User talk:Jestix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] User:Blake911
He has repeatedly tried to sneak that link in in multiple places, twice in the page I'm involved in after he was asked to stop. I've posted a warning, let me know if he continues vandalism. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jestix, just to let you know I am new here to wikipedia and I'm currently still learning how to use this website. I read the guidelines and will be more careful in the future when it comes to editing.
Best Regards, Blake Van Leer
[edit] Shazbot85
Has been known to harass me, members of my online community and of several other communties. He has an agenda to benefit himself and his Shadowclan guild. Please do not allow him to harass people on wikipedia or myself.
Thank you, Blake Van Leer Blake911 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowclan
I think your characterization of the first AfD is unfair combined with the previous two deletes before the first AfD. The very first delete was a speedy delete due to no claims of notability. The second speedy delete turned into the AfD, which the community argued to keep. You imply that Shadowclan members came here and stacked the vote but if you look at the discussion we had here http://www.shadowclan.org/darkmoot/viewtopic.php?t=37531&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25 you will see that I asked our members for appropriate articles to help demonstrate our notability, that some members even disagreed with our notability, and that I even wrote to our members at that time, "Please don't do any posting yourself unless they allow you as a community member to vote or not to vote." That no one encouraged people to come here and stack the vote and if anything, people were steered clear to avoid "cheating". Bagginator 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm failing to see how involving more people in an AfD is bad. I'm especially failing to see how involving the previously prevailing debaters in the second AfD is a bad thing to do? Can I see some references to this? Or are you just pulling things out of thin air? As it stands, AfD's are not decided on votes but the quality of the arguments made in showing the article meets standards. I didn't know it was inccorect to involve people in the community to provide quality arguments. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that though, althought I'msure I'm not. Have a happy, smiliey face day Jaztix. Shazbot85Talk 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] That's pleasent, but...
I havn't written anything about myself or involvements other than on my user page. I'll ask you to refrain from such false assertions in regard to personal attack policy. Shazbot85Talk 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jackson512 sockpuppet
If you'll see Jackson512's userpage for a link to the sock puppet discussion, you can add any evidence you feel proves he is a sock puppet, or if you think he is not. Thanks! Shazbot85Talk 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Van Leer
You removed the {{copyvio}} tag from this article to list it at WP:AFD as non-notable. Please don't do this in the future. If an article is a copyright violation (which this one was), its notability, or lack thereof, is immaterial, as it will be deleted after spending its time at WP:CP; creating a separate deletion debate for it just clouds the issue. Thanks, --RobthTalk 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- You were the person who removed the tag:
- 17:01, 5 September 2006 . . Jestix (Talk | contribs | block) (nominated for deletion (reverted copyright bot, as the author of the article is some van leer familiy member)
- Unless we have proof that the person who uploaded the article held the copyright to that material, it is important to leave that copyright tag in place, so that we are not making copyrighted material openly available on our site. Although it is possible that the person who created the article was from that website, we need proof of that before we can host the convent on our servers; whether the uploader of the article is a Van Leer family member is also irrelevant, unless they have asserted that they are the copyright holder. Just keep this in mind for the future, to avoid confusion. Thanks, --RobthTalk 18:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Lord of the Rings
May I refer you to item 1 in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards#Terminology
The Lord of the Rings is a book published in three volumes, that does not make it a trilogy, they do not stand as complete stories in their own right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thu (talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] etschreiber
I have not followed much of this discussion. Perhaps I don't know enough about the culture of Wikipedia. However, the table was factual and very helpful. I see no reason why it would be removed.
[edit] EQEmu
My apologies. I did not realize that the EternalQuest link was now a redirect to EQEmu. I am pretty sure it was not always. Anyway, I will leave it alone now. --24.160.80.27 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
