself. That's why JamesBWatson does not have a Wikipedia article (but is allowed a user page), and why Stuart Matthew would be allowed to have a user page if he volunteered and started helping us build the encyclopedia (but can't have an article if he does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements). Mr Potto (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation of another editor

Even if there were no other reason for you to be indefinitely blocked, this edit, where you pretended to be another editor, would have been enough. If you request an unblock, the reviewing administrator will no doubt take that into account, as well as all the other problems, with your editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]