User talk:Fairdeal08

Why was my article "What to believe" deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agnosticism#What_to_believe

" This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Agnosticism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. " --Duggie (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Duggie is quoting the top of Talk:Agnosticism. See also my reply at Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Additions to Talk:Agnosticism
Please see this section, especially item #3. Note also that article talk pages like Talk:Agnosticism are specifically for discussing changes to the attached article, not an editorial platform in general nor attempts to proselytize in specific. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment based on your grounds that my article is "...not an editorial platform in general nor attempts to proselytize in specific..." is "false" Carlton, because the page contains other "opinions" also i.e,

- Agnosticism is not a religion.

- "I Don't Know And Neither Do You" - Strong Agnosticism

- Agnosticism and the unknowable

- Agnosticism wording

- Opening paragraph is about strong agnosticism, not about agnosticism itself.

- Why do we have to declare our beliefs?

- On definition

Also My article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAgnosticism&diff=190207184&oldid=189723818 should not be vandalised and deleted without proper "discussion" if that is what has to happen here and since this apprars to be pure Vandalism directed at my article I am putting my article back in ! Fairdeal08 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC

It wasn't an article, it was just a section on the talk page that you were using for soapboxing (i.e. not what Wikipedia is for). John Reaves 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, my comment is completely true, no matter how much handwaving you do or how fervently you believe what you say: it's personal opinion -- yours -- being used to proselytize for a belief system, posted to places where they don't belong per these guidelines/rules/principles, not to mention this one. There are many fine blogging platforms for expressing your opinion/carrying on your proselytizing: this ain't one of them. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Continuing to reinsert the text WILL get you blocked, sooner rather than later. If you have changes you want to discuss to EXISTING content, go ahead and make comments/suggestions in the appropriate places, but this soapboxing WILL stop.

Soapboxing?
have you lost your mind? I think I need help here against a hostile admin user? !Fairdeal08 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

read your talk page --Duggie (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fairdeal08"

Talk:Agnosticism
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on What to believe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Victao lopes (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[helpme]
I need help with a "hostile" admin user please Fairdeal08 (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
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 or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Victao lopes (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Final warning
This isn't your soapbox on which to proselytize. Further disruption will result in a block. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax
I realize that your work is important to you, and no one is trying to say otherwise. It just that not everything is right for Wikipedia. Read some of the pages in the template at the top of this page it will help you understand. If you have other questions please ask at my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC) OK. fair enough so can Wikipedia then "stop" posting the "links" that point to this article on the web then, right! Fairdeal08 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't post those links. The websites that link to them do that.   Corvus cornix  talk  02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a direct link from the web that opens in Wikipedia to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agnosticism#What_to_believe but the article is non existent and has been deleted! Fairdeal08 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and so what?  Corvus cornix  talk  03:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So What! you certainly dont sound like a "Wikipedia" Admin Guy :) the link should be deleted if the article is deleted, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairdeal08 (talk • contribs) currently this next link shows the contribs for Fact Idiot for article titled under Talk:Agnostism "What to Believe" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20061002095349&target=Fact+idiot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled_garden_.2F_spammers


 * You might want to read Ownership of articles Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin guy. But so what if there's a direct link, that doesn't show anything exept that you created it.   Corvus cornix  talk  03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any Wikipedia links to that article...outside of this talk page and ANI. IrishGuy talk 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to also read Help:Page history. Jeepday (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no? The link that Wikipedia must stop linking to should be deleted from the web if the article is deleted, right? currently this next link shows the contribs for Fact Idiot for article titled under 19:32, 30 September 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Agnosticism‎ (→What to believe) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20061002095349&target=Fact+idiot which links from (walled garden/spammers) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled_garden_.2F_spammers which links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140 which links from a keywords from google search. The "What to Believe" article in question is here;


 * You are laboring under the false impression that Wikipedia sends its links out to the web. Web search engines come to Wikipedia and collect that information.  Wikipedia has no control over what is seen at other sites.  And besides, so what, again?  There is no requirement that all old links be removed.  You're attempting to wikilawyer.  You have been told repeatedly that you may not add your rant here.  There is no chance that what you have added will be kept.  Either drop it or go elsewhere.   Corvus cornix  talk  03:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier that I need help from an Wikipedia admin Guy!! and since your just a user like me your obviously "biased" (edit envy) in other words if the links that point to this article exist then of course the crawlers will pict it up Fairdeal08 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :)
 * Funny. You don't want help, you don't get help.  Have fun being blocked.   Corvus cornix  talk  03:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I am not sure what is so difficult for you to understand - wikipedia is not your soapbox - get a blog. --Fredrick day (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy, How can a user get another user "blocked" unless they are colluding with an admin Guy :)Fairdeal08 (talk)


 * I'd like to give a general reminder to everyone here—and yes, I mean everyone, myself included—to remain civil towards others, regardless of how horribly biased, out to get you, crazy, or obviously wrong they are. I would also like to note that users who are being disruptive can be blocked after they have been warned to stop, even if it wasn't an administrator who warned them. Administrators are just the ones who carry out the technical action of blocking. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

is indeed not an "admin guy", but I am, and I understand that you have a few questions about Wikipedia, Fairdeal08? What can I help you with? A ecis Brievenbus 23:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:3duniverse.png
A tag has been placed on Image:3duniverse.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)