User talk:Andrewwisne

Madness
Welcome to the madhouse; please say hello

Welcome
Hi, Andrewwisne. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  04:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andy Wisne
A tag has been placed on Andy Wisne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy wisne
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andy wisne
A tag has been placed on Andy wisne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

INITIALLY GOT A ROLE AND A CO STAR BILLING IN WHICH WISNE DELIVERD LINES TO FAMOUS DESIGNING WOMAN ACTRESS DELTA BURKE IN THE PILOT SWEET POTATO QUEENS. PERFORMED STAND UP AT THE WORLD FAMOUS IMPROV WITH LOU FERRIGNO AND NATASHA LEGGERRO. PERFORMED A MAC DADDY AT A FILMED SHOW AT THE WORLD FAMOUS IMPROV WITH LOU FERRIGNO AND NATASHA LEGGERRO IN A PLAY CALLED "SHAKESPEARE'S PUNK ROCK. FEATURED ON A ROUNTABLE DISCUSSION OF ARTIST.  PERFORMD WEEKLY FOR THE LA CONNECTION COMEDY IMPROV ENSEMBLE.  ALLY MCBEAL, SWEET POTATO QUEENS, SHAKESPEARE'S PUNK ROCK, STAND UP WITH HAS, AND ARTIST OF THE ROUND TABLE ARE ALL OFFICIALLY CREDITED WORKS WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE NEWLY CREATED ARTICLE BUT WERE IN THE ORIGINAL.

THE ARTICLE WAS DELETED AND RECREATED BY AN AUTHOR OTHER THAN MYSELF. ANDY WISNE IS ALSO NO LONGER ENGAGED TO NICOLE MAGNUSSON

IT IS ONLY JUST THAT ANDY WISNE BE ENTITLED TO WRITE THIS PAGE WITHOUT TAMPERING AS HE IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF REFERANCE TO THE SECONDARY PRIMARY RESOURCES USED TO CREATE THIS ARTICLE. THANK YOU CUNARD FOR TRYING TO HELP. IF THAT IS HOW THE INITIAL PAGE COMES TO FRUITION AND MORE ADDED LATER THAN I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS!

I WAS ALSO BLOCKED FROM WRITING THIS ON THE ARTICLE'S ENTRY PAGE. I AM ASKING FOR A REVIEW OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF EVALUATING THIS ARTICLE. ANDY WISNE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE AN ARTICLE WITHOUT TAMPERING AND PREJUDICE COMMING INTO PLAY AS LONG AS NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW RECARDING THE FACTUALITY OF THE EVENTS IS MET AND PASSES THE STANDARDS FOR WP:GNG AD WP:NOTE OR WP:BIO

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What you have written seems to make sense and so does mine. If everything I have written is fact then neutral point of view was not breached. If you read the biographies of well known actors mentioning vying for a role in a major motion picture is notable. Being a Notre Dame football player is notable. Being featured on the cover of the Los Angeles Times is notable. Being the subject of an award winning piece is notable. Delivering lines to Delta Burke is notable. Performing Stand up comedy with with Naasha Leggerro and Lou Ferrgno at the famous Hollywood Improv is notable. Starring in a show at the Improv is notable. Having NBC feature a half time show on the wisne family is notable. Please also refer to wikepedia pages below (simply being a Notre Dame football player) and compare to what Andy Wisne has already accomplished. It seems to be easy for anyone to distort what is or what isn't notable. I believe any twelve year old kid would instinctively say what Andy Wisne has done apart from anything trivial is a remarkable achievement already and it is duely noted by millions of followers. Andy does meet the basic criteria of what is notable after reading the guidlines for what is notable- Basic criteria A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

It goes without saying the stories were pretty deep my friend and they were intellectually independent. Further more another - General notability guideline

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Significant coverage is more than trivial ( a story that helps and moves people is more than trivial, being a Notre Dame football player is more than trivial if one searches the "depth criteria") but may be less than exclusive (meets that one).[1] I think it goes without saying after reading the guidlines, saying this guy is not notable is an abomination to the system. If you have read the articles in the Los Angeles Times, and "Out of the Darkness" ( have you read them?)featured in the South Bend Tribune and Irish sports report it is more than trivial and the depth of coverage is MORE than substantial.- regardless Andy Wisne has met mutiple guidelines for inclusion in the category of notability. Rodney Dangerfield wants this guy to have a break- Andrew Wisne

Articles for deletion nomination of Andy Wisne
I have nominated Andy Wisne, 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 Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne&. 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. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

INITIALLY GOT A ROLE AND A CO STAR BILLING IN WHICH WISNE DELIVERD LINES TO FAMOUS DESIGNING WOMAN ACTRESS DELTA BURKE IN THE PILOT SWEET POTATO QUEENS. PERFORMED STAND UP AT THE WORLD FAMOUS IMPROV WITH LOU FERRIGNO AND NATASHA LEGGERRO. PERFORMED A MAC DADDY AT A FILMED SHOW AT THE WORLD FAMOUS IMPROV WITH LOU FERRIGNO AND NATASHA LEGGERRO IN A PLAY CALLED "SHAKESPEARE'S PUNK ROCK. FEATURED ON A ROUNTABLE DISCUSSION OF ARTIST.  PERFORMD WEEKLY FOR THE LA CONNECTION COMEDY IMPROV ENSEMBLE.  ALLY MCBEAL, SWEET POTATO QUEENS, SHAKESPEARE'S PUNK ROCK, STAND UP WITH HAS, AND ARTIST OF THE ROUND TABLE ARE ALL OFFICIALLY CREDITED WORKS WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE NEWLY CREATED ARTICLE BUT WERE IN THE ORIGINAL.

THE ARTICLE WAS DELETED AND RECREATED BY AN AUTHOR OTHER THAN MYSELF. ANDY WISNE IS ALSO NO LONGER ENGAGED TO NICOLE MAGNUSSON

IT IS ONLY JUST THAT ANDY WISNE BE ENTITLED TO WRITE THIS PAGE WITHOUT TAMPERING AS HE IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF REFERANCE TO THE SECONDARY PRIMARY RESOURCES USED TO CREATE THIS ARTICLE. THANK YOU CUNARD FOR TRYING TO HELP. IF THAT IS HOW THE INITIAL PAGE COMES TO FRUITION AND MORE ADDED LATER THAN I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS!

I WAS ALSO BLOCKED FROM WRITING THIS ON THE ARTICLE'S ENTRY PAGE. I AM ASKING FOR A REVIEW OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF EVALUATING THIS ARTICLE. ANDY WISNE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE AN ARTICLE WITHOUT TAMPERING AND PREJUDICE COMMING INTO PLAY AS LONG AS NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW RECARDING THE FACTUALITY OF THE EVENTS IS MET AND PASSES THE STANDARDS FOR WP:GNG AD WP:NOTE OR WP:BIO

I ASK THAT THIS ISSUE BE ADDRESSED.

From the creater of the article- AndrewWisne This was copied and pasted by me from an exert from the articles entry page which needs to be addressed.-- from Cunard on the articles entry page- AndrewWisne

Your article,
You can voice your concerns about it at the AFD, which is linked from the article page. Besides that, amounts of people who watch a subject do not make said subject notable. I have listed my concerns on the AFD as well. I stand by them.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a single point and that issue was never addressed about the imdb. Theimdb is an official source of referance for actors, writers, and directors. The same as if an NFL player uses and NFL.com bio as referance. Not only that- it seems to be an indiviual emotional response evading neutral point of view.- AndrewWisne- May 25, 2009


 * We have rules here, and guidelines, along wtih rules that decide what is notable and what isn't. I could care less if you deserve a break, why?  I'm not going to be guilt tripped into withdrawing the AFD.  If you disagree, bring it up on the AFD, don't message me again if you're going to try to continue to guilt trip me, it won't work, and it will be a waste of time.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to guilt trip others will not work, period. We all stand firm in our opinions, and no amount of guilt tripping from you will change that.  We are here to write an encyclopedia, not give everyone who thinks they deserve it a page.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is trying to guilt trip anyone. The only reasons this article shouldn't be kept is if the reviewers avoided the fact it meets all  WP:GNG. standards.  It passes WP:GNG.  AndrewWisne- May 25,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
 * When you continue to talk about your injuries, and say stuff like, this guy deserves a break, yes, that is called guilt tripping.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's calld evidence of the depth included in the stories. It's amatter of fact.  It's defense wrongflu and manipulative accusations.  I've said enouh.  You can watch me on the big screen someday soon.  I have no time for bitterness —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
 * No, it is not. Evidence is a cited newspaper article or a WP:DIFF, what you were doing was guilt tripping.  Plain and simple.  Secondly, you're the only one here being bitter when you continuously insult others without evidence to back up your baseless accusations of manipulation.  So far you're the only one that's tried to manipulate the outcome, when you voted more than once.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a joke.

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Amalthea 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, stop adding hangon tags. They have no effect here or on the article, it is no longer nominated for speedy deletion. Amalthea  21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Caps
I stand firm in my opinions, and no amount of yelling will push me into submission. You think the article abides by our guidelines, but in truth, it does not. It is outlined quite well at the AFD. If you want to prevent yourself from being blocked, I suggest you quit the confrontational behavior and disruptive editing.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting Twice
You are not allowed to do it, as you did, seen here. Do not do it again, or you may be blocked from editing.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is your second warning, do not do it again. Vote fixing is strictly against the rules.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''You called my edits biased, and told another editor he was deliberately making up false information. This is unacceptable behavior.'' —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No it is the truth. Eveything you are writing is your own opinion. There is nothing wrong with making that clear. I feel just as strongly or more so about my point of view. In my position there should be no hesitation in declaring this not only a page of notability but a necessary one as well. Not accusing anyone but just as a reminder. Do not abuse your power to overturn essential ingrediants that make our society unique and positive. My story's documented by writers with integrity do just that. I am a former starting football player for The University of Notre Dame who has gone through a journey that has been well documented. I would like to request someone who is not affiliated with either one of us or has not been affiliated with this conversation to date to make a decision. Thank you-Andrew Wisne- May 24, 2009
 * Truth is in the eye of the beholder, however, that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't make personally attacking others any more okay. You cannot call others bias or those who forge inaccuracies on purpose, it isn't acceptable, period.  Do so again, and things will not go smoothly for you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for the choice of words. Yes let's try to remain nuetral as an independent administrator will review this as mentioned. And yes that was my opinion and please accept my sincerest apologies. All information is factual, refranced properly, relevant, and meets al WP:GNG standards. Andrewwisne- May 25, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Third warning, do not vote twice, such is attempting to manipulate the outcome, and is not allowed. I have removed the part of your comment which had a heading of keep, as voting twice is not allowed.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Andy Wisne
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Andy Wisne. 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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This article meets and passes all WP:GNG. standards.- Andrewwisne- May 25, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)

Advice
In general, one short, clear comment on an AfD discussion is sufficient. Making lots of comments can be confusing, and isn't usually necessary unless new information comes to light. Don't worry; if this person meets the notability criteria, and if the sources on the article confirm that, then independent editors will vote to keep the article without your having to do a thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you FisherQueen. Just fighting for what I believe to be a relevant article for wikipedia that meets those standards you mentioned above. Thank you for mentioning that.- Andrewwisne-May 25,2009

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. —  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  20:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to do as you choose. But creating an article about yourself is pretty strongly frowned upon, so the more intensely you defend the article, the more it looks like you are only interested in self-promotion, and the more likely it is that the article will be deleted for that reason.  As long as you aren't being disruptive, you are free to edit in any way that seems wise to you- but my experience tells me that the wisest thing you can do is turn off your computer and not check in on this article again until at least Friday, to see how other editors will see it when they can concentrate on the article without getting distracted by your edits.  Take my advice or don't, as you choose. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

reply
I can't even figure out how to have a non-confusing conversation with you, since you're inserting your comments randomly into the middle of your talk page. But in response to your latest message: as far as I can tell, you were not interested in the philosophical implications of Wikipedia's notability criteria before you decided to write an article about yourself, you don't appear to be interested in it in any area except the article you wrote about yourself, and I sincerely doubt you'll be interested in working to make the encyclopedia better after the AfD on the article you wrote about yourself is concluded. Users who actually care about the encyclopedia as a whole are therefore not likely to take anything you say on the subject very seriously. If this really is a subject you care about- and not just the subject of whether or not you can write an article promoting yourself- then try this: stay here for a year, working on reviewing new pages and participating usefully in AfD discussions, for 30-60 minutes a day at least three days a week, without once writing about yourself. Then share your ideas about how the notability criteria ought to be revised. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, '''you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when.  —  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs ''' 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not sign your signature by typing, nor do you sign it by manually typing it out. As several people have told you now, you sign it by typing ~ four times, so that it looks like: ~ when you sign your posts. Wikipedia will automattically parse in your sig. A tilda can usually be found left of the 1 above the Tab key, and you can use it by pushing Shift `. Please sign your posts. I am sick of having to clean up after you. —  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen clearly
Your hundreds of words of comment are making the AfD impossible to read. I have moved all of your comments to the bottom. If I missed the comments you made in the time it took me to reformat, I apologize; it's quite difficult to keep up when you are leaving a comment nearly every 60 seconds. Stop commenting on the AfD. You are disrupting the discussion, and not saying anything new. You may comment on the AfD again if you become aware of an additional reliable source that has not already been listed. In order to prevent further disruption, if you comment on the AfD again for any other reason, I will block you until the discussion is concluded, in order to allow it to continue in a way that other users can understand. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a ditortion of the truth and false manipulation.

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Do not make baseless accusations against others without citing evidence, otherwise it is a personal attack. I suggest you strike through your bad-faith label of others trying to manipulate the AFD.'' —  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that he should strike it through. I've advised him not to edit the AfD again, and considering that he's been spending all day commenting on this article and still doesn't know how to sign a message, I don't think he will be able to format a strikeout anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Remember when I said that, if you edited the AfD again without having something new to say, I would block you to allow the discussion to continue in a coherent way? Well, after I said that, you edited the AfD, but your edit didn't say anything new, or include a source we haven't already looked at. In order to allow the rest of the community to follow the conversation, I've blocked you for a period of time that should extend until the AfD closes. After the AfD closes, if you'd like to make useful edits on topics that are not about yourself, you are welcome to do so. I'm sorry to have to block you, but I couldn't think of any other way to keep this discussion readable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may give you a word of advice? A good unblock request shows that you understand why you are blocked, and either clearly shows why the block is a violation of the rules (if it is) or clearly states how you'll edit differently when unblocked (if you will). I sympathize a great deal with you, and if I could have found a way to avoid disruption without blocking you, I would have. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's ok I'v said all I wanted. Thank you for your time- Wiz


 * I would suggest an outright ban of this user for repeated violations of our rules. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to see if this user has useful contributions to make outside of the area of self-promotion; I hate to permanently block him if he still has something useful to offer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

MY ORIGINAL ARTICLE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH. THE ORIGNAL ARTICLE CLEARLEY STATED THAT THE ACTOR HAS PERFORMED IN VARIOUS WORKS IN THE FORM OF STAND UP COMEDY, SITCOM, IMPROV, SKETCH, AND DRAMA. AFTER INITIALLY GETTING A MINOR ROLE AND A CO STAR BILLING IN SWEET POTATO QUEENS AFTER DELIVERING LINES TO FAMOUS ACTRESS DELTA BURKE. PERFORMING STAND UP AT THE WORLD FAMOUS IMPROV WITH LOU FERRIGNO AND NATASHA LEGGERRO. PERFORMED A MAC DADDY AT A FILMED SHW AT THE WORLD FAMOUS IMPROV WITH LOU FERRIGNO AND NATASHA LEGGERRO IN A PLAY CALLED "SHAKESPEARE'S PUNK ROCK. FEATURED ON A ROUNTABLE DISCUSSION OF ARTIST.  PERFORMD WEEKLY FOR THE LA CONNECTION COMEDY IMPROV ENSEMBLE.  ALLY MCBEAL, SWEET POTATO QUEENS, SHAKESPEARE'S PUNK ROCK, STAND UP WITH HAS, AND ARTIST OF THE ROUND TABLE ARE ALL OFFICIALLY CREDITED WORKS.

ALL THIS WAS VOIDED OUT. THE ARTICLE WAS DELETED AND RECREATED BY AN AUTHOR OTHER THAN MYSELF. ANDY WISNE IS ALSO NO LONGER ENGAGED TO NICOLE MAGNUSSON

THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH. IT IS ONLY JUST THAT ANDY WISNE BE ENTITLE TO WRITE THIS PAGE WITHOUT TAMPERING AS HE IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF REFERANCE TO THE SECONDARY PRIMARY RESOURCES USED TO CREATE THIS ARTICLE.

THE INITIAL ARTICLE HAS BEEN UNDERMINED FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE TOPIC. I WAS ALSO BLOCKED FROM WRITING THIS ON THE ARTICLE'S ENTRY PAGE. I AM ASKING FOR A REVIEW OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF EVALUATING THIS ARTICLE. ANDY WISNE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE AN ARTICLE WITHOUT TAMPERING AND PREJUDICE COMMING INTO PLAY AS LONG AS NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW RECARDING THE FACTUALITY OF THE EVENTS IS MET AND PASSES THE STANDARDS DOR WP:GNG AD WP:NOTE

Your article
Hello Andrew

I am familiar with your accomplishments both on the field as well as on the screen and I think that it's a shame that wikipedia editors follow rules and guidelines blindly and allow them to lead them to deleting noteworthy articles. There is however absolutely nothing we can do to save the article from being deleted this time around but that's perfectly alright really cause there will be absolutely no way that they'll be able to delete the article in a few years time. Don't be wasting too much of your valuable time and energy on these people, life is too short.

Sincerely,--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that and it only gives me motivation to work harder. Let it be indeed. I think evidence looks good this time around. Simple pass on the WP:GNG and WP:NOTE olays everything else. Ole' all day- Wiz
 * Unfortunately, that is not the case.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  04:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

MY ORIGINAL ARTICLE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH. THE ORIGNAL ARTICLE CLEARLEY STATED THAT THE ACTOR HAS PERFORMED IN VARIOUS WORKS IN THE FORM OF STAND UP COMEDY, SITCOM, IMPROV, SKETCH, AND DRAMA. AFTER INITIALLY GETTING A MINOR ROLE AND A CO STAR BILLING IN SWEET POTATO QUEENS AFTER DELIVERING LINES TO FAMOUS ACTRESS DELTA BURKE. PERFORMING STAND UP AT THE WORLD FAMOUS IMPROV WITH LOU FERRIGNO AND NATASHA LEGGERRO. PERFORMED A MAC DADDY AT A FILMED SHW AT THE WORLD FAMOUS IMPROV WITH LOU FERRIGNO AND NATASHA LEGGERRO IN A PLAY CALLED "SHAKESPEARE'S PUNK ROCK. FEATURED ON A ROUNTABLE DISCUSSION OF ARTIST.  PERFORMD WEEKLY FOR THE LA CONNECTION COMEDY IMPROV ENSEMBLE.  ALLY MCBEAL, SWEET POTATO QUEENS, SHAKESPEARE'S PUNK ROCK, STAND UP WITH HAS, AND ARTIST OF THE ROUND TABLE ARE ALL OFFICIALLY CREDITED WORKS.

ALL THIS WAS VOIDED OUT. THE ARTICLE WAS DELETED AND RECREATED BY AN AUTHOR OTHER THAN MYSELF. ANDY WISNE IS ALSO NO LONGER ENGAGED TO NICOLE MAGNUSSON

THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH. IT IS ONLY JUST THAT ANDY WISNE BE ENTITLE TO WRITE THIS PAGE WITHOUT TAMPERING AS HE IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF REFERANCE TO THE SECONDARY PRIMARY RESOURCES USED TO CREATE THIS ARTICLE.

THE INITIAL ARTICLE HAS BEEN UNDERMINED FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE TOPIC. I WAS ALSO BLOCKED FROM WRITING THIS ON THE ARTICLE'S ENTRY PAGE. I AM ASKING FOR A REVIEW OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF EVALUATING THIS ARTICLE. ANDY WISNE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE AN ARTICLE WITHOUT TAMPERING AND PREJUDICE COMMING INTO PLAY AS LONG AS NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW RECARDING THE FACTUALITY OF THE EVENTS IS MET AND PASSES THE STANDARDS DOR WP:GNG AD WP:NOTE

Yelling
Will not get you any points here. I suggest you edit every all caps sentence so that isn't the case.

Look at it this way, if you truly are notable, someone other than you will write about you someday, however, if you keep on trying to push and push to get this article in here, you're going to get blocked indefinitely for repeatedly recreated material deleted under a deletion discussion.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Secondly,
The article was not deleted and recreated by someone other than yourself, as, as everyone, including you, can quite clearly see here, you are the creator.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  03:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note

 * Every Wikipedia article gets changed and edited by other users; you may have noticed that just below the 'save page' button is a notice that says, 'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.'
 * The changes that were made to this article are good changes, that remove what's not encyclopedic so that users can more effectively see what is encyclopedia. Information that couldn't be verified by reliable sources was removed.  You might have noticed that several people have changed their 'delete' votes to 'keep' after seeing the latest version of the article.
 * It is not necessary or helpful to put three copies of the article's former version, or a copy of large sections of the AfD discussion, here on your talk page. You can create a link directly to either of those things if you need to.  Text copied from other places makes this talk page confusing and difficult to read.
 * Do you remember how I told you, "Your excessively long comments are making the AfD discussion confusing and difficult to read. If you don't stop, I will block you."  Then you kept doing it, and I blocked you until the AfD ends?
 * Now I'm telling you that pasting material copied from other places makes this talk page confusing and difficult to read. If you don't stop, I will block your ability to edit this talk page until the AfD ends, as well.
 * Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Andy Wisne for deletion
The article Andy Wisne is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne 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. —  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 06:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)