User talk:Tsuzuki26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to an internet forum in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information.
--JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to a blog in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information.
--JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The community and blog links are mandated by the artice because it is largely about them.

"Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself." - WP:EL

--Tsuzuki26 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] links

One of them gives me an error message, one is a collection of links, and the last is a Yahoo! user group which doesn't seem particularly useful. I'm guessing it is required to log into Yahoo! to access that last one, so it excludes a large number of Wikipedia readers. Also, I'm not sure what qualifies as a scholarly source.

We can bring the discussion to the talk page if necessary, so more people can chime in. --Lethargy 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the broken link. --Tsuzuki26 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: I see this is already posted on the talk page. My bad. --Lethargy 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Ellwood

I am at as loss as to why you would give support to your buddies Taylor and Lupa, as regards inclusion next to Carroll, Burroughs, and the rest. It is streacking the rules to the breaking point, and others will not allow it to stand.

Sorry about that.

It just looks funny. Ask anyone who has even a moderate clue. You know it. I know it. And tens of thousands of chaos magicians/occultists willagree. He is an unknown. Giving lectures a couple or few of times, publishing a book that does NOT sell well, or living the meme, does not qualify here. You cannot use Wiki to make your self known. This will not stand.

But, best of luck.

(Above unsigned comment by 71.219.150.102 18:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC).)

He's no Saintstephen, I'll give you that. But if he's notable enough to have an article that I did not start, he's notable enough to be listed in the proper category. If you want to dispute his notability, you can do it over the article itself. And what does Lupa have to do with anything? --Tsuzuki26 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article was started by Rosencomet who is now under investigation for spamming Wikipedia with non-notable articles. Please see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened in the Article for Deletion process? Did you remove the flag from the Taylor Ellwood article? Also, I think Lupa comes into this as Taylor has just started an article about her. As she is his wife, this is not appropriate. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Taylor Ellwood. 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. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to vandalizing the page, 71.219.150.102 had placed the notice but did not create an articles for deletion entry. I reported them, and they were dealt with, so I felt safe in removing it. I apologize if that was the wrong course of action. --Tsuzuki26 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your apology.

I am at as loss as to why you would give inclusion next to Carroll, Burroughs, and the rest. It is stretching the rules to the breaking point, and others will not allow it to stand. I apologize if that was the wrong course of action.

It just looks funny. Ask anyone who has even a moderate clue. Tens of thousands of chaos magicians/occultists will agree. He is an unknown. Giving lectures a couple or few of times, publishing a book that does NOT sell well, or living the meme, does not qualify here. You cannot use Wiki to make yourself, or your wife, known. I apologize if that was the wrong course of action.

But, best of luck.

(Above unsigned comment by 71.219.142.137 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC).)

You may be right. But vandalism isn't exactly the best way to prove a point. --Tsuzuki26 01:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The IP edit you reverted, while possibly POV and not encyclopedic in tone, is not necessarily vandalism. I realize you have tried to work out your differences with the other user and it has not gone well. However, if the other user can provide a source for that information s/he can include it. It would need to also be phrased differently, though; as it is phrased now it is asking to prove a negative. I don't think you were wrong to revert the edit *on this basis*, however I would strongly recommend that you do not characterize edits with which you simply disagree as "vandalism". --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Psychonomicon

Thanks for that! Maybe this should be stated in the article or at that books entry in the article as it is worthwhile information - what Wikipedia is about! I certainly found your info useful! FK0071a 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahoy

Just dropping in to say hello!!! CaliforniaKid 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)