User talk:Yet-another-user

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
Thanks for removing the vandalism at Internet! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

national nine
I hope I put the right text on the article on national nine.Yet-another-user 09:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Late night thoughts
As I sit here going through the spam, garbage and nonsense articles, that I'm tagging for speedy deletes, it's delightful seeing your additons on 'future history' films. -- Armadillo From Hell 05:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify lest anyone is confused - it means I like these articles and want more like them -- Armadillo From Hell 05:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Technicolor for Industrial Films
It is notable because it's a ephemeral film about ephemeral films.


 * That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Ephemera ABOUT ephemera is notable? Buh? --Calton | Talk 02:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * there are very few film ephemeral films about ephemeral films, less than 5 i heard.
 * If those are ephemeral, how could you possibly know this? --Calton | Talk 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now your not making any sense. It's easy to see ephemeral films form the 30's, 40's and 50's. just go to archive.org and you can watch 1000's of them. few are notable, but Technicolor for Industrial Films is a important film to the history of color filming. Im wondering if you even know what a ephemeral film is.58.105.40.50 05:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Yet-another-user 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's repeat that, with the relevant portions highlighted: there are very few film ephemeral films about ephemeral films, less than 5 i heard
 * So, how could you possibly know this? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

False arguments
"Other drivers are speeding, too!" wouldn't work as an a argument to a state trooper writing you a speeding ticket, and the same sort of argument won't work here, either. The existence of crappy articles doesn't give a pass to other crappy articles: the argument's been tried hundreds, probably thousands, of times and it inevitably fails to convince a single editor. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this discussion be better held in Talk:Technicolor for Industrial Films ?

I think it's a notable link to a movie of interest - showing the increasing use of color. In 1950, TV was only starting and in black and white, when you went to the movies, only the feature film might be in color, and often in B+W. The 'B' movie would be in black and white as would news footage and any advertising. -- Armadillo From Hell 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, original research. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

''I never said these articles are crappy, in fact, some are very good. Im just saying if wikipedia can have articles on these subjects, why can't my articles exist''


 * Now you're making even less sense. Because some utterly random list of articles exist, your articles should too? Unless you're trying out the Chewbacca Defense, there ought to be something resembling a logical connection somewhere. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * i did NOT say that. i was trying to say that wikipedia is NOT paper, and can have articles on many things, even small things. and i did NOT say those articles are random.Yet-another-user 05:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not paper, and wikipedia can have article on even the smallest notable things.


 * Note your use of the word "notable". Oops, bit of a snag there. Note also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note also that articles must be verifiable -- if you're going to claim that these are in the slightest bit notable, you're going to need proof from reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * i never said wikipedia is a collection of indiscriminate infomation.Yet-another-user 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont you just hate it........
.....when you make edits or comments while your logged out, and you dont know your logged out!Yet-another-user 05:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Technicolor for Industrial Films
I have added a "" template to the article Technicolor for Industrial Films, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Alvestrand 06:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)