User talk:Edtropolis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent Edtropolis (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Contents

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

We 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Google Hits

Hi Edtropolis! Just working on some Articles for Deletion and I noticed you have been contributing alot. Thank you for all your help! Just a sidenote, when voting to DELETE or KEEP an article, the use of Google hits is not the main criteria. Try to first reference it into a category. For example, if something is an event that is scheduled to happen in the future, and it has no sources linked to it, it should be DELETED as per WP:CRYSTAL, as this is called a crystal ball article since the contributor must be seeing into the future. You would then say, "Delete - fails criteria in WP:CRYSTAL (sig) ". You can also add the google hits onto the end of this like: "Delete - fails criteria in WP:CRYSTAL and only returned 2 google hits, one being the Wikipedia page. (Sig)" Other references are WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:NOTABILITY among with countless others. It is much more relevant to cite these as claims for deletion rather than just google hits. If you take a read through the WP:AfD page, you will see the proper way to cite reasoning for KEEP or DELETE. If you ever need anything, feel free to contact me. Happy editing and remember, be BOLD! Plm209(talk to me • contribs) 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the advice.--Edtropolis 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

and in the other direction, when dealing with pages like Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet, it does not help much just to say keep. mets the criteria--if there are specific objections, you've got to address the specific objections. This is especially true when the article is very likely to be deleted, as judged by similar articles recently. You'll get used to this when you see more of them. I should add to Pim's comments that for anyone whose notability was earlier than about 1995, it's usually a good idea to check Google book search as well--and Google Scholar even if they're not a scholar, for some professor may have written an article about them. Personally, I find adding references to save a potentially good article from deletion about the most satisfying thing I do around here. It's slow, but better to do one or two good things a day than a lot of ineffective ones. DGG 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More on Google searches

Hi there - just another couple of things about Google searches - you mentioned 604,000 hits for Rex Tomb. The problem is that when you type that into Google, not only does it look for 'Rex Tomb' but also for pages containing either 'Rex' or 'Tomb'. You need to put quotes round the whole name, by typing "Rex Tomb" (with the quotes). When you try that, you only get 871 Google hits (see this link). Bit of a change!
But that's not all - if you keep clicking forward through the hits, you'll find there aren't even 871 - there's 275! (see this link). This is because by default, Google doesn't count hits from the same site twice. We call these unique hits - so on the Rex Tomb AfD, for example, I might say "Only 275 unique GHits for this subject". Hope this helps - EliminatorJR Talk 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For now on, I won't mention the google searches. I'll just keep it to myself and not mention it.--Edtropolis 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

it would be more helpful to the encyclopedia if you learned to do them and do them right. Basing noms for afd on erroneous searches and then giving no reason is not the way to get the junk out of WP. Noms without adequate justifications will not be taken very seriously, and this will impede the effectiveness of your work. DGG 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Disease

Could you please explain your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Disease? Corvus cornix 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Home (CBS) Article

Why are you requesting my new article to be deleted not 10 minutes after I began composing it? -numbaonestunna

Oh, I didn't mean it. Sorry.--Edtropolis 20:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pish

You voted to delete, but I've made some changes and cited the thing, perhaps you'll take another look. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Elisha Qimron

I was still writing the above article when you nominated it for deletion. Perhaps you could have let me finish it before deciding to nominate it? Thanks Jack1956 12:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Duncan Campbell (revivalist)

I have undertaken a major expansion of the above. Would you please reconsider your AFD vote?

Check edit history before AfD

Hi, you may want to check the edit history of an article before nominating it for AfD. Many new articles appear deletable, but if you check, you may find they are actively being created while you're simultaneously proposing to delete them. Not every new editor knows about tags, such as {{underconstruction}}, that let people know an article is currently being improved or created. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is not censored, not even to remove profanity or pornography. Claiming that you find the subject matter of an article "disgusting", as you argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipple sucking, is not an acceptable rationale for deleting the article. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Psychonaut 11:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine. You're the administrator.--Edtropolis 13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not an administrator. I'm just letting you know what the community consensus on censorship is. You are, of course, free to argue that the policy should be changed, but until it is, you should abide by it. —Psychonaut 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blake question

In this discussion, you said "Blake must have met Jimmy before". What did you mean by that exactly? Just curious. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your support and kind words at my RFA. Looks like you are still fairly new here (though you've done a lot in that time), so feel free to ask on my talk page if you need any help or advice. Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I note that you are continuing advocate that articles be deleted for nonsensical or inappropriate reasons. For example, the World Socialist Web Site is not a conspiracy theory website, and even if it were, that's not a valid reason to delete it. Similarly, Laszlo Forizs is Hungarian, not Mexican, but his ethnicity has nothing to do with the proposed deletion. Please confine your rationales to those supported by Wikipedia's policies. —Psychonaut 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Your main activity here seems to be participation in articles for deletion. That's fine, but please be a little more careful when commenting. Please actually read the article proposed for deletion and make sure you understand both what the article is about and the proposed rationale for deleting it. You may also want to look at the list of "arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion". I want to assume that you're just new and getting used to our way of doing things. Please take a look and be a little more circumspect in your comments, as their overall effect thus far has been disruptive. MastCell Talk 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for being a bad user and a bad voter on AfD.--Edtropolis 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "i am sorry for abusing AFD.--Edtropolis 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "After reviewing the contribution logs and reading the associated thread on WP:ANI, I must say I agree with Alkivar's block. This account appears to be fully single-purpose, and is blocked as such. — ^demon[omg plz] 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

You sure found that unblock tag quickly. Are you sure you're a new user? —Psychonaut 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry for using inappropriate words on AfD.--Edtropolis 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good! Good!--Edtropolis 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I don't really want to be part of this. You piece of sh*t Bubblegum Wiki] will fight all the way until I get unblocked.--Edtropolis 19:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a fascist.--Edtropolis 13:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right you and the entire wiki are fascists.--Edtropolis 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Did I forget to mention that you and Wikipedia are fascists? YES! --Edtropolis 15:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be blocked, but you and Wikipedia are fascists.--Edtropolis 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)