User talk:Superbeecat/archive/2007/September

September 2007
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Jmlk 1  7  09:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Lawrence Page edits
I don't think that the Chris Lawrence page needed to be fixed because i personally have the same thoughts. I can only hope that I could do those things - don't you? I think it was good for someone who does the same thing as me to write that cause it makes me happy (Im a guy who loves that certain guy that the page is all about). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.213.110 (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

''huh? - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 01:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullets
I know better... But, it seems that some editors scurried in and made articles because of the existence of a photo before. I was hoping the same thing would happen with those particular cartridge pages. I may go back and write stub articles for those titles later today. Guess I can't be lazy, huh? TeamZissou 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What?
Huh? :) Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh it was a snarky cross-revert. I was trying to revert to a version with the SD tag intact, while you added it (and beat me) which made it revert to the bad version, and hilarity ensued :) Cheers!! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The seven spirits of god
I didn't notice the spam links at the bottom of the page my first time through: this should really be ed, IMO  --Rrburke(talk) 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't consider the article itself to be blatant advertising to the point of db-spam, as the product wasn't anywhere in the article. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quasi-Realist
An article that you have been involved in editing, Quasi-Realist, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. SCOCSOOCSOSC 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Quasi-Realist is an acual term...it is not too well known but it does exist and has been used by certain specialists (expert critics...noted reviews) on the net and in the media to describe certain slasher movies that are deemed believeable and not seen as surreal made up nonsense. Please don't let this be removed...it is freeing up the slasher film section and is category that overlaps into other genres of films --SCOCSOOCSOSC 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I nominated for deletion because a cursory look showed no use substantial enough to meet WP:N and I stand by that. If you feel that this meets wiki's guidelines, then establish notability in the deletion discussion, or recreate it when you can. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

/* Reply to deletion */ sources have been noted on examination of descriptions taken from non bogus websites and magazine/book articles
My sources on Quasi-Realist & Backwoods Slasher came from magzines such as Empire booklets on Horror a book by clive barker about the various sections on horror, a profile on fictional psychos and numerous other entertainment books featuring on the subject of these specfic motion pictures, a fair parcentage aimed at film students. Websites who delve into deep exminations on specfic horror films such as HysteriaLives, Terror Trap, badmovieplanet, diabolical dominon, slasherpool and numerous crtical anylasises at internet movie database to name but a few. All of which have shown that both articles need to be taken into account as they have enough resonable information as too make them feesable subjects that would have some certain uses for those who log on to this site. Besides have some bases on specfic factural matterial that i have gained from writeups featured throughout the web and book industry. There are also vast and crew on set interviews who have state what sort of particular motion pictures these are that they are working on and they have been deemed these titles to avoid confusion and seperate what their work from other formats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can't even read this paragraph. I don't think any of it properly addresses WP:N. Further, my talk page isn't the place for it, rather, the discussion page for the article, and the Afd are. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Mhking 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the speedy template from that page? Did I miss something in adding it in the first place? --Mhking 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh sorry, my bad. Was trying to undo what I thought was vandalism. Forgive me :) - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Are you interested in running at some point in the future? --Dweller 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, at some point I'd enjoy that - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 09:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you installed WP:TWINKLE (NB It doesn't like IE very much, in my experience) --Dweller 09:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I use Twinkle (and firefox, of course) :) - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 09:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll need a bit more time and some decent editing around the different bits of the Project to maximise your chances at RfA one day. I suggest as a first step toward adminship that you contribute to a couple of XfD discussions every day, ensuring yours is the first response in the debate, to prove to yourself and others that you really understand our deletion criteria. Oh, and don't ever be afraid to change your mind or admit you were wrong. Stay in touch. You're a good prospect. --Dweller 10:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the excellent advice, and will take it to heart. I've spent a lot of time countering various types of vandalism, as it was interfering with my enjoyment of wikipedia before I was a registered member. I'll get more involved on the editing side of things and XfD. Cheers! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 10:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "vandalism" reverts on my talk page
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. QQ MORE NOOB 09:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are obviously a vandal-only account, as evidenced by your nonsense article uploading, and revert warring the speedy delete template which is obviously appropriate. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the template is not appropriate, it doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD. Nominate it for deletion instead. QQ MORE NOOB 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was absolutely appropriate, which is precisely why is was nominated by multiple editors and then summarily deleted. Moreover, if you have a problem with a Speedy request, by all means, don't remove speedy templates from articles you have authored. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat  09:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note that this user was permanently blocked) - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Brynmawr Comprehensive School
Why have u tagged brynmawr comprehensive school What was wrong with it ???
 * Because Brynmawr Comprehensive School was an obvious attack page in the form you posted it. Please stop. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What was wrongh with what I wrote ??
 * It was an obvious attack page. Please keep your opinions out of wikipedia. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(note this user was vandalblocked)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! :) - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Please stop. Disambiguation pages do not get speedy deleted for lack of context, which these have. --NE2 00:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Total mistake on my part! SORRY!!! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You should probably look up "context" in the dictionary; thank you. --NE2 00:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy killer, I was monitoring new pages and missed that it was a disamb page. Be civil, I said it was a mistake. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 00:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm giving you advice. That page had context, stating it was about state routes in the U.S. state of Alabama. "No context" is something like "my dad built Alabama State Route 43". --NE2 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "there is no route 43", if it wasn't a disamb page, would CLEARLY be without context, and speediable under that criteria. In any case, it was a mistake, I don't need a dictionary, and I'm going to continue newpage monitoring (being more careful) and you should continue your excellent work on the wiki roads project. This discussion is hereby closed for being absolutely silly. Cheers! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

stupid deletion page wont' work
I've tried to add History of Smoking per the instructions on WP:AFD, but the reason I provided for deletion is showing while the title of the section is not. I'm making your entry confusing. Help? Buzzmeow. TeamZissou 10:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. I've tried all the instructions over again.  Help! TeamZissou 10:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okie, gimmie a sec and I'll try and fix 'er up. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 10:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it got snarked up, it just wouldn't go, so I redid the AfD on your behalf, pasting your rationale. Feel free to edit the AfD and remove my signature and parenthasis saying that I'm adding it for you, and replace your own sig (four tildes). Whew. Meowbuzz! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 10:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, why is there a warning tag on my talk page? I didn't create the page...so...does it go over on User:Naacats page? Thanks for getting it to work, though. TeamZissou 10:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh that was my script placing it because of the way I deleted the AfD. It's actually a warning not about the article, but the AfD page. I'll zap the warning. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being one of the best Wikipedians I've worked with...er...has fixed something I messed up. Cheers to you.

TeamZissou 11:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bemanistyle
I am getting seriously fed up with deleting this, so have sent it to AfD to get a clear consensus to delete & salt it. The user who keeps reposting it has ignored so many whacks with the cluestick, I think that's the only way it'll sink in. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you, AfD will allow salt. Cheers! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

mathematical quilts
Nominating mathematical quilts for speedy deletion was definitely not one of the better edits I've seen. If an article is clumsily written, that's a reason to improve it, not to delete it. It certainly wasn't lacking in sufficient context---everybody knows what a quilt is. Michael Hardy 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article as it was uploaded lacked context, and I stand by my speedy nom, and the prod that came after by another editor. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've looked again. It was poorly written but it certainly did not lack context. Michael Hardy 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree; it was not merely written poorly, it was practically unintelligible, and I recognized no meaningful context. In any case, it's a totally moot point, and not worth arguing about. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD G4
Hi. Please be aware that CSD criterion G4 only applies to articles that were deleted following an articles for deletion discussion. Previously speedily deleted or prodded articles cannot be speedily deleted under G4, although the original deletion reason usually applies. In the case of PumpTop TV, the recreated article was also a copyright violation and I have deleted it for that reason. Natalie 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's strange. I have one idea for why that might be - an article that was speedied once and is an exact repost will, of course, be eligible for speedy deletion for the original reason. So PumpTop TV was a copyright violation the first time it was deleted and also happened to be a copyright violation the second time, so it could be deleted again. If the second recreation was not a copyvio, though, than it wouldn't have been speediable under the original reason or under G4. Articles that were prodded, on the other hand, aren't eligible for speedy, so there's no original speedy reason by which the article could be deleted a second time, and they can't be deleted as G4. The idea, as I understand it, is that prods are for deletions that won't be contested. So someone's recreation of the article is, in essence, contesting the prod.
 * If I'm right, then the template may need to be reworded, because it gives the impression that some articles that were previously deleted are eligible to be deleted under G4, rather than the original deletion reason. I may bring this up at the CSD talk page. And if the template does mean that some speedies qualify as G4, then the two things are in conflict and that should be rectified. Natalie 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad you see my point :) I'll follow the discussion and see if the template gets changed. Thanks for the elaboration, cheers! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)