User talk:Jayneofthejungle

Speedy deletion of Post-post-postmodernism

A tag has been placed on Post-post-postmodernism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Post-post-postmodernism

A tag has been placed on Post-post-postmodernism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Dekisugi (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dekisugi (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hangon

You have used a {hangon} tag, which indicates that you will be adding reliable sources to your article immediately. As a member of the Wikipedia Review, a group which has often criticized Wikipedia, I'm sure you won't want us to leave an unreferenced article up for any longer than necessary. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Post-postmodernism. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Dekisugi (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As a student of this school of thought, you probably have dozens of good sources that you just forgot to add. If you'll post the best three here, assuming that they meet the reliable sources guidelines, I'll be glad to undelete the article so you can continue working on it. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey

Cease your attempts to remove blocked socks from the Jon Awbrey category, and in general to remove evidence or whitewash his record here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I started a conversation here to get consensus on whether this user's disruptive activities outweigh his privacy or not. You are welcome to read what's said there, or weigh in with your own reasoning. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right...well, we all know how that's going to end. Why bother? Jayneofthejungle (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't think there's a certain logic to the position that, since he chose to use his real name for his disruptive edits, it's fair that he be responsible for those edits under the name he chose? After all, WR routinely 'outs' administrators, associating their real names with their edits, even when those admins didn't choose to edit using their real names. Surely it's only fair to be consistent; if Wikipedia administrators should be held responsible in real life for their edits, shouldn't disruptive users be held responsible for their edits as well? I suppose that the fact that I happened to be removing vandalism from Wikipedia tonight and noticed your nonsense page means that I'll be the next administrator to be 'outed', so it seems sort of fair to me that, if my real name is going to be google-matching to my Wikipedia activities, a disruptive editor who chose to use his real name doesn't necessarily deserve the protection that I doubt anyone at WR is going to offer me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that anyone's real names should be "outed" on wikipedia, banned troll or not. The fact that real people's are names are used in this way is not fair. All references to real names should be overcited and new users should be told not to use real names. Another discussion is underway at wikipedia review;...but this isn't there, is it? Jayneofthejungle (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with WR that a lot of people of exceedingly fleeting and minor notability have articles written about them, and that thinking through a rather higher standard of notability might be wise. I also agree that new users shouldn't use their real names. The problem is that now that he's chosen both to use his real name and to disrupt, removing the userpages and so forth will make it hard to keep track of new sockpuppets that he creates. It would be easier to make the case for blanking if he was no longer actively disruptiving Wikipedia; I didn't look into him too closely when I passed your message on, and didn't realize that he is still creating sockpuppets. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)