User talk:Renosecond/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Renosecond, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Weird Bird 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only sort of understand why you might not want the defeat in the intro (perhaps as a spoiler issue? but for a 25 year old game show that isn't aired anywhere, it's not the biggest issue to me. I just think it's even more awkward where it is now. Seeing as how the article is tiny, It's hard to fine a legitimate area to put it. If there were a section actually describing his play on the show, that would be a good one, but since the show hasn't aired in forever, I assume that's why noone has written one. I'm all for discussing the issue though, so feel free to reply (you can do so here, I'll watchlist your talk page). Thanks :) TheHYPO 05:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Lamas article

I agree with your edit on the Lorenzo Lamas article. Appearing on I've Got a Secret is not of major importance. Dbart 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It should be noted that"

Thanks for helping to purge this wretched phrase from Wikipedia. I'm with you all the way. —Keenan Pepper 04:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help out. --Renosecond 15:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your objection to that phrase? (I'm guilty of using it) --Monotonehell 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed a caveat regarding phone polls from Age of consent reform. Just wondering what your logic was there? It was pointing out the invalidy of TV phone poll data. (actually the whole section will probably be removed soon, so the point is moot lol) --Monotonehell 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

You have been blocked for 24 hours for incivility against WillC on AN:I and on the Job page. I'd suggest you take this time to calm down and try to be more respectful when you return. --InShaneee 03:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not coming back, I quit. I don't want to have an account with a block, especially an unfair one in which other users made similar, valid concerns and yet were not blocked. --Renosecond 03:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renosecond, I hope you'll reconsider. The quarrel with WillC (who was blocked as well, for much longer than you) was unfortunate, but it's over and hopefully you can make good contributions to Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution

Hello. There were four votes to keep, two votes to merge and delete, one for delete, and one vote as merge - presumably with a redirect. While my vote tally shows consensus to keep I would entertain it was a lack of consensus - which defaults to keep anyway. Hope this helps. Ifnord 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repost policy and Jennifer Tinney

I wanted to clarify the repost policy with you after I saw the speedy flag that you left on the Jennifer Tinney article. The repost policy only applies if an article is removed through the AfD process. If you feel that she in not notable, you can leave a note on the article's talk page, prod the article or start an AfD discussion. The article needs sources. In general, being a model is a claim of notability which excludes the possibility of a speedy deletion. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The repost rules does not apply after a speedy deletion. It only applies if the article has been deleted as a result of the Articles for Deletion process. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references to the Jennifer Tinney article. I should explain that I had never heard of Jennifer Tinney until a few minutes ago. I sometimes check the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to see if any of the articles can be salvaged by adding sources or improving them in some other way. If an article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is an autobiography of a non-notable person, for example, I will add the {{userfy}} tag at the top of the article and then leave a {{vanity}} message on the user's talk page. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I agree that the photo should be deleted. Is it possible, though, that she has some reference value and notability so that a text-only article about her would be appropriate? Some models are notable, and I honestly don't know whether Jennifer Tinney's experience is enough to make her notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Search Deletion proposals

Since you seem to be deeply into this discussion as well as myself, we're currently discussing the policy for Diva Search folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling on the talk page. Swing by if you get a chance. :-) -Umdunno 03:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Moe Epsilon

Please don't bowlderise words on the user's talk page. Wikipedia is not censored. And leave his talk page alone, don't edit it. -- ADNghiem501 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing anon comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milena Roucka

Wikipedia isn't a democracy and it's not the number of votes that counts, it's a discussion on the article, not a "vote" to keep or delete.
An IP address has the right to comment on the AFD as does every other editor.
If his comment isn't worth the time, the admin closing it will surely disregard it.
Not allowing IP addresses to edit is a foundation issue, and blantently removing thier comment because they come from an IP address, is against policy.

Take some time to reflect upon this.. — The Future 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]