Thanks for removing the category on the roblox user sub-page!--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (82.7.40.7) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me make my point more clear: arguments about what we ought to [do] if someone really starts to abuse wikipedia with thousands and thousands of trivial articles do not prove that we ought to delete any and every article that's too trivial today.

Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world.

Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website.

Then I think people should relax and accomodate [sic] me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do.

That's true *even if* we'd react differently to a ton of one-liners mass-imported saying nothing more than "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" and "Indian Springs is a private school in Birmingham, Alabama, US" and on and on and on, ad nauseum.

The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times" is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times."

--User:Jimbo Wales(dated November 7, 2003^[1])

Keep this in mind as you give your opinnions on all AFD discussions.--gordonrox24 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never did I say Jimbo's word is law, I just always find his quotes very inspiring.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Referring to the logic in the above quote, I'm quite confused as to why I'm receiving so much resistance in saving the MMA_HEAT article. I've cited several references supporting its notability and the value of MMA H.E.A.T. to the mixed martial arts community can be validated by their countless A-list interviews, fight coverage, etc. Perhaps I didn't write the article as well as a seasoned Wikipedia veteran, but I did my best to get it started. Can someone please explain why the article isn't being allowed to be used as a base for others to contribute to rather than simply being deleted? Eckinc (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because you have to draw the line somewhere (should we allow articles on all websites? They can be proven to exist and I'm sure at least the author think it's pretty awesome and more people should know about it), and seemingly people doesn't think this pass that threshold. It's that simple. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote isn't policy and is very old. What Jimbo has said at one point or another can differ wildly as time goes by, if we had followed it since when it was said the number of articles would porbably be 10 times more than it is now, mostly either to do with peoples garage bands, local sports teams, blog etc. The utility value of wikipedia in people being able to find the real articles would be much reduced. The basic problem with MMA H.E.A.T has been explained as currently written it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, that doesn't mean it can't or will never. As a general observation most don't like seeing wikipedia used as a marketing platform, given your obvious association with the subject to some at least that will be seen as your motivation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request for comment on the conduct of User:Frei Hans. As you have been involved in various germane discussions at deletion review, you may want to comment.  pablo_hablo. 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often that I start recognising IP addresses, but I have recently noticed that your posts all seem to be valuable contributions and well thought out. Have you considered registering an account? It's actually more private than "editing anonymously" because your IP address isn't public, and you also get other benefits, such as having a watchlist (a list of pages you're interested in, that lets you know when they're changed and who by). Anyway, whether you sign up for an account or not, thanks for your contributions. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too would encourage you to pick a wiki-id, and make your future edits from that address. FWIW reverse DNS traces you to an ISP headquartered in Amsterdam. Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think I could name this editor's account when logged in. And that the purpose of editing from an IP address is to experience how Wikipedia treats IP addresses.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted with interest that you added a 'notability' tag to this article. This is a courtesy message to inform you that I have removed it. A producer of films such as Vampire's Kiss, or starring people like Nicholas Cage and Julia Roberts, is, in my book anyway, notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you disagree, please feel free to PROD it for deletion and we can take the conversation from there.--Beehold (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision to re-add this tag is so patently ridiculous that I'm absolutely stunned. As I said before - if you think this subject is non-notable, then PROD it. If you don't, then leave it alone! Simple.--Beehold (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No my decision to readd the tag represents the reality of the general notability guidline and wikipedia's standards. The article isn't referenced to the required standard, which is what the tag calls for. I've given a breakdown of why the sourcing fails to meet the requirements on the articles talk page at the time, and now on your talk page. If you address that with some better sourcing which meets the standards, then there would be no reason why the tag shouldn't be removed, which is the actual goal in adding it, to improve the article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You won't PROD it cos you know that it passes WP:Notability rules. I think you are just out to give me hassle with a completely pointless tagging. I wouldn't remove a PROD - indeed I would be very interested to see any PROD discussion as I believe you would be shot down in flames.--Beehold (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. You can feel free to add refs if you want. She meets notability requirements the editor just failed to portray that correctly.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thank you for your initial deletion review of Wong Fu Productions. The requested "sourced userspace draft" is now available for your review. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to voice them at the review page. Arsonal (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your help and for pointing me in the right direction! --Zegoma beach (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Juhko (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on your talk page, removing a dupe section isn't vandalism and you need to look before jumping. The original poster of the dupe has subsequently removed the dupe again. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page --Juhko (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you still don't know what vandalism is, removing an exact duplicate section posted by mistake is not vandalism --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That warning was my mistake, but editing messages posted by another user is still unallowed. --Juhko (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a duplicate is not editing messages by another user, if you really can't differentiate between vandalism and housekeeping then I suggest you stop reverting and warning until you can. Please stop removing the title I've added to my talk page you've added your bogus warning under an irrelevant heading and I've corrected that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]