User talk:Pumeleon

Re: Tagging of DM Ashura as unreliable.
Hello, and thank you for sparing the article. DM Ashura's fanbase thanks you, however, I disagree with your tagging of the site to be unreliable, as the sources meet reliability criteria. I explain more deeply (and with more passion) on DM Ashura's talk page. Thank you. Pumeleon 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied at the article's talk page. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Geniac 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Re. Your semi-protection of DM Ashura
Thank you for contacting me. After analysing the situation again it became obvious that there's an actual edit war erupting in the article due to content dispute. At the moment I am more inclined to fully protect the article rather than unprotecting it. I suggest that you discuss the disputed content on the talk page and try to reach some consensus there instead of warring about it. If the edit war continues I will have to fully protect the article. Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thankyou
You're welcome ;) M a rtinp23 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right...
I thought that the subject herself was the one who was married to all of that nobility in the second paragraph, hence my comment. I blew that one big time. I am SO sorry about the comment. - Lucky 6.9 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Murphy's laws of combat
Hi. Just letting you know I sent the article to AfD. Pascal.Tesson 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user?
Hey there, I see from your user page that you're looking for an adopter? I took a quick look at your edits and I certainly like the temperment I saw. If you'd like, I'd be more than willing to do the adopting. Lemme know. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Man, you're fast! I just put that up a few hours ago. But yes, that would be awesome. :3 I've been on RC patrol for a lot of the day, reverting and warning, contributing to AfDs and such. And thank you for offering to help a newbie out. PumeleonT 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your response was equally fast. :) Could you create the page User:Pumeleon/Adopt-a-User? That way we can keep our conversations in one place much like my own User:BradBeattie/Admin coaching page. Sound good? --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. :3 PumeleonT 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your block notice
You may want to double-check your block notice at User talk:128.113.228.7. Muhammed Iqbal dosn't seem like any amount of time I've ever heard of. :P PumeleonT 08:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! How the heck did you notice that? Anyway, I've fixed it now. Being too quick to use my own popups warning-extension was my downfall... Doh! -- Renesis (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When I report someone to AIV, I always keep a close eye on their talk pages and contributions so I can quickly revert their next edits, no matter where they may be, and so I know when someone got blocked, so I can stop vandalstalking them. ;3 PumeleonT 08:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't even realize they were at WP:AIV... I saw their vandalism at the main page article, then contributions and talk page last warning, and decided to block. Well, anyway, thanks again! -- Renesis (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
A mediation case has been opened in which your name is mentioned. I just signed up as a mediator, pending approval by the involved parties. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page. If you would like to be listed as a party, please write your name in the blue box. If you feel you are not involved, please remove your name from the list under "Who's involved?". (In this case, your name will only be allowed to be reinserted if a reason is given.) &mdash; Sebastian 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: The original case has been deleted by an involved party. I reported this incidend on administrators' noticeboard (now archived). Since I have not been asked by anyone to investigate this case, I will not pursue it any further. I'm not watching your user page anymore, so please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. &mdash; Sebastian 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
No problem... sorry for the trouble. Wikieditor06 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Grey Album guy
No problemo on that one :) I wonder if some of these anon isp's acutally just put stuff like that (gay sex) into their summaries to see if we're actually paying attention!  I've had to reverse myself a couple of times on some on-the-cusp type of edits!  SkierRMH 06:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Rob Wilson
How can it be libellous if I was there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.6.114.111 (talk • contribs).

Gmailjon
MESSAGE FOR PUMALEON

Received your messages, and fully understood. I've now read through the majority of the terms and use and understand. Regards, Gmailj —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmailjon (talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Happy New Year and the Murphy's Laws
T'would be nice when using and Mergefrom if you took care to build a discussion on one talk page or the other with a good title, and add the argument (perameter) linking them like this. &emsp;What would you think of a vice this proposal of yours? I didn't have the time to look into the AFD and back track, but that seems to be the better plan, and you might consider dropping an appeal on the talk page for the Military History Project. WT:MILHIST (Never mind... I just did it for you. If nothing else, it will draw some critical (and sharp) talent to morph it into something more suitable. Best wishes // Fra nkB 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardoriginated by Pedia-I  (Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No Problem
No problem, I can see why you thought that it's nonsense! Thanks for the apology though CoYep 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Quick question about CSD.
Hmm. If something is that bad, it'll usually get deleted no matter what reason you give. ;) But for practical purpose, I guess whichever feels more appropriate is good. Or just use db-reason in serious pinches. Good question, though. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

user:PinoyGangsta
That was aimed more at the fact that we'd both managed to slip a "final warning" on at roughly the same time. :-) Chris cheese whine 06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

VerveKS
Hi Pumeleon - thanks for the advice. I'll add a paragraph with her articles, which will hopefully highlight her notability - hope it meets the criteria! Cheers.

Reversions and such
Thanks for catching my goof. Sorry 'bout that! Ward3001 15:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Usernames
Heh heh heh :o)

I wouldn't worry about doing a RFCU on them. Most likely it's just someone trolling the new accounts log - happens all the time - and the autoblock will catch them if they try to edit. They'll get bored pretty quickly.  RΞDVΞRS ✖  ЯΞVΞЯSΞ  10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages
Hey, in the course of giving a final warning, I saw you had given them a warning for removing comment from their talk page. Actually, removing comments from one's own talk page is not considered vandalism - it was at one point but the consensus has since changed. Of course, removing comments from any other talk page can still be vandalism, as can editing other people's comments. Natalie 02:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an unbelievably common mistake. Because removing warnings was considered vandalism for quite some time, many people are used to that. There are regular questions at the administrator's noticeboards about it, as well as various other places, such as the talk page for user warnings and probably the talk page for the vandalism policy as well. No worries - you are in good company in your error! Natalie 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sky2.com
Deleted. Natalie 03:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam Warning Explanation Needed
>March 2007 This is your only warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Locked-In syndrome, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist at all. PumeleonT 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)<

I have just received the above message. Please explain how a link to a private website belonging to a person who has experienced locked-in syndrome, and accepts speaking engagements on that topic, can be considered spam.

You may want to review the link I had added. http://www.katesjourney.com/index.html

I look forward to your reply.

TA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.188.98 (talk • contribs) 17:37, April 12, 2007

Ah, I see. Thank you for your explanation.

TA

Image:Reunited.png
Hello Pumeleon, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Reunited.png) was found at the following location: User:Pumeleon/Sandbox. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Furry


Pierbridge - speedy deletion
you might be right that it not notable, but why bite the newcomer when you don't have to. give him a few minutes to at least make a claim of notability. If it comes to deleting the article he can be told politely that while we appreciate his effort we aren't interested. Jon513 15:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's neelix
Dude, it's neelix. I don't wanna post my e-mail here, but give me a way to contact you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.39.153 (talk • contribs) 01:47, September 8, 2007

RE DM Ashura
I was unaware of this, I was just told this by one of the people that invited him to the con. My apologies. Tomi Undergallows (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I'm actually both as well :P Tomi Undergallows (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: 207.144.217.39
Good point. I've gone ahead and protected the page for the duration of the block. This guy's quite a piece of work - we'll see if it starts up again from the same IP after the week is up.-- Kubigula (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kamiak High School
Hi. Sorry for not citing any sources but I'm afraid with regard to this high school, there aren't that many published articles to be found. I'm just acting on behalf of what the discussion board has agreed to. Could you please stop deleting my additions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck.gamble (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I didn't write that at all. I just put it back up when vandals took it down because I know who B. Bergen is, and so does everyone who has posted on the discussion board. Maybe those who took him down did so because "womanizing tendencies" sounds fishy, but that is what he's known for mostly along with being recognized by the City of Mukilteo as an upstanding citizen -- which I didn't add because it wasn't published. I'm just the messenger for the discussion board here, and at the point at which nothing else on this page is cited (unfortunately) and Bergen has received such unanimous praise on the board, could you please let the edits be?

After I wrote this I noticed that someone else had taken the liberty of putting him back. Can't such a popular upheaval be granted worth when published sources are unavailable. Thanks for your help. Chuck.gamble (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to respond to my argument that nothing on this page is cited. On several pages, nothing is cited, yet you choose to scrutinize this one where so many people have come forth in agreement on the subject of B. Bergen. Are you going to delete everything else in this article? You may think that you can roll over me and that my opinion doesn't matter but I speak for the dozens of people who have been moved by B. Bergen's work and I will not give this up until he is left alone on the page and honored as he should be.

Yes, he is worthy of note, which is why so many people have put him back on the page. Who is to deem what is worthy of note? It should be the many people who have come forth on this discussion board rather than you. Chuck.gamble (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my points. Well according to the Wikipedia on defamation which includes libel, it's stating things which are known to be false in order to give a negative image. Firstly, I don't see how saying someone has womanizing tendencies is particularly negative as, say, saying that he was a sexual predator would be. Secondly, anything which is untrue could be regarded as negative, so by your definition, I would say that anything which could potentially be untrue is libel. Do you really want people to go around deleting everything that hasn't been cited? What kind of mark would that give Wikipedia the institution?

According to your x and y argument, I may not be able to tell you to delete anything that isn't cited, but I could do so myself and I could give you the same argument. Please clarify.

And if these precedents are established, where can I argue them? Chuck.gamble (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dog Show Superintendents Association


The article Dog Show Superintendents Association has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG, the the article’s one citation that discusses the DSSA is a copy of a letter written by the DSSA. The only (possibly) reliable, independent source I could find is the bottom matter of this article, which is simply copied from the DSSA website."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cavalryman (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)