User talk:Sitdown248/Archive1

A tag has been placed on F.A.F. (Fans Against Floyd), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, 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 the article's talk page 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Improbcat 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, your creation of the article is a clear case of Conflict of interest Improbcat 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the page was deleted before I could respond, I will respond here.
 * Perhaps you shouldn't post the article then. If your group was truly notable, someone else would post the article. Regarding notability, number of people in your group are irrelevant. The criteria for notability is:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.


 * So if you don't meet those requirements, your group is not notable. Remember, wikipedia is a place to report on things that are already notable, not a place to promote things or try to gain notability. Improbcat 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sitdown248 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not sure if there are secondary sources so I probably should wait, but how long does it usually take for Wikipedia to pick these types of things up? I mean it's spreading like wildfire across the Internet and I'm surprised it's not up here, that's why I created the article.

Fans against Floyd
Hi there, can you please keep this silly and juvenile campaign away from Wikipedia please. Many Thanks. Nick 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your user page
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please see the userpage guidelines at WP:NOT and WP:UP. The current content of your user page goes against our user page guidelines, and the reason why can be summarised by this excerpt from the User page guidelines:
 * Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage as Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site.

You are still very welcome to both contribute userfully to Wikipedia and add content to your userpage providing it with our guidelines and common sense. Please remove the current text on User:Sitdown248 or it may be removed for you. Thank you. Una LagunaTalk 06:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sit down? Your starting to sound a lot like my teacher! :D--Angel David 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking...
...your talk page does not negate your warnings concerning the content of your user page; you do realise that don't you? Geoff Riley 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Negating
I don't need to negate something that I never did wrong. He blanked mine, so I blanked his, don't touch mine and I won't touch his, I WILL NOT APOLIGIZE FOR DEFENDING MYSELF F.A.F. President sitdown248 20:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not accusing you, just ensuring that you realise that the warning concerning the content of your user page is still in effect. Rather than blanking the retort I would suggest restoring the original page. Geoff Riley 20:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? It was for blanking somebody else's page, not the content on my page, from my info, a user page can include any info the user wants, and that's what I want in it, that's what I stand for F.A.F. President sitdown248 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The blanking of a warning that I'm referring to is your removal of the following from your talk page Geoff Riley 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting
So, rather than discuss what I was on about, you choose to blank your talk page again? Geoff Riley 22:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User-page blanking
I have painstakingly gone through an reverted all page-blankings you have made. Please do not delete content as you have, as this is considered vandalism. If you wish to archive sections of your talk page, see WP:ARCHIVE. Please do not revert content again as this wastes my time and removes other constructive edits. Thank you. Una LagunaTalk 06:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)