User talk:The-G-Unit-Boss/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please sign (~~~~) before you save.

My User Page My Talk Barnstars My Contribs
Logs		 My Sandbox Sub-Pages

Send Me A Message!

  • Put new text under old text.-Unless you are following something up.
  • I generally archive my Talk Page-Around every 15 messages.
  • Please sign and date your entries-by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
  • I sometimes rename section headers-to help me navigate.
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

BWS

YOU left me a message saying i should comment on the contributions not the editors name, wtf? you havent made any contributions apart from delete information from a article that does not interest you, just why? i dont go around removing and deleting things from the g unit articles do i? so why mess with mine, you havnt contributed apart from remove relevent information, believe it or not mate theirs actually more than 2 artists on bws, and according to you theirs 2? and only 2 mixtapes? and a highly basic description? pfhh bloody joke this is .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Shadowghosts (talk • contribs)

User:24.99.164.117

How many last warnings is a person supposed to need? Corvus cornix (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And so somebody goes to give them a warning, sees they have a final warning, and reports them to AIV, and you remove it. When will they ever get the correct number of bureaucratic warnings? Corvus cornix (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So you're content to let them continue to vandalize because the correct number of i's haven't been dotted and t's crossed? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I see User:Edgar181 isn't quite the bean counter you are. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

I don't really understand all the ins and outs of the Wikipedia rules regarding the deletion of articles, so this question is intended only to solicit information, not to challenge your actions.

I noticed that you deleted Mark Bourrie, a page that has twice survived deletion review.[1][2] I am confused about how an article could twice survive attempts to have it deleted, and then could be deleted on the third try, when, to the best of my knowledge, nothing changed in the intervening time. Am I missing something here? AverageGuy (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I didn't bother commenting when the tag was added the third time because (1) the issue had already been decided twice before, and (2) no one else supported the nomination and I thought a consensus was necessary to delete a page. Was I mistaken? AverageGuy (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Love Hate title dispute

Boss I am having trouble with a user by the name of Admc2006, he keeps reverting based on his own personal opinion when I have clearly provided facts supporting the official title of The-Dream's upcoming album, Love Hate. If you view the history of Love Hate and the discussion page you will see my representation for the title. Also you can see it on his user page. I would sincerely appreciate it if you could get my back on this and possibly persuade him to quit vandalizing. --Ayoleftyz (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. --Ayoleftyz (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
For sure homie! --Ayoleftyz (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit

I Apologise for my additions to the G-unit article if it caused offense. With all due respect I must however disagree with the tagging of this as vandalism. My addditions were factual in nature however maunderous and obtuse they seemed to your own, no doubt, superior intellect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulmke (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

More drama from Admc2006

I am having more trouble with this idiot, he keeps redirecting a link that is correct and arguing with me over a title that has two sources once again. If you look at the history of Love Hate, you will see the problem with this guy. I would appreciate it if you could notify him of his wrongdoing and that he could be blocked for repeated vandalism. Also please note, I don't intend to bother you with such stupid stuff but this guy just won't learn. --Ayoleftyz (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he got hit with the 24 hour block due to the 3RR haha. If you still could try to fend him off from doing anything stupid in the future it would be greatly appreciated. --Ayoleftyz (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, I was NOT blocked for 3RR because I did not do anything wrong. You, Ayolefyz, are just being plain stubborn. Just because it is does not fit your standards does NOT mean it is vandalism. The page, Love Hate is fine the way I had it. I changed the title to "Shawty Is Da Shit", because that is the way it shows on the album cover. I did NOT change it into a redirect. For example see T.I. vs. T.I.P. and Tha Blue Carpet Treatment by T.I. and Snoop Dogg. The tracks, "That's That Shit" and "Big Shit Poppin' (Do It)" are displayed in their original titles but link to "That's That" and "Big Things Poppin' (Do It)" respectively. You, Ayolefyz, need to take a closer look at what vanalism is and is not. A content dispute (i.e. what you and I have) is not vandalism. Is it unfortunate, yes. But it is not vandalism. You should take the time to assume good faith. Running to The G-Unit-Boss to get him to side with you is not the way to go. And neither is calling me an "idiot". While you accuse me of vandalism, you yourself have violated a Wikipedia policy which is, No personal attacks. Admc2006 (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I would suggest that both of you try to establish a consensus here about what link should be displayed rather than continually reverting each others edits. Maybe you should both take a break from editing this article? Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Username

Yo whatsup cuzz?? I just noticed us 2 got the most gangsta username on 'pedia. Aight keep up the good work and keep ya head up.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Playing games with redirects

Do not play games here with redirects as you did by creating Albert Johnson (disambiguation) so as to benefit your childish favoritism of a "rapper". Handicapper (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Clix Malt Liquor

I'm not sure why my Clix Malt Liquor article was deletd. It presents historical fact about a now-defunct malt liquor: in fact it was the first one produced in the US. There are references for each idea, and a link to the patent that was granted for its manufacture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcreight (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Rashaan Nall Page!!!

I notice to tagged Rashaan Nall page for deletion, What can I do to create the page and follow Wikipedia guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamgermany2000 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

Hi, you deleted the above article as an expired PROD; however, this article has already survived two AfDs, and if you take a look at the page history, you'll see that the PROD had actually been contested. (?) I assume this was a mistake, and have restored the page in question, as I believe undeletion is non-controversial in this case. Regards,PeaceNT (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, could you please explain why Giri (Sanskrit) was deleted? Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice, on deleting this page, that it had been AfD'd before? Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but what do you mean by "the AfD was closed with "no consensus" which makes it an uncontroversial delete"? Are you aware that the fact the page in question has been AfD'd made the deletion potentially controversial? PeaceNT 06:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I also noticed, quite accidentally, this thread just above on your talk page. I followed your reply (not an act of stalking, I assure you, just out of curiosity, since I'm confused why the mentioned page still remained deleted after its deletion being questioned), and I must say these replies don't quite make sense (to me).
Thus, there are two questions I'd better ask: 1.Do you take care to examine the history of articles before deleting? 2.Why exactly did you speedy pages that have been AfD'd? Regards, PeaceNT 06:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please expand upon your answers? Also, the thing is, why didn't you restore Mark Bourrie when it (obviously) came to your attention that it had survived a deletion debate? Regards, PeaceNT 09:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
First, to be honest, I don't think it's communicative of you to just saying saying one sentence at a time, not sure if it's your habitual manner or if you think this matter is relatively trivial and not worth your attention. Second, you seem to be avoiding my initial questions (what do you mean by telling me "the AfD was closed with "no consensus" which makes it an uncontroversial delete"? Are you aware that the fact the page in question has been AfD'd made the deletion potentially controversial?) Third, I was referring to the time Mark Bourrie was mentioned to you on November 21, by user AverageGuy, who had pointed out two previous AfDs, and you responded "The Mark Bourrie article was deleted because a PROD tag was placed on it and remained there for 5 days or longer...". To be perfectly frank, I wonder if you have ever read WP:PROD, where it clearly states Articles that have been discussed on AfD are not candidates for {{prod}}. If you have indeed read that page before, then all your previous responses are simply incomprehensible. My apologies for my harsh tone, but I can't express how astonished I was when I found out the Mark Bourrie thread above mine, and the way you replied to it. Then I came to check your deletion log... Deleting hundreds of PRODS at a speed of eight to ten articles per minute, and you're sure you gave each one careful consideration? That, combined with your lack of communication and apparent lack of policy understanding, makes this problem bad. Monumentally bad.
Now, I have only one question to ask you, and I want a truthful answer: Have you ever read WP:PROD? And I hope I don't expect too much of you to give a sufficient response this time. Regards, PeaceNT 11:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No one spends all their time on a website, but it is critical that you, as a website administrator, be able to act responsibly, especially when you are deleting content. In the future, please do take care to read the policy pages closely and delete pages with deliberation. Consider this a friendly reminder. Best regards, PeaceNT 13:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chronic presents...

The Hip Hop Award
I, The Chronic, award the Hip Hop Award to The-G-Unit-Boss for your hard work on G-Unit related articles, AND hip-hop articles in general. You deserve this!

Hey man.

Hey, how's it going? Just thought I'd drop by. But I'm not going to lie, I do have an alternate agenda, I don't know how much you are aware, but several weeks ago, an anon began insulting me on the Only Built 4 Cuban Linx II page. And another Admin blocked that person. But, sadly, it seems that person is back. I just thought I'd let you know, in case I come around looking for help? And dude, I swear, I'm not just using you for the "Admin powers". I hope you don't see me as that kind of person. Haha. Well, this message is getting long, so I'm gonna let you go. --JpGrB 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NYC JUNK ARTISTS

This is NYC JUNK ARTISTS Organization. We represent upcoming artists in the underground scene.

Please explain to me the criteria of how popular artists are included in this "Wikipedia" as this is a topic popular to other artists as well as providing a step by step outline of how this information can be posted.

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCJUNKARTISTS (talk • contribs) 05:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Saw V

Hello. I originally posted the message on another Administrator's page, although he redirected me to you, since you originally protected the page Saw V. I know that a lot of users were probably using the page in the past, posting a bunch of random crock all over the place. However, I assure you, that is not my intention. As you can see on a subpage I created, User:Squishy Vic/Saw V, I believe that is what should currently go into the Saw V article, if unprotected. Please consider my request for unprotection. I think the page, although a stub, should have it's own article since it has sufficient information and official confirmation from the writers/directors and a few of the actors. Thanks. --Victor (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)