User talk:WatchHawk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have moved your WatchHawk article to User:WatchHawk, which is your User page. Please don't write about yourself. See WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop recreating your vanity article. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Abe Levy
The article Abe Levy has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a person or group of persons but it does not indicate how or why that person or group is notable. If you can indicate why Abe Levy is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well thanks for correcting other peoples' spelling mistakes on my talk page. :) Please don't do it again because it is actually against policy. Now about Abe Levy, the person has to be notable. If you can prove he is notable then that is fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Err...sorry about about that, I just have this HUGE thing about bad grammar. I didn't know it was against policy. Actually, how did you know I was? O_o--WatchHawk 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I can see who's editing my talk page. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well is Abe Levy famous is any way? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well if he is kind of famous or notable then please add links to websites that show this. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion
Hi! Unfortunately, the subject simply isn't notable enough for inclusion. Your contributions are certainly appreciated, though. Please see WP:NOT to learn more. Best, Lucky 6.9 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relient K and Pop punk
Please stop removing pop punk from the genre in the infoboxes for Relient K and Apathetic EP. You could at least continue the discussion on the talk page. Both Sixteen Left (thegreentrilby) and I have given evidence in response to your comment. Relient K, especially since they have received mainstream popularity with Two Lefts and Mmhmm, have been professinally referred to as pop punk by the recognized music critic community (namely AMG. You cant directly link to the AMG Relient K page, but if you go to allmusic.com and type in "Relient K" in the search box, you can see the words "pop punk" in the first sentence of their bio. They are still Christian rock, Christian pop punk merely being a subgenre. Please stop simply removing the genre and contribute to the discussion. —Akrabbim 18:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Taven (Mortal Kombat) edits
I understand you were trying to fix the infobox, but the information contained therein was put there by User:Dragonps2, and it was vandalism (don't know how familiar you are with the MK universe, but all of his edits have been flagrant article vandalism), which is what I was removing. Sorry about all the confusion.Virogtheconq 02:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Watchhawk.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Watchhawk.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Civility
Edit summaries such as this and this are inappropriate, and clearly violate WP:CIVIL. Please treat other wikipedians, even those with whom you disagree, with respect. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, on reviewing your other contributions, it seems you're not new to this - this, this, and this are entirely unacceptable. So consider this an earnest warning - if you continue to abuse other wikipedia users, even vandals, you'll be blocked from editing wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Just now, I was uncivil to user 170.158.251.125 on purpose, because he vandalized my personal user page, so he deserved it. People should be allowed to say whatever they want to idiot vandals who vandalize their personal page. You can see what he did by looking in my history. I better not get in trouble for doing that.--WatchHawk 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Daveaizer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Daveaizer.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
I wanted to thank you for your barnstar. I'm glad that I am appreciated, and I can tell that I am well on my way to Wikipediholicism. May the horse be with you! —Akrabbimtalk 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Feelings
Why should we have an article on Brian Peppers?
He's ugly? That's not enough. Joseph Merrick was also grotesquely deformed, but there've been movies and Broadway musicals about him.
He's a web fad? That's not enough. Mahir Cagri was also a web fad, one of the very first; he got a lot of mainstream media coverage, he appeared on MAD TV, XOOM mentioned him on their frontpage... Amir Massoud Tofangsazan got a lot of mainstream media appearances as well... Ghyslain Raza not only had mainstream media appearances, his image was used on the Jumbotron in major-league baseball stadiums, and there was a huge lawsuit. Even the O RLY Owl made it into Everquest and World of Warcraft.
He was the subject of an entry on Snopes, and was made fun of on YTMND?, Snopes investigates lots of stuff. That's what they do. We don't have an entry on everyone who ever appeared on Snopes. Similarly, YTMND makes fun of stuff. That's what they do, and we don't have an entry for everyone who gets mocked there.
It's not that (feeling sorry for his disability) gets in the way of (deciding notability). It's that, well, what the hell else is there about him?
"Brian Peppers is clinically ugly. He lives in a nursing home in Ohio, and got arrested for sexual misconduct with a staff member there. His police picture looks so ugly that many people online didn't believe it was real, but it is." We had so many utterly garbage versions of that article, over and over again. Stretching out the tiny little bits of data. He may be in the public sphere by dint of having committed an offense for which he was arrested (was he convicted? Did he go to trial? Did he plead guilty? Do we know?), but so are hundreds of thousands of other people who've done much the same thing - and they aren't notable.
Internet memes are damn easy to create, so we have to have particularly strict standards for inclusion. The reason the talk page was blanked as well was that people kept shoving the content of the deleted page into the talk page. Over and over and over again. The same people. People who didn't participate in Wikipedia in any way except to say "HEY THERE SHOULD BE AN ARTICLE ON THIS PEPPERS GUY HE LOOKS FREAKY!"
And if we let people paste the content of deleted articles into talk pages, then what's the point of deleting them in the first place?
It's not that we were personally offended by the Peppers article. It's that we were annoyed by the page being legitimately deleted, and then re-created. And deleted. And re-created. And re-created. And re-created. By people who had no interest in the project outside of that. Okay? DS 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changing CE into AD (and viceversa) goes against the rules
Just to let you know that it is forbidded to change CEs into ADs (and viceversa): WP:MOS#Disputes_over_style_issues. Unilaterally reverting/removing era styles is a serious offence.--RedMC 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
