User talk:Fandyllic

Deletion nominations

Hello Fandyllic. I've nominated Notable for deletion as a cross-namespace-redirect, and have proposed the deletion of Neo-Con Nazi because it is a neologism and original research. To tell the truth, I'm not sure whether either of these were created in good faith (based on the edit summary you created the redirect with and the comment on Talk:Neo-Con_Nazi, respectively), but I will assume good faith. To comment on the redirect's deletion nomination, you can go here, and to contest the prod, you may remove the template (in which case the article might be sent to articles for deletion.) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. Picaroon9288 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, you are foolish to assume good faith. I have none. But neither am I a vandal. It took less than an hour for someone to notice which is good. --Fandyllic

The Great Failure of Wikipedia

A tag has been placed on The Great Failure of Wikipedia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a bot. I tagged the article because it's an ad for some video that you haven't proven is notable. Corvus cornix 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure act like a bot. You wouldn't pass a simple turing test. --Fandyllic 1:57 PM PDT 21 Aug 2007

Why do you say that I would not pass a simple turing test? ;) Corvus cornix 22:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even eliza can respond with single sentence replies. Have you listenend to the monologue about "The Great Failure of Wikipedia" yet? --Fandyllic 6:08 PM PDT 21 Aug 2007

No, because it's a non-notable product. Corvus cornix 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a well supported argument... how can I disagree?! --Fandyllic 1:29 PM PDT 31 Aug 2007

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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid bot, I do sign my posts, but apparently not in the "approved" format recognized by lamebots. Tell your human master to take a look. --Fandyllic 5:13 PM PDT 15 Oct 2007

World of Warcraft

"As far as I can tell, wikipedia admins and editors have made sure that wikipedia is the place NOT to go for information about World of Warcraft." [1]

I'd love it if we could do more to put it in people's faces that WoWWiki is the place to go for infomation about WoW. There's obviously a deep-seated conflict in Wikipedia:

a lot of people think detailed information about characters, plot, etc. of books, games, TV shows, etc., is not appropriate for a "general purpose encyclopedia" like Wikipedia. You saw the mass of WoW-related articles nominated for deletion in October.
but a lot of people really really want to write about those topics.

The only possible solution I can see that might make everyone happy, is to direct the people who want to contibute to such articles towards a better place for them. Somewhere (with a Free license, of course) that is dedicated to the topics they want to write about. And for WoW, that's WoWWiki.

What do you think? --Stormie (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be a good idea to direct people to WoWWiki or something like it, but it will never gain traction, because Wikipedian "powers that be" would have to admit that Wikipedia itself is a flawed place to look for large chunks of information. They would never do that. Its a philosophical/political/religious thing, in my opinion. --Fandyllic (talk) 12:50 PM PST 6 Dec 2007

That would be why you've returned to Wikipedia with the obvious intent of stirring up drama over the Carolyn Doran affair, then? --Stormie (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, but I challenge you to demonstrate any direct or even indirect connections between the treatment of World of Warcraft (or even just Warcraft lore) in Wikipedia and the Carolyn Doran controversy. The Carolyn Doran thing is clearly just the cult defending itself. --Fandyllic (talk) 8:30 PM PST 30 Dec 2007

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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go away you stupid bot. I've already addressed this to your creator and he decided to not make an exception in your annoying logic to accept my signature as valid. --Fandyllic (talk) 12:27 AM PST 23 Dec 2007

SineBot

User:SineBot#Opting_out Dookama (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation

In answer to your edit summary, it isn't going to last very long because it is self-referential without reliable outside sources being used to support the claim. I am going to remove your edit for that reason. It is also, incidentally, completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Wikipedia editorial decisions are not directed from the Foundation. Risker (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please do not make edits, especially in articles, intended to make a point, as your edit summary indicated you were doing. Mr.Z-man 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I think I'm really seeing is the results of the clever method of the wikipedia community to protect itself from controversial information that may cast it in a bad light. You prevent a Carolyn Doran article from being standalone and redirect it to Wikimedia Foundation. In that way, any particulars about the poor handling of the Carolyn Doran topic can be removed with the justification of being off-topic, since that topic is not allowed. --Fandyllic (talk) 10:54 AM PST 6 Jan 2008

Oh yeah, and you might want to read Wikipedia:Editors matter (also known as WP:EM for those of you club wielding bureaucrats). Very few admins/editors at Wikipedia I've encountered so far appear to have read this little tidbit. --Fandyllic (talk) 11:30 AM PST 6 Jan 2008

I agree and have added my incredulity to the Wikimedia talk page (since there is no Carolyn Doran talk page to write on)Drewson99 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi there! I see you've tried redirecting multiple articles to the WoW Wiki. However, since it is not a Wikimedia project, that function doesn't work on Wikipedia. I've deleted the redirects you created, but have left alone the ones that you made out of currently existing pages. If there's a master list of WoW characters and/or species here on Wikipedia, it'd be best to redirect them there. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were various lists to redirect to, but they've all been deleted! I do appreciate that you took the time to put a note here, rather than let a bot do it. --Fandyllic (talk) 12:30 PM PDT 3 Apr 2008