|
Why was The Demigodz (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Demigodz) page deleted?
Tlenss (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because two discussions among the Wikipedia community did not find evidence that the band met Wikipedia's notability criteria. You can read those discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demigodz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demigodz (2nd nomination). If you think you have good sources showing that the subject does meet the notability criteria, you can request a deletion review. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly. I will read up some of the Wiki guidelines and notability criteria Tlenss (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the timely help. --Taivo (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe in (a) giving every new user a fair chance to adapt from his or own expectations to Wikipedia's culture, and (b) recognizing when it's time to shut things down. This person might, someday, be useful to Wikipedia, and if that day ever comes, he'll have to make an unblock request. Yes, I say 'he.' He argues like a man. I guess I'm a sexist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In case you're on-line on this Thanksgiving Day, I think our "friend" User:Plausy is using another sock at Archeology and the Book of Mormon. If you're not on-line, have a wonderful holiday (assuming you're in the US to celebrate it). --Taivo (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I just noticed that you indefed User:Plausy, so I've reported User:Unfraud as a sock at the appropriate sock investigation. Your comments on Plausy's Talk page were perfect. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, that's clearly the same person. I blocked the account and rolled back all of its edits. Eventually, this person will understand that changing usernames doesn't help, and that nothing he does will make it possible for his edits to actually remain for long in the encyclopedia, and then he'll go start an anti-Mormon blog instead. Engaging him in discussion wasn't useful, so I am not bothering with it, as it only encourages him to think someone is listening to him. There are so many better things to do on Thanksgiving. Doesn't he have any sweet potato casserole? With the little nuts on top? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
...undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Paul Barlow because it didn't appear constructive[edit]Well, since I'm relatively new to the rather editing process here, perhaps you could explain what you mean by "constructive"?
I am also curious as to how you happened to pick up my comment on the user's talk page apparently within seconds of my having posted it.
I see that you have some sort of patrol status, but I'm not clear as to what that involves.
It is only a matter of time before I have made some substantial and well-supported edits to a number of pages that the user Jon C. has been running interference on, apparently in collusion with other editors, and I intend to present a timeline documenting that when I request protection for those pages.Ubikwit (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
- It has been brought to my attention that I upoaded that comment to the User page instead of the Talk page, so I gather that was what triggered the reversion.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
- What I saw was another user's userpage changed by the addition of an insult, with someone else's signature on it. If User: Jon C. has broken Wikipedia's rules, you can report it at WP:ANI. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see, glad we've sorted that out. Thanks for the link.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
- Ubikwit was drawing attention to the fact that User:You Can Act Like A Man had left an apparently insulting comment about me on Jon C.'s talk page (User_talk:Jon_C.). What "You Can Act Like A Man" intends by this, I have no idea, nor do I know what edits by Jon C. he may be referring to. However his ability to act like a man is also demonstrated by this page [1]. My only interaction with "You Can Act Like A Man" has been regarding the page on Richard III of England. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Single purpose account[edit]Wikipedia:Single-purpose account
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthorDuty
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Verityfortunas
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/KeepitImpartial
His sole edits consist of pushing a partisan agenda on boxer rebellion related articles, mainly removing material which portray the eight nation alliance in a bad light. Is this an SPA?Rajmaan (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- A single-purpose account is any account that is only interested in one subject. It isn't, in itself, against the rules. It looks like there's a healthy discussion going on at Talk:Boxer Rebellion, but if you think he should be blocked for inappropriately pushing a partisan agenda, you can request a review of his edits at WP:ANI. Include diffs to make it clear what the problematic edits are, so the admins there don't have to review every edit in his history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
|
