User talk:TomMcComery

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

The article Marty And Doug's New Religion has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did 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 indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marty and doug's new religion

A tag has been placed on Marty and doug's new religion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources don't meet WP:V -- they are either user-editable, such as imdb, or blogs. See WP:RS. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Marty and doug's new religion, to Wikipedia as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marty And Doug's New Religion

A tag has been placed on Marty And Doug's New Religion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use IMDB as a source for article facts, or to establish the notability of a film or webcast - I use it as an external link for movie articles, just to be helpful. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use SOME third party published source for an article. WP:N. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOME is not a number. It is a subjective term. A subjective term such as SOME means that the the amount of third party sources that can satisfy you as an editor is totally up to the whim of how you're feeling. A wiki editor can write their own articles about actors that lived 100 years ago with IMDB as their only source. Yet an independent production released this year is up to the mercy of how an editor feels. One editor can approve of and improve the article while another can request it to be speedily deleted on some BS grounds that really depend on how they feel about it and the page is gone before anyone really notices. But getting back to my point, SOME is not a number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.109.181 (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marty and Doug's New Religion

A tag has been placed on Marty and Doug's New Religion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marty and Doug's New Religion

A tag has been placed on Marty and Doug's New Religion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marty and doug's new religion

A tag has been placed on Marty and doug's new religion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marty and doug's new religion

A tag has been placed on Marty and doug's new religion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked for 1 week from editing because your account is being used for repeatedly recreating an article about Marty And Doug's New Religion, despite it being deleted. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your email

I'll copy this here, so everyone can see what is happening!

Original Message-----

From: TomMcComery Sent: 17 September 2010 15:12 To: Phantomsteve Subject: Wikipedia e-mail Hi Phantom Steve, I am curious as to why my article keeps getting deleted and why you decided to block my account after I started commenting on your articles. Doesn't seem very ethical -- This e-mail was sent by user "TomMcComery" on the English Wikipedia to user "Phantomsteve". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The article keeps getting deleted because it does not credibly indicate why 'Marty and Dog's New Religion' is significant. I looked at the article and the sources provided were either not reliable (as Wikipedia defines that) or independent. I looked for coverage at reliable, independent sources and could find none (nothing, for example, at Google News).

I blocked your account for one week (although you can still edit this page) because creating an article which is deleted, and then recreating it 10 times is disruptive - and almost all your other edits were connected with M&DNR.

As for your commenting on 'my' article - although I'd seen that you had commented on All Grown Up (comedy) when I checked your contributions before blocking you, I'd forgotten that I'd even started that article (it was only when I looked at the history that I saw that I had created it, rather than just editing it!). Your blocking had nothing to do with that comment (as I said, I didn't know it was an article I had edited until after I had blocked you). All your other edits were about M&DNR - and the repeated creation (5 times on 4 August, once on 5 August, 2 times on 15 September, and 3 times today) is the reason for the block.

If you feel that the block was unjustified, you are welcome to request an unblock by following the instructions in the block notice above. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not explain how FutonCritic is considered reliable and independent. My grievance is that editors like yourself hold users to a different standard then you do for yourselves. It is a huge double standard. You can use sources for your needs as you see fit but other people can not. There is too much subjectivity in the current wikipedia system.

Another grievance I have is that the page was up for over a month and had been edited by some wiki editors, however it just takes one editor who has a problem with it to remove it. How can an article stay secure in a system based on subjective judgments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomMcComery (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 September 2010

With regard to the "FutonCritic" references: I added that (and created the article) in December 2008 - I've moved on a lot as an editor (that was over a year before I became an admin), and in fact had you made the comment without the other edits which caused me to block you, I would have pointed out that at a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Futon_Critic in July 2008 (about 5 months before I originally started the article), the conclusion was neither "yes it's reliable" or "no, it's not". I would also have done what I have done a few minutes ago, which is to see if I could find clearly reliable sources, which I can't. Now I will leave a message at WikiProject Television to see if anyone could find some reliable sources. I would also have suggested to you that, despite the fact that it would be a "tit for tat" retaliation for the deletion of your article, you could list it at Articles for deletion - which you are welcome to do after your block expires.

Regarding the "page was up for over a month ..." argument, that makes no difference to whether an article is deleted or not - and neither does the fact that other editors have been involved. If the article meets the criteria for deletion, it can be deleted.

I am quite happy to continue this discussion when your block expires (or if it is lifted by an admin following a successful unblock request) - and in fact, if you feel that the article really shouldn't have been deleted, and that I (and Nyttend, Jafeluv, NawlinWiki, Toddst1, Bearcat and JamesBWatson - who have all deleted Marty And Doug's New Religion and/or Marty and doug's new religion) were wrong to have deleted it, then you can take it up (when your block is finished) at Deletion Review - please note, however, that this is not another venue to argue whether it should be deleted or not: you will need to show which part of the article showed the significance or importance of the show (that is why it was deleted).

As there is nothing further to be gained by continuing this conversation, I will end it here - as I said, when the week is up, we can continue - but unless you intend on requesting an unblock, our business is finished for now -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As mentioned above, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#All_Grown_Up_(comedy)-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]