User talk:Matrix17/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reminder of headings

If you use headings in articles you need to use the form ==Text== or if it's a sub-heading ===Text 2===. There's a shortcut button above the edit field if you're unsure. If you look at the Manual of Style that's linked at the top of your discussion page you'll find more tips on how to edit. --Strangnet 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

You might like to look at using this bot to automate the archiving of your talk page: User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto.

Are you intending to archive the comments you have removed? Rich257 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erica Johansson

I looked all over the place to find something that would suggest that Erica Johansson lives in Växjö. All I found was this article in Aftonbladet from March 13 2007 that says she lives in Lindome, Göteborg, which makes sense since she trains youths in Mölndals AIK according to her web page. Could it be Camilla Johansson you're thinking of? Camilla is a native and resident of Växjö, competing in triple jump (and sometimes long jump) for IFK Växjö. The former speaks with a Gothenburgian dialect while the latter speaks traditionally smålandish. --Strangnet 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings again

Please re-read the earlier message on formatting headings, and please do this in articles. Rich257 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow down

Before you start accusing me of putting speedy tags on everything, i suggest you take a good look at the comments which are on my talk page. You'll see that it is mostly frustrated vandals, who want to yell at me. So, please slow down a little, before you charge me with such things. Now, as far as your article goes, a single line does not make an article. If possible, try to add at least some reference, that way people like me won't be tempted to take a shot at it? As such, nothing personal. Andante1980 12:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I did check the articles, and now there are references. So, I'm not putting the speedy tags back. (Otherwise, I probably would have fired a [[subst:uw-speedy1]]. ;-) ) Oh, and from now I'll let you know if any of your articles appear unreferenced. Andante1980 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks in the article Timothy Shepherd

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Timothy Shepherd. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Hatch68 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The news report of the murder checks out but claims of cannabilism and a barbecue for a friend's wedding are not substantiated. I have removed the speedy deletion tag but the article needs more information. Regards LittleOldMe 15:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did check the facts by reading the article you referenced. You made extremely false claims in the initial article, and they're still there in the history for anyone to see. No where in the article is cannibalism mentioned, and the subject had not been "prosecuted" nor is a sentence pending. Making false statements about someone is a personal attack, plain and simple. Hatch68 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Null" edits

Hello Matrix17. Just wanted to let you know that it is not necessary whatsoever to go through articles simply removing blank lines as you did here and here. Such "null" edits simply clutter the article's history and needlessly tax server resources. Thanks and have a good one. -- Satori Son 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steps for AfD

If you are going to keep on nominating articles for deletion, could you please at least follow the guide for AfD. Thanks. --Strangnet 14:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Bad Faith AfD nominations

They aren't funny. Please stop. Otherwise, I will notify the admins that you are purposefully vandalizing articles. --Mhking 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you are continuing to violate WP:POINT. I take it this is some form of amusement for you? --Mhking 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, it appears that you are purposefully violating the articles in question. --Mhking 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not only my opinion; all three of your AfDs have been speedily kept and closed. Thanks for sharing. --Mhking 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're the one who needs to cool it. Are you finished with this stretch of vandalism? --Mhking 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not just me. But you won't see that. Just stop. Please. --Mhking 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You should know that "Abuse of tags" is considered a form of vandalism. Nominating things for deletion which are obviously encyclopedic and notable is just a waste of your time, and other people's time. Trying to pretend that "that's your opinion, I have my opinion" is a lame excuse. Stop it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not archive ongoing discussions

You know better than to archive ongoing discussions on your talk page. Discuss the criticism instead of ignoring it. --Strangnet 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for bad faith afd nominations, incivility, and possible point violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yamla sorry that you feel that way. Must be hard to be so bitter.--Matrix17 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the unblock request, decline the request, and endorse the block. Newyorkbrad 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about what i did this is personal against me. and that was all i needed to know, thanks*--Matrix17 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal about you? I never heard of you before half an hour ago. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the block, though I only ever heard of Matrix17 today. It's amazing how personally you are taking all of this. Must be hard to be so bitter. --Jaysweet 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

Take the 48 hours to cool down and read the links in the welcome banner at the top of your talkpage. The AfD's you started were for people who are clearly notable by the guidelines that the Wikipedia community has agreed upon for biographical articles. It might also be a good time to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I'd also suggest that you refrain from being so combative with other editors. Just because you don't agree with them isn't an excuse for incivility. Stuff like that will just end up leading to a longer, or subsequent block. I doubt this block is personal against you. Your actions warranted it; that is why it was done.--Isotope23 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your advice should not only be pointedto me but to all the others. i would be combatative if it wasnt for all the treathfull messages i recieve. thanks again and how can someone say that I didnt do it in good faith? thats personal anyway you see it. but no need to be discussed everyone here are very personal in their messages anyway..--Matrix17 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also seen what you have written about me Isotope to the one blocking me. Wasnt it you and strangnet how told people not to backstabb each other and that it is not good to write about others behind their backs. well your advices isnt anything you usually follows yourselfs here i can see. or as we say in sweden "kasta inte sten i glashus"--Matrix17 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote was a matter of public record Matrix, I'm well aware that you can see it; the fact that anyone (yourself included) can view my edit history and see what I said doesn't really make it "behind your back" as you've put it (and if you have a diff where I told anyone not to "backstab", I'd love to see it). I stand by what I said there; it was a good block and one of the things that has frustrated many of the editors who have crossed paths with you is your complete unwillingness to try to follow even the simplest of style guidelines here. When informed or reminded about them, you tend to react defensively and start accusing everyone of having something against you. I'm not trying to be mean to you Matrix, but your attitude and unwillingness to follow the accepted guidelines here after you've been contributing here long enough to know them probably doesn't endear you to many other editors. You are under no obligation to follow my advice, but the point is that if you continue to edit the way you have been editing up to this point you will likely find yourself having the same problems you've had up until now with other editors. The fact that so many editors have taken the time to suggest that you follow certain style guidelines really should tell you something. I strongly suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with the manual of style, policies, and guidelines here. It may take some time to do so, but you will likely have less friction with other editors mercilessly editing your work and will generally be a greater asset to the Wikipedia community.--Isotope23 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok by that message you have proven that you actually HAVE been backstabbing me, thanks.--Matrix17 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not that important. kthx. JuJube 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Isoptope23 was very courteous and respectful towards you in his comment above, and instead of accepting his pointers and suggestions you answered back in much the same way as what got you into this situation in the first place. I think you could benefit from these few days of Wikipedia rest and check out the links at the top of this page, that we've frequently mentioned to you, and have a look around how others make use of Wikipedia and how they interact with each other. You have to understand that it has been frustrating for many of us who have tried to point you in the right direction, to only get comments like the ones you've left above back as answers, or just seeing our comments here archived without further action. At some point it becomes perceived that what you do is just for spite, which you have a great opportunity to prove is not the case when you return. --Strangnet 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Word of Encouragement

Matrix17, I am sorry that you seem to be having a difficult time on Wikipedia. From my own brief review of your edit history, it would seem that perhaps your "Wikipedia Experience" started out on the wrong foot. It appears that several articles you wrote early on were nominated for deletion and that you received, what you may have considered, a lot of criticism in your early days as an editor. Although I've never had an article I wrote deleted, I can imagine that it must be a confusing and upsetting experience, particularly for a new user - and especially if you have any sort of personal connection to the article's subject matter. You need to understand that "notability" decisions really aren't personal. Reviewing your talk page history, I can understand how a new editor might feel a little "picked on" or "attacked". To my mind, you may have been a victim of WP:BITE. Unfortunately, it seems that your response has been to Bite Back! LOL!!! That really isn't the answer.

It seems to me that Isotope23, Strangnet and others really are only trying to help you. It may be difficult to see that when some editors are chiming in with unneccessary caddy remarks. There is a lot to learn on Wikipedia and it can take a new user quite a few months to get a handle on it all. Maybe you need to slow down a little bit and take the time to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedians are encouraged to "be bold" - but I'm not sure that's always the best advice for newer users! LOL! If someone offers you "policy related" advice on your talk page it would probably save you a lot of headaches if, moving forward, you acknowlege and respond positively to their advice. Rather than thinking of it as "criticism" - try to look at it as well intentioned "helpful advice".

I sincerely hope that you will take Strangnet up on his/her suggestion and try to turn this whole thing around when you return. You've made many valuable edits, and you certainly have the potential to become a valuable member of the community. There are a lot of nice people here, who I'm sure you'll enjoy working with. It's up to you! If you ever need any help or advice, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. Keep your chin up! Best Wishes! Cleo123 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A note to other Wikipedians, this relatively new editor appears to have received nothing but "criticism". When dealing with new users it might be advisable for all of us to offer some encouragement, as well. Reviewing his/her talk page, I'm really not surprised that this relationship has gone so far south. This is an important example of why WP:BITE should be a top priority when dealing with newbies. Cleo123 09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't like Matrix17 haven't had his/her fair chances to follow the tips and guidelines proposed by others. Matrix has on several occasions acknowledged them and thanked for the tips and pointers, but nothing happened from there on. That is one of the things that has been frustrating to a degree but mostly time consuming for the rest of us who've been fixing the formatting and asking for sourced statements etc.

A similar behavior where Matrix didn't want to (or understand) the guidelines on the Swedish Wikipedia saw lash outs against administrators there and have rendered in multiple blocks from editing (the last one a month long now) [1].

Given this, it can only get better from here, can't it? --Strangnet 10:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit to biting, but only after being jumped on to begin with. It felt more like crossing the "don't feed" line, if anything. But that being said, I'll humbly apologize to Matrix17 and extend a hand of welcome when he returns, provided he is ready and willing to work together to make things better. --Mhking 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

It is ironic that above you defend your nomination of Paris Hilton, yet you removed notability tags I added to the articles of beauty queens of third world countries. Those tags were meant to express concern that those subjects do not meet the notability guidelines, but they carry no administrative consequences. Would you prefer to see AfD templates on those articles? - Crockspot 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Adding {{sprotect}} to an article doesn't protect it. Only admins can protect. You can request protection at WP:RFPP. --Geniac 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did check the facts by reading the article you referenced. You made extremely false claims in the initial article, and they're still there in the history for anyone to see. No where in the article is cannibalism mentioned, and the subject had not been "prosecuted" nor is a sentence pending. Making false statements about someone is a personal attack, plain and simple. Hatch68 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to remove warnings from your user talk page and refer to my edits as "nonsense" along with the near personal attack you made on my user talk page, I will report you for administrative action. Hatch68 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected killers or even convicted killers have the same protections against personal attacks as anyone else on Wikipedia. Accusing them of being a cannibal and roasting the victim on a grill were personal attacks. Consider yourself warned. Hatch68 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created, Christie Rogers, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Real96 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tatsuya Ichihashi

Please be careful with what you write about Tatsuya Ichihashi as in the article you accused him of murder. This accusation is unreferenced and amounts to an attack on that individual, who is innocent until proven guilty. Please keep to facts that can be referenced to a reliable source. Thanks Rich257 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You put this person in the category Japanese Killers, that is where you accused him of murder, or at least of killing. Also the statement about "Police suspects that Tatauya have beaten then strangled Lindsay" isn't in the article's reference, so it is an unsourced statement. Rich257 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't contesting the method of death, although that was unsourced and has been fixed (thanks), I was contesting that the text you added said that Tatsuya strangled her (read the above quoted text carefully). Rich257 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esctoday

A tag has been placed on Esctoday, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Esctoday. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Strangnet 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with articles

Hi. I see you've recently had a number of articles deleted, including Morgan Innes. Please take some time to become more familiar with the primary notability criterion: a subject is notable (and thus fit for inclusion) if it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Some of your articles had no real sources at all. The Innes article was deleted as being horribly insensitive - Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Please do take a little more time to research, find sources, and write calm and balanced text. Keen is good, but runaway keen is bad for you and the project. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Wayne Shepherd

Thanks for working on the article on Timothy Wayne Shepherd and its link to the Quanell X article. Deatonjr 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XXL (band)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caution

Please do not make any further false accusations on my talk page. I have not harassed anyone, merely reverted your vandalism of the XXL (band) article and left an appropriate message here. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially WP:CIVIL and also WP:TROLL. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

You need to tone down your rhetoric a bit Matrix. You've already been blocked with incivility being part of the reason for that block. As it stands you seem to be headed in that direction again.--Isotope23 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've raised your conduct on ANI, which may be slightly redundant now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tread carefully

Matrix, you need to understand something. There is a big difference between a deletion nomination you don't like or agree with, and a bad faith nomination. You were blocked for bad faith nominations, nominations which are self-evidently without merit and give the impression of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have not been blocked for this: [2]. I have, however, blocked one or two people in my time, and deleted a few thousand articles, very few of which have come back in a worthwhile form, a few now exist as redirects. Wikipedia is not a directory, and we require multiple non-trivial independent sources for every article. Rather than attacking the nominator, you could try fixing the article by adding those sources. Because I am a cruel, heartless, evil bastard of a rouge admin, and I make it my business to see that unsourced articles get sourced or deleted. It's what I do. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

On the AfD for Jessica Lindgren, you wrote: "Strangnets nomination isnt 100% truthfull she has done modeling and is a requested model she also lives in spain and is pregnant which i wrote but was deleted as 'gossip'".

I'd like to make a clarfication: Did I remove the info on her modeling from the article? No. Do I assume that those who vote in an AfD read the article? Yes. Did I remove obviously gossipy tabloidal content about her current living arrangements, partying with friends in Spain etc? Yes. Were there a mention of her pregnancy? No.

Please don't misrepresent other editors' contributions. --Strangnet 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

You might want to be a little more careful about calling people's actions "nonsense" in the future. I know you're passionate about the article's merits, but calling people names really isn't a good idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)