User talk:Hoof38

Welcome!

Hello, Hoof38, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary articles and redirects

It would be appreciated if you looked at the history and conventions at WP:NUM before creating articles on numbers. Examples of points to note are that we do not put commas in the name of the primary article on a number, we add sort keys to the Category:Integers tag, and we request that numbers have at least 3 interesting properties. Almost all of the your edits are reasonable, except they do not agree with editing consensus. I've nominated 6 of your articles, 3 categories, and 3 redirects for deletion, although I expect 2 of the redirects to survive. I have no comment on your God disambiguation -- it does seem better than what was before, but it's not an area of Wikipedia I edit in normally. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

−2

Why would 3BC be referred to as -2? I can't say that I have ever been taught this way of Calendrical reference, or heard or read about such things in documentaries or academic publications. The disambiguation page appears to be erronous. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's referred to that way on the common era year zero calendar. 1 BC is 0, 2 BC is -1, 3 BC is -2 etc. See http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/newmill.htm Hoof38 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, the Astronomical year zero reference. I didn't make this connection with 3BC. Do you think that it could be made explicit on the disambiguation page? (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links to year zero and astronomical year numbering to make the connection clear. Thanks for clearing this up for me! Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the naming conventions at WP:NUM and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers_and_dates). This is not appropriate, as the year "-2" sometimes refers to 2 BC and sometimes to 3 BC, etc. As I understand the conventions, none of these articles or redirects should have been created. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I've posted the tet of those deleted diasming on the WP:DRV page, feel free to BJAODN. If this is fine, please comment on the DRV that we can close the DRV. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects again

12:00, etc. should probably redirect to something more like time notation than to clock, time, hour, time interval, etc.

−2 (number) should redirect to 2 (number), if it's going to be there at all, per WP:NUM. I've fixed those.

−2 probably shouldn't be there at all, but you can propose pages faster than I can delete them.

Would you please read WP:NUM and WP:DATE before doing any more of these. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second the third floors, etc

I note your new articles "second floor" and "Third floor". What you defined as the second floor is known as the first floor in some countries. For instance, some have a ground floor and then the first floor, (which you have defined as the second floor). Moriori 03:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified that in the article. Hoof38 03:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What article? Every article in Wikipedia must stand on its own. If information is needed to disambiguate the content of an article, then it must be included in that article. All of your recently created articles need to have the explanation included that X floor is known as Y floor in some countries. Moriori 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just done that. See, for example, second floor and third floor where I've made the explanation. Hoof38 03:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to have an article for every floor in a building? What would be the upper limit? Can these be consolidated into one article? As written, it seems these articles are more appropriate for Wiktionary. Accurizer 03:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these would be useful at Wiktionary. Jkelly 03:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop writing articles on floors of buildings. They're just dictionary definitions, and obvious ones at that. I think you should request that they be deleted following the instructions at WP:CSD. I'm assuming you're trying to help. If you'd like to help, there are plenty of things to do around here. Erik the Rude 03:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be expanded, especially the lower floors. Hoof38 03:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that is the case, then write a well expanded article and then post it when it is properly ready rather then these rather useless one line dictionary definitions. ww2censor 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floor

Hoof38, have you considered adding any interesting material to the main article, floor? At the moment most of your floor articles are repeating each other. I think it would make much more sense to readers if all of the information was collected in one article. If there's enough information they can always be expanded out into a separate article later. --bainer (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or Floor numbering. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I'm not a sockpuppet. Somebody has incorrectly called me a sockpuppet. Please unblock me as soon as possible. Hoof38 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request denied. You have the same pattern of creating useless articles that we have seen from many Science3456 sockpuppets recently, and have been asked to stop, but decided to continue. Kusma (討論) 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a "useless article" to begin with? There's no real agreed upon definition of what one is. Anyway, even if I were creating useless articles, many people have done that, not just sockpuppets. I should be unblocked as I'm truly not a sockpuppet. I've broken up the extremely long God article and obviously that was helpful. If this is truly a free encyclopedia, then I should be able to edit it. I'm still working on the God article and I can't do it while I'm blocked. Hoof38 13:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your articles on pandigital numbers? Dozens of socks have shown disruptive and obsessive behavior over these in the last two weeks. You seem to have similar editing habits as a banned user, so have been blocked. Kusma (討論) 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles on pandigital numbers is no reason to be blocked at all, much less indefinitely. I still have more to add to the God article. How else can I do that? The only other way I can think of adding info is to use my IP or create a real sockpuppet account. Hoof38 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God editing

I need to finish my editing of the God article which would be helpful to people seeking for information on that subject. I can't do this while I'm blocked, if I were unblocked I could add the info. Hoof38 19:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked. That's the way it is. You're not helping the situation. Do you really think that anyone will unblock you to let you edit an article that vandals love as much as God? If you want something done about the block, can you give a reason other than "unblock me or else?" -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just saying that if some people are treated unfairly on Wikipedia that's okay? If so, you're being disrespectful. Don't expect to get respect from other Wikipedians if you don't respect them. I've given plenty of reasons for my unblock. Anyway, even if I am blocked for a while, an indefinite block is not appropriate. Hoof38 21:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying there are proper processes that are followed, and removing flags on your account is not it. The only reason I have seen given by you so far is that you are incorrectly accused and waiting to edit an article. Personally, I wouldn't have indefinitely blocked you for the useless articles, but I'm not an admin. I would've temp blocked you since you didn't seem to get the idea after more than 4 speedy deletes. I tried to direct you to where your input would be more welcome and reasonable. But, I also don't know the history of the abuses of the other user you may or may not be, so maybe indefinite was correct. Have you considered asking in a respectful manner (your word) for an IP check on the user you claim you are not? Also, it was not just one admin. One blocked you (R. Koot) and another confirmed it (Kusma). -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced that you are the same as User:Science3456. I will ask others for help to edit God and clean up your mess there. Kusma (討論) 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you now convinced? What makes you now convinced? I'm not a sockpuppet. Why is that so hard to understand? Anyway, I guarantee you that unblocking my account won't cause any harm. Hoof38 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, even if I were the same as User:Science3456 (which I'm not) what would be the problem with me editing with this account providing that I only used this account and no sockpuppets? Hoof38 01:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of God (word)

An editor has nominated God (word), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God (word) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Biblical definition of God

I have nominated Biblical definition of God, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical definition of God (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Kabbalistic definition of God

I have nominated Kabbalistic definition of God, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabbalistic definition of God. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]