User talk:Cubbiehobbits

Nonsense of Swartz Pose
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Swartz Pose, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Swartz Pose provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Swartz Pose, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Orange Mike
I am relatively new to the wikipedia community, and am unclear upon what exactly was inappropriate about Swartz Pose when I was in the process of creating its wikipedia page. I had some references and information was pulling in parts upon creating the page, and was not finished improving upon the article to meet wikipedia standards. Could someone verify to me direct, precise reasons other than general vandalism to explain what I need to do to make the article suitable for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbiehobbits (talk • contribs)
 * You have to establish that it even exists, for starters, with links to reliable sources (no blogs or forums or MySpace pages). It looks and sounds like something made up late at night while texting your buds on AIM. Wikipedia is a reference work, not an "Internet meme of the hour" site. A lot of editors think tricking is not notable enough to have an article here; so some trickster posing thing comes across as pretty silly, especially as your first edit. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'd advise you to forget the Swartz and concentrate on finding some solid, impartial, third-party references to get the tricking article up to minimum standards. It's pretty pathetic right now. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  06:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)