User talk:WarpstarRider

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, WarpstarRider, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 00:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Minor Edits

Why did you mark [1] as minor? Of course, you were right to make the revert, but please read Wikipedia:Minor edit. It states that you shouldn't mark an edit as minor if it changes any substance, and that in any case reverts should not be marked as minor. Cheers, David.Mestel 18:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review/The Game

Deletion review: The Game (game) Thanks for removing my accidental comment from that page.

I intended to modify: Articles for deletion: The Game (game)(4th nomination) ... Quite confusing after 4 nominations ;)

--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game

Hi. I've added to your comment about sources on Talk:The Game (game). I hope you don't mind. I can see the possibility for a very long and effortful conversation there about valid sources, and I was trying to pre-empt it with some links to policy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Revert Rule (3RR)

Please have a read of this page. This is an important policy that we have to prevent on-going revert wars. You have actually violated this rule recently but because you are relatively knew here and have not been warned about it before you won't be blocked. Make sure that you are well aware of it for the future.--Konstable 13:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Something funny with your block log. It shows no blocks. But I see you have indeed been blocked. Tough luck, you did violate the policy. Make sure you are aware of it in the future to avoid futher blocks.--Konstable 13:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question about stopping spammers

I've been trying to stop the spam that the ip 70.121.189.173 has been persistantly leaving on the lonelygirl15 page. I noticed that you also deleted this person's spam once and added a spam warning to their user page. The user continued to leave the spam and eventually I got all the way up to the last spam template. My question is, does me leaving this template on someone's page actually block from editing wikipedia, or do I need to go through another service to put them on a list of blocked users? The template is on their user talk page, is that all I need to do? thanks, Criptofcorbin 08:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The templates that declare a block are only to be used by admins when they are enacting a block...Admins are the only users that can block people here. If a vandal has been given a final warning and continues to vandalize pages, take it over to WP:AIV and follow the steps to report them there. An admin will take a look at it and decide whether a block should be issued. I reported them just now. WarpstarRider 08:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your revert on the game

i understand the reason why new content is discouraged in this article due to its constestable nature but why is it that listing a country which does play it should be removed? I simply dont understand why. I DO understand that its (likely) not sourceable, is that the only reson? —(chubbstar)— talk | contrib | 05:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Essentially, yes. The only thing that's allowed in the article is information that has a reliable source behind it, and the only reliable source we have is that one newspaper article. The list of countries used comes directly from the DM article, as the start of the sentence states; you can't add a country that wasn't listed there. WarpstarRider 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that there is no specific mention in a german zeitung that The Game is played elsewhere does not preclude its existance there. I don't need some ivory tower scholar to tell me that the sky is blue to know that it is blue. I only need to know what the sky is and what blue is. Reasoning fills in the rest Pokowpane 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of MLB on FOX

The whole point of this particular article is that its a point-of-view article. And what's wrong with me referencing various message boards (from actual baseball fans rather than pundits) to justify these claims? If I didn't then that would have been a problem within itself since it would all fall on my personal opinion. I dare you to do this amount of research!!! TMC1982 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • A random person posting on a forum is not a reliable, verifiable source, and certainly not something to build an entire article around. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to be conducting research. That article is on very shaky ground. WarpstarRider 08:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I guess we have a whole lot of "random people" posting on a whole lot of "random fourms" to complain! http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/462450p-389056c.html TMC1982 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The vast majority of the article is based on forum posts. An opinion piece regarding one event isn't justification for all of the junk. WarpstarRider 21:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This following link that's critical of Fox isn't from a message board: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202006/sports/falls_foul_ball_sports_phil_mushnick.htm And what do you mean "regarding one event"!? The "MLB on FOX" program has been around for ten years as opposed to simply 2006.TMC1982 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You continue to miss the point. Bringing up a newspaper article and saying "this is critical of FOX" does not change the fact that the vast majority of what is written on the Criticism of MLB on FOX page is based on stuff written on message boards and blogs. These are not reliable sources, and should not be the basis for an encyclopedia article (and a rather large article, at that).
Really, my talkpage isn't the place for this. If you want to debate the merits of your article, take it to the AfD page. WarpstarRider 00:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking it to you personally, since you see fit to nominate it for deletion. And excuse me for actually being somebody who's willing to get in a debate! And unlike you, I'm a real baseball fan, who works hard to back up a point!!! In fact, I'm willing to bet that I hardly watched a minute of Baseball on FOX to understand where I'm coming from and what I'm talking about! TMC1982 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Debate over the status of the article belongs on the AfD page, that's what it's for. You'd have much better results taking your arguments to the appropriate place rather than continually badgering me here. WarpstarRider 06:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm "badgering" you because it annoys me to no end whenever I work so hard and passionately on one particular subject (to give as much information and points-of-view as possible) only to have it completely disavowed! TMC1982 30 October 11:04 (UTC)

[edit] Reggie Fils-Aime

Sorry about that, I had realized my error and requested another editor revert just to avoid the 3rr. Also apologized to the anon who had been removing it. --Gregorof/(T) 10:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lonelygirl15

i put a protect on it quite simply because people where taking out the 'notable youtube members' paragraph out on their own wim, without making a point in the discussion page. that paragraph apears in all youtube personalities articles. Lonenlygirl15 should be no diffrnt. 82.39.9.197 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Just putting up the template doesn't actually protect the article. And you can't try to protect an article just because someone removed something that you put in there. WarpstarRider 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion: Why do you care so much?

Honestly, I'm not personally that interested in every celebrity to come out of YouTube, although I was browsing those articles because I was a bit curious about them. But I don't understand why you are crusading so hard for deletion. It's one thing if an article isn't factual, or is badly written. But if the article is OK, and people want to have one, why should it bother you? Some of the objections you raise seem like very minor quibbling over the exact letter of the rules. I think your real objection is that they aren't notable, right? But why do you care so much? JudahH 17:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of other people you can ask the same thing; these recent couple of debates haven't really drawn much of the usual crowd, though. There are policies here for a reason, and every article has to adhere to them; we can't just ignore them and allow articles for every minor fad just because a small group of people wants to write about them. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for internet fads. (And I wouldn't call the entire verifiability policy, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, "minor quibbling.") WarpstarRider 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/r/User_talk%7EWarpstarRider_25fe.html"