User talk:Oshaberi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dreadhead

A tag has been placed on Dreadhead, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. EMT1871 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Dreadhead. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at this story where he is quoted: http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4837613

There is a reasonably defined notion of what is and is not encyclopedic, and this article fails to meet that requirement. There are thousands of media outlets in the US, most of them fill airtime, print pages, or their websites with content simply to meet a quota, not to provide any legitimate or worthwhile news. A fan of some team is quoted by some media outlet - so what? He's displayed on a JumboTron - why is that relevant? There is little encyclopedic merit in this topic.
If this explanation does not suffice for you, please bring the arti8cle's deletion to the attention of deletion review - if there is cause to restore it, it will be simply to slap an AFD on the article so that the broader community can determine whether or not to delete it.
Aside: asking me why I've yet to answer your question, when you gave me barely a day to do so, is insisting too much. I don't spend 24 hours a day on Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
MindMatrix has said more or less what I was going to say; your article doesn't meet the requirements in the guidelines linked above. Specifically, the article's subject is not notable. If you disagree and wish to take further action then please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review – Gurch 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's pure poppycock. As long as pages such as Eyeshield_21_characters exist, I will argue that the guidelines are comprimised at best. I can get full biographic material from the most minor of characters on any show or cartoon here. A real life person who is recognized by the team and fans is not worth mentioning when the NFL has it's own section honoring these kinds of fans in the NFL? As previously stated, the article DID MEET the requirements for inclusion stated by Wikipedia. What makes your opinion of what's valuable any more important than mine?

And the argument, "A fan of some team is quoted by some media outlet - so what? He's displayed on a JumboTron - why is that relevant? There is little encyclopedic merit in this topic." doesn't wash. MindMatrix has edited the article for Wild Strawberries (band). Frankly I have never heard of them. Does that limit their inclusion? Therefore, who cares? They've never charted, and they've added little to the musical landscape, yet you include them. Why? Cause their Canadian and close to your heart? At least Gurch's article Best of Both Worlds (song) charted.

Dreadhead is displayed on the "JumboTron" EVERY WEEK and in the team video. He is widely recognized by the crowd and the fans of a major NFL team. He's not just "some fan."

First, about the article on Wild Strawberries: it merits inclusion because there is a distinct and clear definition, per WP:MUSIC, of what bands should have an article in Wikipedia, and this band passes those criteria. Second, I think the biographic material of the cartoon characters et al should be deleted from Wikipedia too. Third, my opinion is no more or less important than yours or anybody else's, which is why I follow the guidelines and policies as closely as possible; sometimes, it doesn't make sense to do so, and some leeway for personal opinion is granted, but I use this sparingly.
As far as Dreadhead is concerned, it really amounts to an individual who is just part of the team's marketing campaign, and not much more. The Toronto Raptors, for instance, have SuperFan, who is generally similar to Dreadhead, though not sporting the team colours in quite the same fashion. It may merit a brief mention on the club's page (though I don't think so), but I certainly don't think it warrants its own article. Wikipedia isn't going to include everybody who has "15 minutes of fame". Perhaps it'd be best to start a discussion about this on the team's talk page, and move forward from there. Better yet, take this issue to deletion review as I suggested earlier. Mindmatrix 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition please?

Something you've never quite answered. you've never explained what an "inappropriate page" is other than quoting qualifications that the article meets.


ok listen, I havent answered you because honestly I havent cared enough to read your message until now. First, I did not delete your article. I proposed it for deletion and obviously the administrators agreed with me and deleted it. Second, if you read the tag, you had the ability to stop the deletion and cause a discussion about it, which obviously you chose not to do. I am no longer interested in discussing this with you. Any further postings on my Talkpage like your last one will be considered vandalism and reported as such. Thanks and have a nice day. EMT1871 02:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Smallville

Sorry, we've had discussions on the talk page about this, and if he had flown there would have been a big cryout over a violation of Gough and Miller's rule. Secondly, if he were to fly legitimately, he would do it ALL the time, instead he's always running, and they would have an entire episode devoted to him learning how to control his flight. Last, watch him land. If he flew, he would land softly, and he would have started out softly. Go back and watch Jor-El flying with Lana's ancestor. Did you see him just shoot through the air like a bat out of hell? No, you saw him gently take off. If Clark was about to propose to Lana, and show her he was flying then he would have gently taken off so that she would be comfortable with it. And when he lands, he would come down softly, which he didn't. He came down by the force of gravity, which you can see when his knees have to bend to cushion the fall. You are using original research in saying he was flying, as there is not proof that that was what it was. If you wish to debunk this, then bring up the discussion again on the talk page (where it already existed once, and was shot down), and show your verifiable, reliable proof.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the previous discussions here, here, and here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:15000.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:15000.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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. 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:15000.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:15000.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)