Androzaniamy (talk | contribs) |
→Great news!: cmt |
||
Line 461: | Line 461: | ||
== Great news! == |
== Great news! == |
||
{{Adopting}} |
{{tl|Adopting}} |
||
:I have removed the above adoption template, as you do not meet [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adopter's Area|the adopter's criteria]] at this time. '''[[User:Eagles247|<font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Eagles247|<font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7</font>]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Eagles247|<font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)</font>]] 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:45, 24 January 2012
Hello fellow Wikipedians, My name is androzaniamy (User:Androzaniamy) and this is my talkpage. This is not a place for vandalism so please do not use this as a place for vandals who have nothing better to do than ruin this website to waste their time. If I write something on your talkpage then please reply on your talkpage and inform me on mine that you have replied if I do not reply within a week's time. If you write something on my talkpage which is not vandalism then I will reply within a week's time. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Citation Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Half Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Minor barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The No Spam Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Photographer's Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Real Life Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Rosetta Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Surreal Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Technical Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Because I'm worth it. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Your contributed article, Don't bite the newcomers
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Don't bite the newcomers. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - WP:BITE. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at WP:BITE - you might like to discuss new information at [[Talk:WP:BITE|the article's talk page]].
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 22:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you at least turn it into a redirect? Androzaniamy (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- We don't have redirects from main article space to 'WP:' articles. WP articles are wikipedia policies and don't belong in the main space. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 22:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh no, I'll just go back to my corner and cry. Why oh why is life so unfair? Androzaniamy (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Do not create, add, or restore hoaxes to Wikipedia. Hoaxes are caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I never created a hoax! --Androzaniamy (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I searched Jimmy Ensminger on Google and found absolutely no results. His being a "famous tennis player" was flat out deceiving. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
But I found it on another Wikipedia article! Androzaniamy (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've now removed the link fro Jimbo. It was added by some vandal. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I'll ever be able to trust Wikipedia in the same way again. It's weird that my articles seem to get noticed for a tiny flaw yet real vandalism can stay for ages and me falling for them. Androzaniamy (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of The Well (TV series) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Well (TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Well (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This article was already considered for deletion and was saved so stop trying to delete it again!--Androzaniamy (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article was "saved," because you removed the PROD without reason. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Am I on your watchlist? Androzaniamy (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Your contributed article, The Well (TV series)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, The Well (TV series). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - The Well (2009 TV series). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at The Well (2009 TV series) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
But I made this article first, can't you at least merge them together? Androzaniamy (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your name for the article has been kept, with the content of the other article put in its place. The other article was actually first; it was created in October, 2009. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. You didn't need to bite my head off. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you had actually tried to read the policies we've linked to you, you wouldn't feel this way. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I wasn't talking to you. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Gregory Foreman has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see that other users care about ruining Wikipedia. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Gregory Foreman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gregory Foreman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Foreman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
What if he was one of the main characters of a show that is very notable and aready has it's own article? Androzaniamy (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Isaac Ssebandeke for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isaac Ssebandeke is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Ssebandeke until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by failing to comply with WP:V and WP:N with your created articles, you may be blocked from editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
But everything I have ever done on Wikipedia has been done with good-faith. I have never, ever made an edit that I have made purposely to disrupt this site. If you think one of my articles isn't good enough, give it time and by all means edit it. Just, please, please do not block me. I beg you. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am aware that you are editing in good-faith, but editors who repeatedly create articles for non-notable individuals with no reliable sources may be blocked from editing to stop this behavior. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Who are you saying is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Androzaniamy (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
But there are 2 links to biographies. Which one of them do you mean? Androzaniamy (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have reposted a welcome message below. I suggest you review some of the links on it, particularly in regard to notability and referencing. It's better that you learn policy and guidelines and aim to improve Wikipedia within them, then to spend your time creating articles that are outside of them and then insulting those editors who try to help keep Wikipedia within guidelines. If you could take the energy and enthusiasm you have and give them some direction, you may well be able to do great things here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
But I already read it! Androzaniamy (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome
|
Why did you send me this again? I will remove it and consider it vandalism unless you give me a good reason why. Androzaniamy (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I posted it because there are links here to information on how to make useful edits and create articles that will survive. Perhaps you might find your way easier if you listened a bit to experienced editors who seek to help you, rather than accusing them of stalking and vandalism and whatever else. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, I have read and tried to understand all the information you and other users gave me but I still don't understand them! Androzaniamy (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then you have plenty of editors here to ask questions of. I suspect that just about any one of the editors that you now seem to view as your enemies would be glad to answer questions and make suggestions if you asked them about what you might do. For the articles you've created, you've been going headlong into notability problems - we don't cover everything, we mainly cover things that have been covered in reasonable depth by significant sources. That means that not every actor gets a page, but we have guidelines toward who does -- see WP:NACTOR for those guidelines. And for various reasons, we don't permit articles about living people unless they have at least some reference on them. Now, is there some aspect of that which I could clear up for you? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all I have not viewed any other user as an enemy because that would be bad-faith and I have a strict policy for myself that nothing I do on any site, especially one as informative as Wilipedia should be done just to be hateful or mean. And second of all why is IMDb considered not reliable? The reason I make new articles is because all the red links I see make me feel as though Wikipedia is incomplete and removing the links make it seem as though Wikipedians are hiding the fact that it is incomplete. I made a Wikipedia account because I fell this site could benefit from my knowledge and enthusiasm to make this site even better than it already is but now I realise that it only contains articles that other users feel is notable enough for an artcle. Androzaniamy (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- IMDb is not considered reliable for the same reason that Wikipedia itself is not considered reliable - it's easy for a user to insert new information without confirmation, there is no central authority reviewing everything for accuracy. Perhaps more important to what you've faced, being listed on IMDb does not signify notability, because they are a database trying to list everything in their categories; if a major newspaper or magazine does an article on you, that means that they think you're worth talking about, but if you have an IMDb entry, that just means that they think you exist.
- This is a learning process. It's quite common for people's first articles to get deleted; I don't have the stats, but I bet it happens to most editors' first articles; heck, it happened to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay I'll put every single source I can find of each topic on the talk pages. and then tell me if it is notable. If Wikipedia wasn't reliable then why is it so sucessful? Androzaniamy (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited The Well (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Games and 3D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
My BIG ideas for Wikipedia
These following wonderful things are a list of my very, very BIG ideas to improve Wikipedia (not that it needs much improvement).
1. For there to be a kids' version of Wikipedia because I think that a Simple English bit is not enough for kids (maybe it could be called Kidipedia?). 2. For there to be a vadal stopping team of elite users who care a lot about removing vandalism from Wikipedia with their own userbox and leader (me perhaps?) without having to be an Administrator but having some of the same privilages. Go VandalBusters! 3. For more topics to be allowed to have articles instead of thinks that are considered "notable" enough, so Wikipedia can become bigger than ever.
If anyone manages to make any of these ideas turn into a reality, I'll eat a Stetson and call myself the King of Okay. I got that from Doctor Who.
Adoption
I would like it if you "adopted" me on wikipedia. But, you aren't on the list of adopters. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters 19maxx (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I was but then I forgot to add my name on again when I restarted my talkpage. I'll add myself on again. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Calabe1992. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Calabe1992 18:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not attack any user, you must be mistaken. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Great news!
{{Adopting}}
- I have removed the above adoption template, as you do not meet the adopter's criteria at this time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)