If you have a new message for me, please place it in a new section at the bottom the the page. Thanks! :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page archive: 1 2)

• I don't want to keep going in circles, and it's obvious you don't wish to discuss this further, but I just wanted to add that I never said or implied you were acting in bad faith, just that you are making inaccurate taggings that will be denied simply because they are not valid, even if the subject is not notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody said you were editing in bad faith, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions. You can have good faith all you want, but that doesn't automatically make you right. When you have lots of knowledgeable people all pointing out the same issue, you need to accept that the issue is real. Many people have tried to give you advice about proper use of WP:CSD, but you have just ignored all of them and kept on making the same mistakes. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMPFUNK: its probably a bad idea to try and archive your talk page in the middle of an ongoing discussion, but no matter. Regarding your edits to the archive, we are not "ganging" up on you, we are offering you some advice, no one is assuming bad faith, we all understand that you are acting in good faith, we know that the mistake was just that: a mistake, and we just pointed it out so that you won't do it by accident again in future, we haven't said that you purposely tagged the articles incorrectly, and I'm sure we all know you didn't Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not ignoring advice, I just don't agree with it. Now, if an admin flat-out told me to stop doing something, then that's what I'd do.
• It would really be easier if there were more criteria for speedy deletion. I even tried using {{db-reason}} for something once, and it got declined because the article in question was a "non-notable essay", which wasn't included in CSD criteria. I then asked what was the purpose, then, for that template and received no response.
• And as far as no one ganging up on me, when three or four users come at me within minutes about a certain situation, what else am I supposed to think? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for adding your good arguments to the discussion, but may I ask why you removed my nomination and replaced it with your own? The standard procedure is to add your comments below the nominator's. Thanks. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just explained on your talk page; it looks like we both put it up for Afd at the same time. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) No problem, we were both working fast. :) Thanks for the clarification. Your nomination statement is better than mine, anyway. I'll add my two cents below. Best, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. You tagged Network interface device with {{citations missing}}. I recently went through and just about rewrote that article, so I'm familiar with it. I cited sources my at the end. The combined source material is used for the entire article. Did you have a specific complaint? If your objection is the lack of footnotes, I'm not aware of anything that requires every article to be covered in footnotes, and I can cite specific guidance to the contrary. Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so much of a complaint, but I always tag articles as such that don't have any inline citations, is all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if there isn't a particular need for them (I don't see one, but I'm of course biased), I'm going to remove the tag from that article. This seems to me to be exactly the sort of "very simple and narrow topic" described in the "General reference" section I cited. • Thanks for the quick response. Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you do not live in Lebanon to know the success of S1B and their movies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkk-plz (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read WP:FIRST. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• fyi, I reverted your redirect at SMEK2. Please discuss on the talk page if you disagree... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I had tagged this article as a copyvio. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 04:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did? You don't come up in this history. Ah well. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I know what happened. We edit conflicted. Since we tagged the page at the same time, the tag on the article is credited to you, while the notice is credited to me. Sorry for the confusion. :) -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 05:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't sweat it. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why my story ( " AZURA 70s R&R band " )is about to be deemed a hoax. I tried to upload a photo and was denied permission. Even without the photo, what does anyone see in this that would look like a hoax? Who would make up a story about another has-been band from the 70s? It was my band, it was fun, it's gone now, and it had the highly unique name "AZURA". Why do these guys have to pick on me? They can contact me if they want. I have the photos, I have photo ID, what else do they want? Outerrealm (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't have a independent, reliable sources that indicate how the band is notable by Wikipedia criteria. A Google search for "Jeff Brewer" azura results in two non-relevant pages. ... discospinster _talk 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke directly to the person responsible for the hoax accusation, Anthony Rupert, on his facebook page and he refused to answer my questions or respond to my concerns. He threatened to report me to facebook if I messaged him again. I think I may have to escalate this, I think we could do with an outside look at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.30.230 (talk • contribs)

• AZURA the band has not existed since 1977. It doesn't mean it never existed. It simply pre-dated the internet. Jeff Brewer apparently left Holding Pattern, so I have no current info on him. Tony Spada can be found on facebook and he will confirm the prior "existence" of this band. If the problem is insufficient proof of the band's existence I don't see how being accused of perpetrating an "Obvious and blatant hoax" is fair or appropriate
  • Leave me alone right now. I'm already in the process of reporting you for harassment. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop deleting my shit! Your movie isn't real either! I checked on IMDB! There is no Black Cat 2007! So I'll make you a deal...If you stop deleting mine, I won't delete yours! And tell the other guy SelfScrewed to stop too! Now you have to admit that's fair! I'm not not gonna put up with you gay metrosexual! So let's see if we can work this out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.40.107 (talk • contribs)
  • My movie? What movie? And if you think I deleted "your" page, you're wrong because I'm not an administrator. Also, name-calling is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metrosexual! Can you please delete your Black Cat (2007) from the Black Cat Film section, for the following reasons! According to imdb, this movie is a Hindu movie, it is an action movie, and it is not a version of Edgar Allan Poe's: The Black Cat! The name of the main character is Black Cat, and this not a version of the Edgar Allan Poe story, and therefor, it does not belong in the Black Cat Film section! Feel free to make a seperate section for this film! If this film is not deleted from the Black Cat Film section, you will receive a penalty resulting in being temporaraly blocked from editing, and it will be deleted for you! Like I said, feel free to have a seperate section for it, but it must be removed from Black Cat Film, because it is not a version of the Edgar Allan Poe story! Thanks for your cooperation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.40.107 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I WARNED YOU!!! Now you have been temporarly blocked from editing Wikipedia! Your block is set to expire July 11, 2009 6:30 P.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.40.107 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Your block has now expired! You are now free to make constructive edits on Wikipedia! Have fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.40.107 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No one really believed you had the authority so block anyone; you know that, right? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Mr. Rupert has said to me "I couldn't find any sources that the band ever existed. And if it was your band, well, you're not supposed to write articles about yourself". So far no one has had the decency to explain in clear terms what the objections are to my article. They (Mr. Rupert, exalted guardian of all things Wiki and bearer of the sword of censorship) Simply made their declarations based on meager assumptions. Shall I assume that 1.) I may not write an accurate article about a band I was actually in about 30 years ago? The article was not about myself, it was about a band ("Not supposed to write articles about yourself"). 2.) An article about a band that was not well known enough to have been famous is deemed not worthy of mention? At what point does a story become worthy? 3.) An article may be deemed a Hoax without any evidence to support such an accusation, save the fact that someone couldn't google the names of the members? It would appear that a person has to have an attorney to get a fair shake around here. My original reason for writing this is I was curious about what the origins of the word "AZURA" were, as a band member had originally told me it was a group of South American indigenous people. When I saw numerous wiki entries, including that of a more modern band, which I never heard of (Now how did THEY get past the hoax filter)I thought it would be appropriate from a historical perspective to put the 1977 band's story up. But, apparently, we never existed and apparently perpetrated a hoax on ourselves. Having read a number of Mr. Rupert's responses to my complaints, it seems he possesses a bit of an attitude unbecoming of someone entrusted with wiki "powers" over the life or death of a story. My apologies for not signing my previous posts. forgot about the tilde thing. I see that folks get real down and nasty about having there stuff deleted back and forth. Oh, and speaking of law, I suggest Mr. Rupert familiarize himself with the legal definition of the word "harassment" . If folks are emailing him to complain about what he does here, firstly no one is forcing them to do so, they have not been brainwashed or hypnotized; secondly their complaints are probably valid; and thirdly complaining and protesting are protected rights, as long as no personal harm is inflicted. Oh, I just caught that last comment about being in the process of reporting me for "harassment". See what I mean about attitude? Be careful. If you cause me problems that are unjustified you yourself can be held accountable. Outerrealm (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you even talking about any more? Stay off my page. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Use good judgment in the future, [1] [2] Jeepday (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same IP vandalized several times within minutes, and I'm not using good judgment? Was I incorrect with any of those warnings? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, do you know why? Jeepday (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, if I did, I wouldn't be asking. And I was using good judgment. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The editor has four edits [3]. The first one is cleary main space vandalism and the next two are to are on your user page. The fourth one is a delete of content on their user page which is fine (yes I know it was warnings). The user recieved a second warning at 22:50 and then did not commit any more vandalism. You provided a final warning at 23:01 (11 minutes after the last vandalism) and reported the IP as vandal after final warning at 23:03. Two minutes after you posted the final warning, in a manor that appeared to be a threat [4] and nearly 10 minutes after the user final edit, which was not vandalism. Jeepday (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • A threat? I didn't threaten or insult the user--and it's not like I created that warning template. And the reason why I added those mutiple warning tags simultaneously is because the user had been doing several instances of vandalism throughout the day that no one had been reverting, and I always warn someone after reverting vandalism. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The goal is stop the vandalism not create justification for a block, the vandalism stopped after the second warning. Your actions appeared to be in retaliation for getting your page vandalized, and your report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism falsely stated the user had vandalized after the final warning. Jeepday (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um...no, it didn't. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are correct, It was the edit above yours that had that statement not yours, my apologies. Jeepday (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in a somewhat broader and more philosophical discussion a while back, and what I gathered from that was that for the time being, the specific criteria for CSD will prevail. This sort of CSD is a prime example of how it should proceed. So, thank you for your interest, I hope you'll help support me on this push, and most importantly, I hope you'll help share your ideas on what you think is the most important and effective way to implement this kind of change. (I wrote that on the fly... this isn't canned... not yet at least :)) (I put the same thing on my page, minus this parenthetical) Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is your point to me about WP:DEADLINE that the article should have been decent before it was posted? If so, I agree; generally I spend a huge amount of time preparing new articles in my userspace before I move them to mainspace, and I'm the first person ready to delete crap that's been sitting stagnant (that is, for longer than five minutes) with no signs of improvement. But it seems obvious to me that it's stupid to clog AFD with articles that haven't been around long enough to show that a) there's no interest in improving it, and b) there's anyone interested in defending it. But I barely read AFD anymore and apparently there are lots of people now who are perfectly happy to see the log get filled with stuff that doesn't need to be there. Good for you, hope you enjoy it. Propaniac (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that even if an article had been created minutes ago, I see no reason not to bring it to AfD if it doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's guidelines. (By the way, calm down.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMPFUNK, I've noticed that you direct many editors on your talk page to WP:COOL. I'd like to ask you to stop, if thats alright with you, because: A. Its just an essay, not a policy, B. Propaniac, and most other users, are completely civil and polite in their posts, and C. by suggesting that people are not "cool" when they are, you are (not purposely) encouraging dispute. I know our records haven't been very good with each other, but I'd just like to politely ask that you think a bit about this point, obviously there is no need to continue this discussion any further, if you decide that you are right in pointing people to WP:COOL then please continue to do so and I will not raise the issue again, but I do ask that you give it some thought, kindest regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello COMPFUNK2, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Toukir Ahmed has been removed. It was removed by Planetbd with the following edit summary '(Improved with Ref, Cat etc.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Planetbd before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

• Hmm, I checked the reference provided at Earl of Thomond ([5]). It seems that this line did in fact exist. I'll however replace your notability tag on the article I edited, so some experts may add some more trustworthy references. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not doubting the family's existence; I just don't think the creator quite understands how Wikipedia works. But no harm done. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you were right on it not qualifying for speedy, but I DO NOT believe it's notable as you said. As it doesn't follow Wikipedia:Notability_(web). So I'll be nominating it for afd.--Fire 55 (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you use capitals so much? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After browsing through today's AfD log, I saw the comment you made in response to my relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggtown. I took a look at your contributions and saw that you had reported me to ANI. Why didn't you notify me (this is required; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader), and what do you mean by your comments at User talk:Crossmr? Cunard (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere on that page does it say it's required to inform you of such. And what I meant on Crossmr's page was that you didn't relist the deleted article via the normal AfD process; it instead looked like you edited a closed discussion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page does say you are required:

I have bolded the part that instructs you to do so. How did this edit look like editing a closed discussion? It doesn't look like that to me.

In the future, whenever you are unsure about a user's actions, please start a discussion with them on their talk page. I would have gladly explained why my relist did not violate the policies. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry; I missed that part on the noticeboard page. But as for your edit, as I stated above, that isn't the way non-admins are supposed to relist an article for deletion. To relist it, you simply go through the same AfD process again. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Just make sure that you try communication before bringing someone to ANI. Non-admins are allowed to relist AfDs. See Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs)'s relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Maizeret, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OfficeSIP Server, etc. Again, isn't that what Crossmr (talk · contribs) said, "Anyone can relist an article if there hasn't been enough talk after a certain period of time, not just admins.

  By the way, I saw your comment User talk:AnonMoos. This user is not the creator of Apisosism; Muffinz525 (talk · contribs) is. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops; got mixed-up with the user that created the talk page. Good catch. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete it from main space completely.

The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework the article and maybe wikipedia will get a long term dedicated editor.

This listing was posted several days ago, and has received no !votes yet. One keep vote could mean that it was kept non consensus. Whereas a redirect is immediate and the information is assured to be removed, including the redirect which will be speedy deleted.

Thanks for your time :) Ikip (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would only suggest userfying it if there was a chance that it could eventually warrant inclusion -- but it fails WP:BIO. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Have a great weekend. Ikip (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for COMPFUNK2, I saw your response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed ziaur rahman. Thank you for considering this option. Ikip (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator just mentioned that his article maybe a copyright violation, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2166779/Biography-of-Dr Ikip (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge would basically mean adding italic text "In a shedding game, players start with a hand of cards, and the object of the game is to be the first player to discard all cards from one's hand. Games of this type exist across the world with various names. and a re-direct from twenty wan and any other pages of a similar type.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw your note about the proposed deletion tag you placed on this article. However, as a former cricketer with first-class appearances, according to guidelines, he is notable. The project's guidelines state "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire", which Manjula does.

Further, WP:BIO suggests "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" - a criterion which Manjula meets.

Hope all is well. Bobo. 02:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What project? Also, it would really help your case if you would add some sources. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize, I refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. As for sources, all the statistical information in the article is available in the external link - however I have added a link to the match in question within the article. Bobo. 03:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]