User talk:Ethan Dude

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Fanon
Please do not repost speedily deleted material. This is considered vandalism and can lead to you being blocked from editing for a period of time. (aeropagitica) 15:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to be rude, but why was it speedily deleted? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia about everything', and should have this content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethan Dude (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Your mistake is making an assumption about *everything*. We have policies and guidelines here to assist in determining what is and isn't notable.  This stops the database filling up with millions of pages about IP addresses, websites, roads, diners, schools, small businesses, etc.  Articles that fall below the radar horizon for their particular policy or guideline are deleted, either speedily or after a review.  Your article was reviewed and then deleted originally - a repost counts as a speedy criteria.  Please refer to the welcome salutation below this reply in order to understand about contributing effectively to Wikipedia. Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong?! A Wikia Featured Wiki with over 7,000 articles Isn't Notable?! Not to be rude or disrespectful, but I'm getting Irritated!  Ethan Dude -  Leave me Hate Mail 


 * It's always better to provide a context for your comments, as we generally deal with many editors and articles in a Wikipedia session and can't necessarily remember all of them from day-to-day. The article was deleted because it was a db-repost of a previously-deleted article which had been discussed by the community, whose consensus was to delete it as non-notable according to WP:WEB.  Your irritation is unfounded.  If you have a reasonable business case for resurrecting an improving this article then I suggest that you take it to a deletion review and have the community decide the matter.  Simply recreating the article, no matter how good your intentions are, is considered vandalism as it flies in the face of consensus.  Finally, please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors and admins.  No one, least of all me, has set out to irritate you, so you have chosen to feel this emotion.  Get involved with the process but don't take it personally, as we don't own the articles to which we contribute, even if we are the only editors!  Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:SWFanon1.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SWFanon1.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Now I'm Angry
If you think it's too small, then visit the freaking site, and strain your microscopic bit of intellegence looking at the list of articles!!!! Ethan Dude


 * I will respectfully ask you to tone down your hostile response to something of which I am unaware. You need to provide a context in which your comments can be understood.  You will be blocked from editing if you continue to correspond with other editors in this manner.  Please see WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Etiquette for details of good conduct and interaction. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)