User talk:Truth Glass

Welcome!

Hello, Truth Glass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Inks.LWC (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool

The article Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article fails to indicate why the subject is notable, and I suspect the game fails WP:GNG. The article also fails to cite any outside sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

since when does Wikipedia censor? And I'm not sure I said "get the fuck off" but I do remember saying fucking

Decline reason:

Spartaz's relatively short block was appropriate. While Wikipedia is not censored, there is a line, and that line is directing said uncensored content towards other editors. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:09, 12 July 2011 (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.

Telling other users you disagree with to get the fuck off wikipedia is not acceptable [1]. Neither is recreating a deleted article in defiance of an AFD closure. Civil disobediance doesn't work here so don't waste your time. Blocks ratchet up so I suggest you try DRV or even you know discussing the close rather then wasting your time in ineffective gestures. I wouldn't have blocked you for the recreation but your comment on the now deleted talk page was too much. Oh, if you want to appeal the block try {{unblock|your reason here}} to get another admin to review this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that any language is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Since nothing else is. I simply shamed users who would argue for the deletion of a page that is clearly valuable by any standard of basic information (like at least 50% of the content on Wikipedia I am aware of) and even properly sourced in an attempt to appeal to their better nature. The course language was an effect to demonstrate that I am not going to dignify such a deletion with actual argument. PS: People say "the F-word" all of the time on Wikipedia!! Isn't that per some language bias guideline or something?! --Truth Glass (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have blocked you for saying "fuck"; I say it any time I fucking want, and so can you, as long as you do it within Wikipedia's civility guideline. So, "This article is fucked up" is one thing; "get the fuck off Wikipedia" is directing the harsh language toward other users, and that's what's not tolerable. And, if you're not going to "dignify such a deletion with actual argument", you're not going to be welcomed around here either; we operate on something we call consensus here, which means this is a cooperative project, and if you insist on having your own way, you won't be able to work well with us. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the purposes of people reading this talk page... I think editors should be given the freedom to express themselves. I did not address any editor in particular, and I did not tell anyone to not use Wikipedia. I did say (IMO) said editors are not helping Wikipedia -- Ie. if an actual cost benefit analysis was done. Unfortunately the edit cannot be retrieved AFAIK. The page was of sufficient quality as 50% of the articles I read on Wikipedia on a daily basis. There were no positive arguments against it. Spartaz did not take part in the discussion and I suspect did not review the article in questions before deleting. I edit Wikipedia all the time and cherish it but I'm new to creating pages. I was more interested in following something along the lines of DRV anyway, but did not know about that. I don't think the negative participants in the discussion were coming from a productive place. By these standards I'm sure half of Wikipedia would be deleted, and probably the best parts. I did not think for a second the article would actually be deleted. If that's the actual consensus I suspect Wikipedia won't be getting a whole lot of donations as time goes on...

PS: Content of said article upon deletion is here, User:Truth_Glass/Sword_of_Moonlight:_King's_Field_Making_Tool --Truth Glass (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]