User talk:Zinco100

BITE
You are a perfect example of a user who bites newcomers. You did not avoid intensifiers in commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinco100 (talk • contribs)
 * Who are you to tell Kinu about WP:BITE? You register an account and vote on something, make a personal attack on my user page, nominate for deletion an article simply because it is created by someone who votes differently to you on an issue, then scold someone for not following a policy which you most likely are only aware of since I pointed it out for you. Kinu is not biting the newcomers - newcomers make mistakes, not blatant violations of policy, and they certainly don't make personal attacks. Editing a template and breaking it when it is used on thousands of pages is a mistake, retaliating against those who disagree with you is not. There is no question of WP:BITE here in my opinion, because I do not feel you fall under the definition of 'newcomer' (as adopted by WP:BITE) anymore. --Draicone (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please add four tilde's ( ~ ) to the end of your comments, it shows people who has contributed what to a discussion and helps clarify. You can quickly do it by clicking the signature button in the toolbar. (That's WP:BITE.) --Draicone (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to your comment / No personal attacks
As I have seen what you posted on my talkpage and those of others, I would like to strongly recommend that you please take a look at Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Calling someone "gutless" or telling them that they don't know what they're talking about (which you are inferring from a single, obvious vote in an AfD discussion) both qualify as personal attacks. I am not attempting to bite you- everyone was once a newcomer- but it may be beneficial to change the way you talk to people and reach to others' opinions.

As far as what you specifically wrote to me, I have a few quick points. First of all, it's quite obvious Waltham exists- it's a town that, in 2000, had a population of 59,226. This is larger than the population of Caledon, Ontario, which was 50,595 in 2000. The SGHA article does not claim to service the entirety of the Toronto area and its millions of people, but rather an average-sized town nearby. Just as I did for the SGHA, I would vote to delete an article about an organization in Waltham (which, by the way, is within 10 miles of Boston) that had no notability and no Google presence whatsoever. Finally, as I referenced above, I (and most others) would prefer that you not say things such as "Please refrain from posting on any Canadian content." It is unfair to anyone to be judged based on a single action, much less one such as making a simple statement in a discussion whose entire purpose is to gauge user reaction to a certain article. It is my right to voice my opinion; it is your right to voice your opinion; it is not your right to accuse others of bias, be overly argumentative with people whom merely have a different view and are not against you, or tell me what I can and cannot do on Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Draicone
Stick to editing what you know about, not what you pretend to know about. You and Kinu cannot play god in the world of wikipedia. I refuse to be BITTEN. Eventhough I am greatly discouraged to continue to be an active member/contributor of Wikipedia due to your irreconcilability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinco100 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry, but AfD is simply for reviewing if an article should or should not be on Wikipedia. If you feel it is notable enough, then say so. If consensus goes your way, the article will not be deleted. Thats how it works. I apologise if you feel your article is being wrongly deleted, but if you do, make it clear! AfD is, as I have told you before, a request for input and not a poll. Myself and Kinu are not attempting to play god. Wikipedia is the way it is, personal attacks are not tolerated. And why should I stick to editing what I know about? Wikipedia would not be anywhere near where it is today if people had not done basic research on a topic, expanded an article here and there, put simply, added content. This is exactly why Wikipedia doesn't guarantee the validity of any of the information on the site.


 * I am not pretending to know about anything that I do not. I am simply voicing my opinion on an AfD using my knowledge of policy - and I would certainly hope I am aware of policy to a reasonable extent. If you dispute this, feel free to tell me so, but not in the form of a personal attack.


 * I am not trying to bite you, per WP:BITE, I am merely stating policy to you. By launching personal attacks on good Wikipedia editors who simply use information available to them and considered valid, I erred away from WP:BITE and took a more frank approach to informing you of policy. I suggest you see WP:NOT. In addition, you haven't yet proved any of your statements. Per WP:VERIFY, Wikipedia is for verifiable material, whether or not that material is true. If there are no Google hits for the article, it suggest to us that the article is not notable enough; most things important end up on the web in the end and Wikipedia has to take a realistic approach to quality control.


 * I would have happily talked it over with you had you not launched personal attacks on everyone who disagreed with you, and would certainly make allowances if your first ever edit had not been a personal attack on my talk page. Per WP:NPA, personal attacks are totally unacceptable. Your actions on my talk page, that of Kinu's and Kicking222's all count as personal attacks. These can lead to editing blocks, and blatant violators of policy have always been treated differently to newcomers making mistakes - for example, blatant vandals who do nothing else on WIkipedia are not the sort of people I treat with WP:BITE.


 * I sincerely apologise if you weren't aware of any of these; after all, I hadn't heard about WP:ATTACK till a week or so after joining (although I certainly didn't make any personal attacks in that time). But you have been informed, and your actions from now on will certainly be taken into account if I have to go to ArbCom with this (as will anything listed at Special:Contributions/Zinco100, for that matter). --Draicone (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(above copied from my talk page) In addition, "Stick to editing what you know about, not what you pretend to know about" - please do not make comments like this. I am perfectly aware of AfD policy and will act accordingly. I am aware of WP:VERIFY, notability policies and the rest. So where is the question of what I 'know about'? --Draicone (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)