User talk:Juvenile Deletionist

Hi there,

I would like to ask you what you are up to by mass nominating so many articles on AfD. It seems a bit disruptive to nominate so many articles without giving each one the thought it deserves and having a unique deletion rationale for each one. Please stop nominating articles until we have talked about this. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I collected them over severell days. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi there Juvenile Deletionist,

I noticed you have customized your signature and that it doesn't contain any links to your user page or talk page. According to this guideline, and as a convenience to other users, I would like to ask that you correct this situation and link to your user page or to your talk page in your signature. Thanks a bunch! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changend it. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Please stop your nomination of songs for AFD immediately. You appear to be nominating indiscriminately, as one of the songs you nominated recently, Only Mama Knows is a Grammy nominee and thus notable. Cease creating new nominations immediately, please. I suggest you see this discussion and explain your rationale before continuing. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can not discuss there. The songs all are not notable. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

Enough with the disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I have blocked you indefinitely from editing. Friday (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello inclusionist! Help me clean wiki! ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Many more User:Juvenile Deletionist/Shredder Help! ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You deleted it, it is not empty yet. Help! ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine admin not even answers. Bad mannor. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you awaiting me to give names. Long youw ill wait. HELP! ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLOKC FRIDAY

DELETED FIEN SIDE WITH MANY ARTICLES TO SELETE. BLOCK HIM FOR DELETING MANY HOUS OF WORK FOR ME. He is no good admin, he is bad asmin. He should be banned from wiki. He is disrupting wiki, keeping bad pages and deleting good pages. Bann him! ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! If you read this HELP!

Bad admin blocked me for nominating not notable songs to deletion. Very weak. Wiki is full of junk and must be cleansed. I do job and get blockered. Not good. Set up page full of list with article sto deletion is gone bacause of bad admin FRIDAY. Delete his page, block him. Bad inclusionist he is. DELETE JUNK! ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juvenile Deletionist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no real reason to block, just nominated not notable songs for deletion

Decline reason:

Correctly blocked for excessive WP:POINTy behavior. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reviewing admins, please see this discussion regarding this user's recent behavior.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with nominateing articles for deletion, is there policy around to limit quntity? Nothing wriong I did. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pull the other one, it has bells. 168.28.199.74 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Anonym Inclusionist? ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be flatly honest, I think you're trolling. You've already been linked to a discussion that clearly states that you are doing something wrong, and not one person there agrees with your methods. An admin is going to go over the pages you tagged, and probably will prod some of them, like you should have. But with you constantly spewing the same statements in bad English, you're either deluded, stupid, or a troll. 168.28.199.74 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juvenile Deletionist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

not did make point or was disruptive, just wanted to clean. HELP!

Decline reason:

You have been editing in a disruptive way, and were told that you were doing so. You do not nominate an article for AfD unless there are good reasons for doing so, after careful consideration. Just your opinion is insufficient. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juvenile Deletionist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did reseacrch, songs not have notability (WP:N). They are useless on wiki. They are not released, or on single or did not chart. Useless junk to fill up wiki. Friday unfair, wants to keep everything. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

see below (duplicate unblock request)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi; i am sorry that you got blocked, but i am willing to assume that you thought you were acting in good faith, & i want to explain why, so that you will understand what you did wrong.

you spammed wikipedia with mass-deletion requests. you used the same exact reason & exact same wording for most/all of the articles. you seem to have targeted articles about songs specifically, with your afd's.

wikipedia is a co-operative project.

you have disrespected the work of many, many wikipedia editors.

you have chosen your deletion targets based on your personal judgment & did not provide a valid reason why you thought each article should be deleted.

your determination of what song articles should be deleted seems to be based on your own tastes & opinions & knowledge of music; which is with respect, somewhat limited. it also reflects personal bias, which violated wikipedia's policy of NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.

wikipedia policy & practices allow for articles to be written about individual songs.

if you disagree wioth this policy, you are welcome to challenge & debate in in the talk pages.

if you feel strongly that an article should be deleted, you are free to nominate it, BUT:

YOU MUST PROVIDE A VALID REASON FOR EACH & EVERY ARTICLE, INDIVIDUALLY.

& you must be prepared to argue for your point of view, in the deletion debate for that article.

you cannot just spam deletion requests, for articles that you don't like.

that is not helpful to wikipedia, & it is not respectful of the work of other people on wikipedia

i hope that you will find this information helpful & useful.

i hope that you will understand & find better ways to contribute to wikipedia

your friend.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up Point: you state that you did "research" to choose the songs for deletion, but you have nominated notable works, by major artists. with respect; either your research is faulty, or you are using personal judgment of what songs you do & do not consider worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. again, that violates wikipedia policy in several ways, both for accuracy & for neutral point of view.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why make you destryo my page? Friend? you#re not friend. Of course many of the artists are notable but not every song of them. merge them into album articles if you want. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juvenile Deletionist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no real reason to block, just nominated not notable songs for deletion

Decline reason:

Correctly blocked for excessive WP:POINTy behavior. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reviewing admins, please see this discussion regarding this user's recent behavior.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with nominateing articles for deletion, is there policy around to limit quntity? Nothing wriong I did. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pull the other one, it has bells. 168.28.199.74 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Anonym Inclusionist? ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be flatly honest, I think you're trolling. You've already been linked to a discussion that clearly states that you are doing something wrong, and not one person there agrees with your methods. An admin is going to go over the pages you tagged, and probably will prod some of them, like you should have. But with you constantly spewing the same statements in bad English, you're either deluded, stupid, or a troll. 168.28.199.74 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juvenile Deletionist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

not did make point or was disruptive, just wanted to clean. HELP!

Decline reason:

You have been editing in a disruptive way, and were told that you were doing so. You do not nominate an article for AfD unless there are good reasons for doing so, after careful consideration. Just your opinion is insufficient. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juvenile Deletionist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did reseacrch, songs not have notability (WP:N). They are useless on wiki. They are not released, or on single or did not chart. Useless junk to fill up wiki. Friday unfair, wants to keep everything. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your mass-nominations were disruptive, and when you were told to stop and explain your conduct, you refused to comply. (Not to mention your obviously deliberate misspellings.) For the record, the relevant notability guideline says:

In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

You have been rightfully blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Request to unblock denied, and I am protecting this page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Whether you will ever be unblocked I do not know. But it will not happen unless and until you recognise the fault in the way in which you were editing, and undertake not under any cicumstance to edit in the same way in future. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable songs?

Block me for nomination:

That is unfaur from inclusionists. Those songs are not notable. Delete them. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to press this point, without any sign of understanding how your edits are inappropriate, I will protect your talk page. Please pay attention to this warning. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have any chance against you? No, of course not. You can do what you wnat with me. ALso this LX guy can destroy may page and will not be blocked [1]. This Friday guy can dlete my work and I can do nothing gainst it [2]. Well done all you admins. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure LX fragmented the page by accident, not on purpose. But you're just using that the distract us from your infantile claim, trying to play the 'woe is me' card. YOU are the one that got yourself blocked, and at this rate YOU are the one that is making sure that you will never be unblocked. Try actually taking responsibility for your actions, and try to get it through your thick skull that YOU MAY BE WRONG. That is, if you can get your head out of your ass first. 168.28.199.74 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page that Friday deleted is proove to that I sdid not nominate articles random but collected them after research I did. When do you see thsi? ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you PLEASE stop posting and let me comment? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REBUTTAL

Here are some of the more notable songs, from the EXTREMELY long list of articles you nominated for deletion:

Hully Gully (song) "Hully Gully" is a song written by Fred Smith and Cliff Goldsmith for the Olympics. The song was covered by the American pop band The Beach Boys. It was released on their 1965 album Beach Boys' Party!.

"Only Mama Knows" is a song by Paul McCartney and is the fourth track on his 2007 album Memory Almost Full. In November 2007, the song was featured as the last song in the Starbucks "Song of the Day" program. Also the song is nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance.

"This Train Don't Stop There Anymore" is a 2001 song by Elton John and Bernie Taupin. In the video, a younger John is played by Justin Timberlake dressed in outfits typical of John in the 1970s. The song's lyrics detail John's coming to terms with getting older, and his admission that he has 'put one over' on his fans because he was unable to feel the music he was giving to them. It appears on the album Songs from the West Coast

"Machine Gun Funk" is a song on The Notorious B.I.G.'s highly successful LP Ready To Die. The song was produced by legend Easy Mo Bee and samples "Something Extra" by Black Heat, "Up For the Down Stroke" by Fred Wesley and a vocal sample from "Chief Rocka" by Lords of the Underground. There is a DJ Premier remix of this song. The song was featured in the biographical film Notorious.

"La-La-La-Lies" is a rock song from British rock band, The Who, and appears on their debut album, My Generation.

"Mr. Churchill Says" is a song by Ray Davies of The Kinks. It appears on the album Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire). The song is about the struggle of World War II on the people of Great Britain. The song paraphrases parts of several of Prime Minister Winston Churchill's famous speeches including Never was so much owed by so many to so few, We shall fight on the beaches and This was their finest hour.

Numb (Portishead song) is a single by Portishead, released in 1994.

"Obviously Five Believers" is a song by Bob Dylan which appears on his 1966 album Blonde on Blonde. As with many other Dylan tracks of the 1965-1966 period ("From a Buick 6", "Outlaw Blues"), it is based around a slightly surreal lyric set to a blues-rock accompaniment.

"Oh My Love" is a song written by John Lennon and Yoko Ono that appeared on Lennon's Imagine album. George Harrison contributed guitar on this and several other songs for the album. Oh My Love is considered by many to be one of Lennon's finest vocal performances.

"Sanssouci", the song, was written by Rufus Wainwright; appearing as a track on his fifth studio album, Release the Stars (2007). The name is a reference to the Sanssouci palace built by Frederick the Great in Potsdam, Germany.

"Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk" is the name of a song written and performed by Canadian-American singer-songwriter Rufus Wainwright, appearing as the first track on his second studio album, Poses (2001). A reprise version of the song appears as the last track on the album (this version is also on the soundtrack for the 2006 film, The Last Kiss).

i'm sorry, but your claim that you only nominated "non-notable" songs is not credible. you have either not done the research, & simply mass nominated songs that you felt like nominating, or you have used an extremely biased criteria in deciding which songs were & were not "notable"

Lx 121 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable artists do not make songs notable. Some of them are very nice songs, but they do not need articles on wiki. Only very few, if any would stand deletion discuss. Just try, and you'll see. ~~Juvenile Deletionist~~ 21:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granted; a case could be made to merge the articles somewhere. But in any case, a mass nomination for deletion certainly isn't the way to resolve the problem. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: fragmented page

i'm sorry, there are too many people talking on this page @ once. i did not intend to disrupt the formatting. this will be my last post here, at this time

Lx 121 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lx 121, I was not getting at you. Or at anyone really - I am just trying to post a commentas an involved admin. Juvenile Deletionist, you have been editing against wikipedia policy and guidelines; i have nothing against you at all, and have no wish to take further action against you. But if you want to edit wikipedia again you will have to accept that your editing has been against policy, and undertake not to edit in the same way again. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, if you look at the varios policies you will find that songs recorded by artists not having their own wiki articles can usually be deleted (none of your nominees were in this category, as far as I can determine); other songs may well be notable if recorde by multiple artists, very well-known artists, or are old enough to be part of folf-lore. Albums recorded by notable artists are usually notable. And other songs, if recorded by or written by persons having a wikipedia page should often be redirected to that person's page. Please read these policies, and then perhaps a suitably worded unblock request might get a result. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I note that this page is currently protected. But this protection will expire in a few days. Please, please use the time to read and think on the relevant policies involved. While I must protect the encyclopedia, I am really, truly trying to be helpful. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juvenile Deletionist for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Blueboy 96 16:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]