User talk:Burning Pillar

Hi
Hi Burning Pillar. Just wondering if you had a previous or another account? I notice your first edits are at a behind the scenes area of Wikipedia which seems a little odd. Sam Walton (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User:Exemplo347, 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. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  01:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPEEDY85#Suspected_sockpuppets

what is this? I'm bot? I don't care. I'm human Do you want to remove me? Please vote for delete. if you want to talk, my page open for you. I also use it on Skype.

thanks.. SPEEDY85 (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello Burning Pillar. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Raden (Smart Luggage). It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. This one may be proved correct, but I still feel I should inform you Kostas20142 (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NONPOV listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NONPOV. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:NONPOV redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TAINT listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TAINT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:TAINT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TAINTED listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TAINTED. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:TAINTED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mohamed Zakaria Boulahia
Hello Burning Pillar. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mohamed Zakaria Boulahia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Playing for a notable team indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI). Thank you.  So Why  17:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sports-specific notability guidelines
I strongly urge you to withdraw Requests for comment/Sports notability guideline as it is a huge imposition on editors to ask them to participate in so many RfCs in parallel. I also highly recommend that you spend some time reading the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) to understand what has already been discussed and what basic principles have been re-affirmed multiple times. A lot of time has been spent discussing these questions; in the interest of proceeding effectively, it would be best for any future discussions to pickup from there. isaacl (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing someone else's comment
I don't know who you think you are, but suffice it to say that you are not nearly qualified to be the judge of what constitutes a personal attack. I am not kidding when I say you are on the verge of being blocked, probably indefinitely. I think you should be sitebanned, but that has not happened yet. If you would like to avoid that fate, I strongly recommend that you start listening to what multiple experienced editors have told you. If, however, you are merely here to troll, carry on and enjoy it while it lasts. Lepricavark (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

NFOOTY vs GNG
I'm not going to continue this conversation beyond this point, but your understanding of the wording as I quoted it is faulty. It says that if the subject meets either of the criteria listed (in this case, the fact that he's shown by reliable sources to have played in a fully professional league), then he meets NFOOTY. If he meets NFOOTY, then all is good. You can call it "dubious" all you like, but the wording is in black and white there on the page. Additionally, the wording you claim is "not that reliable" has been the wording for quite some time, it seems, as you were advised in the RFC you started. You mightn't like it, but them's the breaks, and I suggest you may wish to remember that in future. Hopefully, any future interaction we have will be geared around a mutual desire to build an encyclopedia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Previous usernames(s)
Hi. What other usernames have you edited WP with prior to this account? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * None? Are you saying you've never had other accounts? Seems very unlikely.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * You are now edit warring, and making changes against consensus. If you revert again, you face being blocked.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

De facto topic ban
Your editing in the notability guideline area in the face of very heavy and continuous opposition to almost everything you propose is disruptive. So, as low hanging fruit, to limit further disruption, be aware that I will block you from editing if you make any edits to notability guidelines or policies without gaining clear consensus for each change on the talk page first. This is not officially a "topic ban", but it has the same general effect, so you should read that link. This warning can be appealed at WP:AN, but you should be aware that I think it's likely that it will be converted into an actual "official" community-based topic ban if you do.

This is just dealing with the easy stuff; it does not mean that another admin or the community might not impose further restrictions. One person should not be allowed to cause so much heartache and hassle to so many other editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't accept these restrictions; I accept that some people didn't want my direct editing and that discussing first is probably not a bad idea even if I think that its unnecessary(as it simply does not generate so much problems).I can agree with not making any more edits to notability policies or guidelines before discussing the matter, and also agree with not making any changes to policies or guidelines I suggested or supported that were opposed by others, because the first seems to just waste the time of all involved editors, and the second is a good idea most of the time anyways.Burning Pillar (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to do more than that. It's not enough to simply wait for a day of discussion before charging off and doing your edits all the same.  You need to gain a broad consensus for any change you make in a notability guideline, and if you can't gain that consensus, you can't change the guideline.   Ravenswing   18:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean a broad consensus like |this one, that was made in an internal WikiProject discussion? Because that is the last change that was kept and that was reasoned to consensus. And actually, it is your own proposed change(and your own edit). Burning Pillar (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * PS:I do see the problem, you mean that when I unilaterally change the guideline(or change it after one or two people have commented), then it might not accurately reflect real consensus amongst all Wikipedia editors? Because few might see it? That's a good reasoning, a very good one. But... honestly, that might be also a problem in general, possibly the source of some problems with the WP:NSPORTS page.
 * Why yes, like that one. I made a proposal.  I let people talk about it for a full week before I did anything about it.  A consensus was reached before I changed a thing. For a set of notability criteria that I invented in the first place. But since I do not in fact "own" NHOCKEY, I had to follow the rules all the same.   Ravenswing   05:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that reasoning that unilaterally changing criteria might result in an addition that wouldn't be supported broadly. It is something I should have thought of before doing that, I only followed the rules instead of thinking for myself - a very bad idea. I am just not sure if your standard is ok, either, if I follow that.Burning Pillar (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd chime in here, as I came one of your discussions at WP:AN/3. Typically, editors are encouraged to be bold in making changes on Wikipedia and not to feel insulted when one or more of your edits are reverted. While this practice is one of the encyclopedia's greatest assets, extra care should be taken when you are reverted or when you are editing non-article namespaces (such as policies and guidelines). A general rule of thumb is that you discuss the proposed edit after being reverted, per the bold/revert/discuss process outlined at WP:BRD. I strongly suggest you review these guidelines to gain a better understanding of how this works; it will help you in the long run.Also, policies and guidelines are often written in accordance with previously-discussed consensus. New editors may not be aware of when or where those discussions took place, so usually the recommendation is to skip editing boldly and discuss first prior to making any changes in these areas (unless your proposal is a simple copy-edit or grammar change). Hope that helps, at least somewhat. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your CSD proposal
Probably a good thing that was shut down so quick, honestly, there was no chance of it succeeding. I just wanted to follow up briefly with you.

I get it, it sucks that we have thousands and thousands of articles with no sources. However, if you are going to get along in the long term her, you just have to accept that this is a highly imperfect project and there are things about it that you are going to find stupid and/or annoying, and you have to learn to just accept that and move on in many cases. I've tried my hand and fixing some of Wikipedia's biggest problems myself, most notably tryng a few years ago to find some consensus about our scattershot approach to civility. It wasn't a total disaster, but it didn't accomplish a damn thing either. So I moved on and let it be. It's a real problem, but I couldn't do anything to solve it.

This page may be of some help in understanding this approach to things. Chaos is always going to be a big part of this project unless there is a fundamental change in the way we do things. The sooner you can accept that, the better time you'll have here. Just some free advice to take or leave as you choose. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominating categories for deletion
The correct venue for nominating categories to be deleted is WP:CFD, not WP:AFD. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop.
Burning Pillar, Please stop citing an essay that you wrote yourself as a reason for deletion. You have a clear conflict of interest and this behavior looks a lot like spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)