User talk:42of8

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

AFD
42of8, please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG. As you read them please keep in mind we also need real world context in the article. For example the creator saying something like "I needed a super strong metal, and it needed a cool name so I took the name Prometheus and add "um" to the end of it." In order to be encyclopedia the articles need to be about our real world and how the subjects were developed and published not just summaries of their fictional elements in a fictional universe. Sorry but I'm tired of you repling with the same basic reply of WP:Ilikeit and heres a bunch of primary, unreliable sources that I found in Google that just mention the subject in passing and have no real world information about the subject. It's the same over and over again, and I have repeatedly taken the time to explain to you why these sources fall short and then in the next AFD there is your same exact argument again. I like it and heres a bunch of stuff I found in Google. Ridernyc (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, you are simply an outsider throwing stones at a field of study you don't understand. Please read Manual of Style/Writing about fiction which you don't seem to be following or understand. Real world context is also "this was first published on this date" and "this is a summary of the narrative presented in the primary source". Research about literature of any kind requires the use of primary sources to a certain extent. Using only secondary sources in literature is considered to be poor research in academia. Which is why the Manual of Style request that both are used. The sources I've given you are written by known experts in the field, but you don't seem to know enough about the field to recognize that. You are calling people "fans" that have masters degrees and PhDs in the subject at hand. The only thing I can see is that you've misinterpreted the the policy you keep referring to because of your lack of knowledge on the subject. You are calling things trivia and minutia that you have no understanding about. Then you nominated over a dozen articles for deletion after doing poor research on google. Being on google does not make something notable. And as far as I can tell, that's about all you do on wikipedia is trolling articles to see if you can delete them. I'm sorry but that is just not helpful behavior and shows poor sense of community. 42of8 (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Transia Flag.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Transia Flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Aquaveo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aquaveo 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 Articles for deletion/Aquaveo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. — kashmīrī  TALK  16:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aquaveo Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Aquaveo Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)