User talk:Stargatedalek

Welcome!
Hello, Stargatedalek, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Canadian Invisible Shell-wearing Coconut Crab, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Blythwood (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Stargatedalek (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the tips! I'm still having some difficulty getting used to this code system but it's interesting to finally have an account.

Sorry about some of my articles being bad, I've really not had much experience with such things.

Speedy deletion nomination of Canadian Invisible Shell-wearing Coconut Crab


A tag has been placed on Canadian Invisible Shell-wearing Coconut Crab requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Blythwood (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. Blythwood (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Awesomebro


The article Awesomebro has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Adam9007 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Awesomebro for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Awesomebro 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/Awesomebro 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Adam9007 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. —S MALL JIM   23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Stargatedalek (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC) I fail to see how the article is inappropriate. Unneeded perhaps, but I added sources to validate the terms usage. If you want to see evidence of productive edits I've made (if it's possible) feel free to check edits made from my IP before making an account, I've edited a number of articles anonymously in the past.

If it's the nature as a term that makes it undesired can I have the content itself sent to me so as I can port it to Wiktionary? I didn't know it existed until now but it seems like the better place for it.
 * If you want to create articles here, you could work through the Article Wizard. Or if you prefer to ask friendly editors for help, try the Teahouse. —S MALL  JIM   23:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for the links,I will be more careful in the future. I'm still curious if you have the article archived or such and I could have it to put it on Wiktionary where terminologies belong, but if you don't I understand. Stargatedalek (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would pass Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. You could ask them over there, perhaps at Wiktionary:Information desk. —S MALL  JIM   00:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Stargatedalek (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC) I don't understand why it wouldn't? The article itself which is just a stub was not great and was not formatted for their system, but the term is widely in use among paleoartists and enthusiasts. I didn't create the word by any means.