User talk:GregaR89

Your edit to New York State Route 17M

Thank you for your recent addition to New York State Route 17M. Your addition was removed, because it is an inappropriate inclusion. This and other route articles fall under the New York State Routes WikiProject. If you feel that your inclusion should be there, please check out the Miscellanea section (optional, but discouraged). The above link goes directly to that point at the project page. Given that the content has nothing to do with the route itself, such content must be properly referenced. Fwgoebel 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not quite sure why the information I added to NY Route 17M was removed. Your explanation wasn't very discriptive. If you feel like that information doesn't fit the formula of a NY Route article, how else can if be mentioned? Thanks. GregaR89

Please look at the project page. I know it has a lot there; the link that I put in my first message to you was designed to take you to the "Miscellanea" section. Items of trivia could go there; the most that really belongs in an article about a highway is stuff pertinent to that highway. I'd say one sentence about a gang choosing the name "17M" based on the highway would be as far as it should go, really. More pertinent trivial items might be some significant object of note along a route, such as an unusual intersection, a strange building, passage over a dam, etc.
An article about the gang itself, however, would be able to note where its name came from. Then, one would be would be able to use the [[Image:NY-17M.svg|100px]] image somewhere appropriately in the article. Just a few thoughts, but thanks for asking.
For future reference: Best to reply to a comment where it was started (in your talk page). I had a hard time finding it in my talk page, since you inserted it at the top (best place: At the end, by clicking the tiny blue "+" between "edit this page" and "history" at the top.) Fwgoebel 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17M

A tag has been placed on 17M, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, 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 Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) 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 confirm its subject's notability under the 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. Corvus cornix 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the notice from pages that you have created yourself. Corvus cornix 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the article and am now blocking you (and your aliases) for malicious sockpuppetry in attempting to hijack the deletion discussion. Articles are kept based on merit, not based on votes. Kafziel ^Talk 00:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is garbage. I didn't use sock puppetry on the discussion of 17M. Why did you have to delete that article before it even had a chance to become a decent article. I think that you should be ashamed of yourself. I know of multiple users who were searching for sources for a group that WAS real. I mistakenly removed that tab, but that doesn't mean that a gang isn't notable. Other suburban gangs are on located on Wikipedia.GregaR89 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppetry was so obvious I actually laughed at my monitor. Seriously.

As for the subject, there's not even a single mention of this supposed "gang" in the Times Herald Record. I'm not some guy from Iowa who doesn't know about the big bad land of Minisink. I live 5 minutes away from 17M. Something being "real" doesn't mean it's notable. If a bunch of kids want to hang out in a tree fort and call themselves a gang, they don't get to have an article on Wikipedia either.

What I'd like to know is, what kind of gang sits around writing Wikipedia articles? Kafziel ^Talk 00:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit my mistake in attempting to create a Wikipedia article about 17M. Is there any way we could put this behind us and remove my block? Doesn't it seem a bit extreme to place an indefinite block on my username?GregaR89 01:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm taking your word on this. I've reduced the block to 48 hours, just to enforce a little bit of a "cool down" period. But, hey, two days is a lot better than forever, right? I'm leaving the sockpuppeteer tag on for the moment; if I decide not to follow up on it within the next day or two, I'll remove it. Kafziel ^Talk 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compassion. I promise stuff like this won't happen again. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. You help to make it one of the most popular sites in the world. Although I disagree with the quick delete I will put it in the past.GregaR89 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank ya' GregaR89 Inventm 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Benjamin faust

A tag has been placed on Benjamin faust requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Acroterion _(talk) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Monk Malloy.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Monk Malloy.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:John Jenkins.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:John Jenkins.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zoo Fari 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]