User talk:ChemicalG

Re:Debito Arudou
Hey, I noticed your most recent comment on the Debito Arudou talk page. Thank you for agreeing with me, but I wonder about how constructive it is to repeat the point when Dr. Arudou has already read my initial response and chose for one reason or another not to acknowledge that point. I can tell you and I would probably agree on a lot of points in the real world, but I'd suggest branching out your editing a bit, since it does look a little suspicious when all of your edits are in a single area (read WP:SPA). I like to edit articles related to Japanese literature, but if I only edited in that area other users would likely get suspicious that I'm not really interested in contributing constructively to building an encyclopedia. This is NOT an imputation of your good faith (again, I seem to agree with you on these issues), just a piece of friendly advice. (BTW, if he compares himself to Rosa Parks on this site again, I'm not telling you not to respond then.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I understand what you mean. ChemicalG (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are new and don't have much experience outside of this single topic, so not having total understanding our notability guidelines is completely reasonable. If you want to create a deletion discussion, feel free to do so (it will almost certainly fail), but continuing to raise the same closed issue on the talk page does nothing but disrupt the article. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Debito discretionary sanctions
This is just to let you know that the Debito Arudou article is under discretionary sanctions. I've left a templated message about them below. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

— Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDHT
In the very thread you replied to here, other editors including myself had already noted that our notability requirements apply to whether an article should exist, not what content should be in the article. Yet you manage to link not one, but two irrelevant notability guidelines in your 3,000+ character wall of text. Can't you see how this could be interpreted as a disruptive refusal to get the point, or a "treadmill" as Curly Turkey put it? I would appreciate it if you could distill your long post down to something more terse that does not rehash or ignore explanations you have already received. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr hello, thanks for your message. Let me assure of a few things; There is no lack of good faith on behalf. I'm new here, not out to cause trouble. I will do as you requested, and certainly see your point. Please allow me half a day to do so, as I'm currently at work and quite tied up. However, also please understand that it was Debito himself who posed the question about notability, I merely answered this - and thought that I was doing so in a civil and constructive tone. ChemicalG (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)