User talk:Regent of the Seatopians

Welcome!

Hello, Regent of the Seatopians, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Orphan Wiki 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Please revisit Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool and evaluate reshoot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

CSD G10
Hi, just to let you know that when marking a page for speedy deletion under CSD G10, you should replace all content on the page with the speedy deletion template, and also set the "blanked" parameter to yes to indicate that you have done so, otherwise the template will warn you to blank the page; so the template should look like. I've done this for you in the Gary reid article.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad. Thanks! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem; the only actual difference is that it'll say it's blanked rather than warn you to blank it. If you've blanked the page but not told the template you have, you've done the most important part anyway.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

 * Thank you. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Regent of the Seatopians. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 03:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Thank you! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

speedy declined
I have declined your A7 speedy deletion request for Kareem Nour. The article does indeed make claims of notability. Also, you should not have removed the request for additional citations when making your deletion request. Lady of  Shalott  18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article makes some obviously ridiculous claims. If you checked Google first, you would have found nothing to back up Mr. Nour's claims. The article has been taken to AfD. Thank you. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was nothing immediately ridiculous about the claim of notability. That Google does not support his notability is a reasonable argument for the AfD (to which I have no objection). It would even have been fine to prod the article. It does not constitute valid grounds for A7 speedy deletion. Lady  of  Shalott  19:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement "official photographer for the biggest celebrities in the Arab World and Middle East" is immediately ridiculous. Celebrities, in the Middle East or any part of the world, do not have "official photographers." Thank you. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Michael Ferns
With great respects, and as the article makes a sourcable assertion of notability through the individual winning a BAFTA Award (thus meeting the instruction of WP:ANYBIO), might you not think nominating for deletion only 4 minutes after its creation was a liitle hurried? Yes, the article does need cleanup, but the basic presumption of notability has been met, and I think that the newbie author might have provided the sources he did had the article simply been tagged. I'm not asking that you withdraw the nomintion... only that you give it thought.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Ferns is not a BAFTA winner. He is the winner of the BAFTA Scotland New Talent Award. In the USA, that is the equivalent of a Student Academy Award. There is a huge difference, I believe. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

help
help me create articles on wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixiemasters (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Vatican Christmas Tree
In 2005 the reference is to the town of Afiesi while your wl is to Afiesl; is it the same town?Kgbo (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tags
Hi. Thanks for tagging Whiting fire rescue just now, but I have deleted it for a different reason - WP:CSD "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." It seemed to me quite neutrally written, just not in any way notable. It's important to choose the right speedy reason, so that the author gets the right message about what he did wrong. There is good advice for speedy taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is helpful, thanks! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do restaurant reviews count as "significant coverage" of the reviewed restaurants?
FYI, I started a thread on this question at the Notability guidelines. --Lambiam 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I am not certain what that has to do with me. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You were one of the contributors to the deletion discussion on Patxi's Chicago Pizza; I gave this heads-up to all contributors. --Lambiam 08:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the J. Gerald Phelan article
I have a lot of background on Phelan and will be expanding on what you started here. It was definitely needed because Phelan was a very prolific builder or Roman Catholic churches (among other projects) in Connecticut. There are now several pages linking to your artical with numerous more to follow. Do you have any knowledge of the firm Polak and Sullivan form New Haven? This is another firm that needs to be included. They did a great deal of work (primarily for reigious clients) in Connecticut. Lukascb (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lukas, do you ever read your own talk page? Drmies (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Lukas. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Theatre of the Absurd (short film)
The film was inspired by, was produced by, and stars Russian singer Dima Bilan... so I have added a few sources to the article Theatre of the Absurd (short film) to reflect this. As the snger appears notable enough in Russia, might you agree that a redirect and partial merge to the singer's article might be a decent option?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Obsession
There are various definitions, but they all seem to involve a single-minded focus on a subject or activity that most people would see as unreasonable and excessive, perhaps also irrational. Obsession could be harmful to the obsessed individual and damaging to others. I suppose all suicide bombers are obsessive, by definition. But someone could be obsessed with butterfly collection, harm nobody and greatly advance the knowledge of butterflies. They could also be obsessed with golf and make a lot of money. Wikipedia attracts people obsessed with promoting fringe points of view, people obsessed with fixing spelling errors or improving categorization, and people obsessed with starting articles on random, unlikely subjects and turning them into encyclopedic entries. Most of the content in Wikipedia comes from people who spend a lot of time on the site, and many of their friends and relations will consider that they are obsessed with Wikipedia. Probably they are, but mostly they do more good than harm. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
Sorry about the block, but I think if you honestly want to return to editing then it has to be above board. Please email the arbitration committee in the first instance and we can try and figure out where to from here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)