User talk:Shirlena

Tourettes Guy Petition

Please do not recreate previously deleted talk pages. Let me point out that it is highly unlikely you that Tourette's Guy will be reinstated because of policy. If you are really are associated with Tourettesguy.com, let me say I am a fan of the site but it hasn't had the wide spread media coverage of other internet phenomenons such as the Numa Numa dance, Star Wars Kid or Leeroy Jenkins. Even Brian Peppers doesn't have an article and he is arguably more notable. You are welcome to edit here but please respect the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the Wikipedia policy that grants you the right to delete the page, or tell me not to post on the talk section. In addition, might I point out that the Tourette's Guy page will never be reinstated if people aren't allowed to talk about it. My discussion is both serious and relevant to brining the Tourettes Guy Page back (remember that the Tourettes Guy page was remove due to not being famous). If I can offer evidence that it is in fact popular (The Petition Link), then it might help get the page back. In addition, I am going to repost the talk section. In fact to state it bluntly, until you state a policy that allows you to interfere with the honest and reasonable talk page I have created, I am going to repost every time someone deletes my message. I have a right to be heard, and I intend to speak my mind. Furthermore, if you continue to delete the talk page, I will contact the admins about this. Have a nice day. Shirlena 08:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G8 under WP:CSD. I will have a nice day thank you very much. And just so you know, only admins can delete pages.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will now quote what I believe you are referring to:

Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere. Subpages (including archive pages) are only deletable under this rule if the corresponding top-level page does not exist. Exceptions to this are user talk pages and talk pages of images on Commons.

As you can see, my petition is new and and not logged elsewhere. Clearly I have the right to re-post. Unless there is some other section you are referring to I will go ahead and repost. Have a nice day. Shirlena 09:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages aren't for posting petitions. And I doubt a petition is deletion discussion. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you last rebuttal as an admission that I am in fact allowed to repost, only if the information is not logged elsewhere and applicable to the deletion review. As for the petition, would you like me to post all the names that have signed the form? Or should I simply post the link? Thanks, and have a nice day Shirlena 09:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that online petitions do not reflect whether the signatory is even trusted Wikipedia editor to begin with and in any case, a deletion review is strictly grounded in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, not numbers, so references to any external petitions will be discounted. -- Netsnipe ► 09:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netsnipe, this is the line I am trying to prove wrong "Delete - not notable, and seemingly exploitative too. --MacRusgail 21:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)." Do numbers provide notablity? What else does? Shirlena 09:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just numbers prove notability. That is a simple petition where sockpuppets can be used. Media coverage and Alexa rankings are used. Currently there is one result for "Tourettes Guy" in google news [1] and tourettesguy.com's Alexa ranking is 97,571 [2]. Clearly not notable.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You opinion is interesting. I guess it is something you could have brought up on the talk page of Tourettes Guy, rather then simply deleting it. Don't you think? In any case, according to what I have said below, I clearly have the right to talk on the talk page about getting the page back up. Whether you agree or disagree with my evidence, is not the issue. What is the issue is if it should be allowed on the talk page. So far this is something that you have yet to disprove. Shirlena 09:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages of deleted articles aren't allowed under G8 of WP:CSD. Your argument of "unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere" can not be used because information can be found here, here and here. Please do not recreate.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Hamedog, I guess you aren't getting it. Go to the tourettesguy page and you will see the following text "Recreation can be discussed on the talk page or at Deletion Review." So far the only place I have posted my new evidence is on the talk page. In addition, since Netsnipe (an actual admin) agreed below that I can post my text, minus the link, I am simply going to. If you continue to delete the talk page, that he allows, I will let him know. Thanks. 10:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please post the comment at the Deletion Review, not the talk page. That talk page isn't allowed under G8 of WP:CSD. Where did Netsnipe say you can post the text on the talk page? And I am not deleting the page, only admins can do that. I'm not admin.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read "Blocked". In addition, when I post my information on the Tourettes Guy Talk Page DO NOT TOUCH IT. Feel free to add your comments below my post as you see fit. Shirlena 10:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, he says when you post at Wikipedia:Deletion Review, not on Talk:Tourettes guy. Please do not recreate Talk:Tourettes guy, your appeal doesn't belong there. Also, the petition has no weighting on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am going to make this simple now. Netsnipe said "please don't repost the link to that offsite petition" and that is what I am going to do. Don't touch anything I post, despite where I post it. Have a nice day. Shirlena 10:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. If you want the autoblock undone, please post the affected IP address. Talk:Tourettes guy is permanently deleted.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have now blocked you since you have expressed to an intention to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Canvassing is strictly prohibited. You will only be unblocked if you agree to desist from actively campaigning for the undeletion of Tourette's Guy. We will only unblock you only if you agree to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines such as filing an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead of persistently reposting deleted material. -- Netsnipe ► 09:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netsnipe, I assure you I have no intention of disrupting Wikipedia. My only intention is to provide key evidence for the deletion review board. As it is clearly states on the Tourettes Guy page "Recreation can be discussed on the talk page or at Deletion Review." This is what I am trying to do. Am I not allowed to talk on the talk page by adding information for the deletion review? Let me know. Shirlena 09:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nesnipe, I also promise to stop "actively campaigning" once my talk section is allowed to stay up on the Tourettes Guy page. Shirlena 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netsnipe, in addition I am not a sock puppet. I am in the library right now, and my friend is the one that posted the original message (as well as copied the message from the petition). Could you please unblock. Thanks Shirlena 09:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shirlena, let me point out the Tourettes guy talk page does comply with G8 under WP:CSD. Your argument that a petition is a deletion log or review can not be counted because it is held off site. Also deletion information can be found here, here and here--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you for the time being, but please don't repost the link to that offsite petition. It has no bearing on Wikipedia's decision making whatsoever. I suggest you familarise yourself with the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guidelines before making any appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Netsnipe ► 09:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unblock. Am I allowed to mention that the website Tourettesguy.com has the link to the petition? Shirlena 09:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netsnipe, I am still blocked due to the library problems. Could you please fix this? Thanks. Shirlena 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that being autoblocked is your problem, so here's the generic {{autoblock}} template on how to list your autoblock properties so we can find it. Sorry if some of it isn't relevant, but... :

We can't unblock you at this time, because you haven't given us the information we need to even look into your block. You yourself were not blocked; if you were prevented from editing, you must have been autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. I'm removing your unblock request because there's nothing we can do without this information. If you are still autoblocked by the time you read this message:

Try and edit the Wikipedia:Sandbox by clicking here.
Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Autoblocked?" section.
Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and need not do anything more. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will take care of it later. Shirlena 10:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]