User talk:Zingostar/Archive 3

User talk:Matrix17/Archive 3]] User talk:Matrix17/Archive 3 - == Footnotes == + ==Personal vendettas== - + Regarding this edit, have you considered the possibility that actors whose only noteworthy performance was in a reality show, and who have not gotten any significant critical attention from that performance, really are not notable according to the Wikipedia criteria? It is another theory which would explain the speedy deletion tags on these articles as well as the idea that there is a vendetta against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC) - As you are well aware by now the common use of references for certain claims in articles is by enclosing them with -elements to make footnotes. Please do take the time and make use of them, because it makes it much simpler to find out what part of a lengthy article that uses that particular source as claim for verifiability (and vice versa), as opposed to just adding a link to the end of the article. Read more on Footnotes. --Strangnet 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) + :please stop playing one night in hackneys game. im not interested. but i know you are a good editor so just let it go.--Zingostar 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) - + ::He doesnt even have a reason for acting this way so why should i care:)--Zingostar 16:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)  -    - ==Speedy deletion of Tanya Gingerich==   -  A tag has been placed on Tanya Gingerich requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. -   - If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding   to the top of the article (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) -   - ==Melissa Hanson== -   - A tag has been placed on Melissa Hanson 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. One Night In Hackney 303  14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC) - :a bad faith nomination--Zingostar 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) - ::I agree that this article was a speedy deletion candidate; it didn't make it clear that the person is notable, and the only source was imdb, which, as a site (like Wikipedia) composed of user-generated content, is specifically not considered a reliable source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Signing comments
Just because your buttons have gone doesn't mean you can't sign your comments. Here's how to do it using the keyboard:
 * 1) If you look at your keyboard, you should find a key with a symbol like this on it: ~ If you can't find a key like that, just copy the symbol from here.
 * 2) When you're editing, just type (or paste) the symbol in four times: ~
 * 3) There's your signature!

Again, I would also advise you to look at Editing help. This shows you how to type the text replacements for the buttons.

All the best. Καροτ Μαν  15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Julia Olteanu 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. Saber Excalibur! 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Julia Olteanu
An article that you have been involved in editing, Julia Olteanu, 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. Saber Excalibur! 07:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Hi! I noticed that you've been participating in the deletion discussions at WP:AFD. Thanks; we can always use the help. Since AfD isn't a vote but a discussion, your recent contributions haven't been as helpful as you might hope; in addition to a 'keep' or 'delete,' some information about why the article under discussion meets or doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards is needed. You might find this essay to be an interesting source of advice about how to make your AfD contributions most helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * hmm i dont totally agree with you because why have a vote when the vote doesnt count. a vote should count in when a page is either deleted or the opposite. --Zingostar 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't really a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. Regardless of what you may think it should be, AfD is not a vote, and doesn't function as one; administrators reading the discussion to determine consensus just disregard any comments that don't include reasons that are based in Wikipedia policy.  You are welcome to continue participating in the way you are, but it is not a useful way to spend your time, since your contributions won't be used to determine whether an article should be deleted or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ok. maybe you are right maybe you are wrong.we all have our own opinions.--Zingostar 10:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Meral tasbas
A tag has been placed on Meral tasbas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Smalljim 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Lissette Diaz
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Lissette Diaz, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Lissette Diaz seems 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. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Lissette Diaz, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: help
How very odd. I can't see what might have caused it, but hopefully it's only temporary. You could try mentioning it at the technical help desk if it's been going on for a while. Just because you've lost your buttons doesn't mean you can't edit, though. You'll just have to do it manually. Editing help is a good place to start for basic wiki code and how to create it. If you need any more help, don't hesitate to ask. Καροτ Μαν  14:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well since my buttons doesnt work i cant sign the messages.Zingostar 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Beth Sullivan

 * Sorry about the speedy-delete notice. I clicked on the wrong button. The article does need expansion, though. Realkyhick 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah i agree. You could help with the Michaela Quinn article if you have any time.--Zingostar 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Yes, that needs work. I'll do what I can. My mom was a big fan of the show (especially Scully :-) ). Realkyhick 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah my mom to.;) If you find any picture of michaela it would be nice. But have a nice evening:)--Zingostar 17:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Beth Sullivan
A tag has been placed on Beth Sullivan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Realkyhick 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Matrix17 → Zingostar

 * Current name:
 * Requested name: ( [ rename user ])
 * Reason: Just feel like changing to a new and good name.


 * The request needs to be listed on the changing username page to be processed. Also, there's quite a good chance that it'll be failed. Still, there's no harm in trying. Carrot  Man  10:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I say your request would be failed? It just goes to show that you don't have to be a prophet to be a Wikipedian. :-] Well, I guess I'll have to get used to calling you Zingostar! Something else I think I ought just to mention is edit summaries. It may seem tedious, but a quick and informative summary can be a great help for other users wanting to expand on your contributions. Sometimes, it can be the only at-a-glance distinction between improvements and vandalism. For example: A user sees something incorrect in an article and deletes it, but neglects to put an edit summary. Later, a vandal-busting user sees the change and reverts it, not knowing why it was done. You see what I mean. Carrot  Man  19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yes you are totally right:) i will do that. Yeah wikipedia works in mysterious ways:)--Zingostar 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When I said '[an] informative summary', 'small' and 'minor' weren't quite what I had in mind. Users can work out if an edit is minor by looking for an 'm' next to the summary, so the summary itself should really be something along the lines of 'Spelling correction(s)' or 'Added link(s)'. To see what I mean, have a look at my edit summaries. If you find yourself forgetting to put in an edit summary, go to Preferences and click on the 'Editing' tab. Tick the box (near the bottom of the page) labelled 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary' and hit save. You'll now get a little warning message if you haven't entered a summary. N.B. This feature tends to miss automatic edit summaries (e.g. reversions), so just ignore it if there's obviously a summary there.


 * Hope this helps. Carrot  Man  09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Year linking
As per my previous request, please do not link years where it does not add context, as you did here. Thanks, Rich257 08:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bite the IPs
It doesn't matter if they don't have a userpage and it is a bit bite-y to suggest that it does. In that example it would have been better to leave a polite message that you have reverted their change because the removed a chunk of cited text (though I have to say, I tend to agree with the IP that that particular text is a bit off topic in the Scooch article unless it is being used to suggest that is the reason Scooch performed poorly, in which case it should be more clearly worded). In this case it would have been preferable to tell the IP that you reverted them and to please provide a source on the talkpage if they feel the information in the article is not correct.--Isotope23 14:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To expand on the above, just remember that not all I.P.s are necessarily intent on vandalism. If they want to make a one-off change then they're welcome to, although obviously we would much prefer them to stay and do more. The guideline on how to treat possible vandalism can be found here. Also, keep in mind Hanlon's razor:

"Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice."


 * Carrot Man  06:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha, surprisingly enough I'd never seen Hanlon's... don't know how I missed that all these years.--Isotope23 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone there?
Hi Zingo,

You've been away a long time, is there any reason for this? If you feel worried or intimidated in any way, please don't. We're a nice lot really, once you know how we operate. Even if you don't intend on staying, a little note would be nice. :-)

Thanks, Καροτ  Μαν  (aka. CarrotMan) 09:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cissi Ramsby
A template has been added to the article Cissi Ramsby, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. &mdash; madman bum and angel 02:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked on Swedish Wikipedia
Hi! I'm just popping in to say that you are now unblocked on Swedish Wikipedia. See sv:Användardiskussion:Matrix17. Welcome back! --  Wasell ( T ) 12:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Repost of Category:Rape victims
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Rape victims, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Rape victims was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Rape victims, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Adoption offer
Hello, ! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia! Carrot Man  07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indicate here if you accept Matrix17 and I'll unblock you.--Isotope23 13:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept the offer:)--Matrix17 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked you per the agreement. If I can offer a bit of unsolicited advice Matrix17, take it slow.  If you come stomping out the gate there is at least a chance you will be reblocked quickly, so try and take it easy for a bit, OK?  Good luck, --Isotope23 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeepp, and i hope that goes the other way around to towards the admins being alittlebit to blocking happy. but now im satisfyed with my unblocking and i guess we can leave it at that.--Matrix17 20:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will work on only allready existing pages for a while so i will not give the blockers any reason to do it.--Matrix17 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to hear it! I'm looking forward to passing on a piece of my Wikipedia wisdom. :-] Carrot  Man  19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hehe thanks:)--Matrix17 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:hi
Hi,

Yes, blocking can be harsh, but it's the admins' job. So long as you stick to the rules, you'll probably be fine. As for the new username, that's a toughie, but try Changing username for some help.

Carrot Man  20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi yes but in my opinion this latest block was just not right but anyway if all stick to some sort of rule i think it will be OK in the end. I would appreciate if you looked out for any inappropriate blockings towards me in the future as look as im you adopted user.thanks;)--Matrix17 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Year linking
Unless there is a good reason, please do not link lone years in articles. As per manual of style for dates links for years should not be added unless they are useful links. Thanks, Rich257 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * sure--Matrix17 20:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So please stop doing it. Rich257 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Imdb template
You might also like to look at the template for IMDB linking: imdb, Rich257 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more suggestion
It would be to your benefit to learn the formatting for adding references directly to line items in articles so that is clear that statements you add are referenced if/when someone questions them. It will save you a lot of grief trying to justify your edits. I'm sure CarrotMan can help you with that.--Isotope23 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
Immediately upon expiry of your prior block for harassment and repeated recreation of non-notable bios, you appear to have resumed your creation of non-notable biographies (or at least, have been creating articles which do not assert notability). As it appears you have no intention of changing the behaviour which lead to your prior block, I have blocked you again. --Yamla 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
I have unblocked this account because the biography did turn out to be notable - it survived the nomination for deletion. In light of past problems coming from this account I strongly caution you to be careful about notability and sourcing future contributions. The Adopt-a-user program can help you meet site standards and restore the editorial community's confidence in your abilities so that you don't get blocked again in the future. Durova Charge! 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've requested that if someone does adopt you Matrix that they contact Durova or myself so your account can be unblocked.--Isotope23 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I will hopefully get a adopter soon.--Matrix17 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And hopefully the one usernaedit recommended and wrote to.--Matrix17 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminder of headings
If you use headings in articles you need to use the form ==Text== or if it's a sub-heading ===Text 2===. There's a shortcut button above the edit field if you're unsure. If you look at the Manual of Style that's linked at the top of your discussion page you'll find more tips on how to edit. --Strangnet 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
You might like to look at using this bot to automate the archiving of your talk page: User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto.

Are you intending to archive the comments you have removed? Rich257 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Erica Johansson
I looked all over the place to find something that would suggest that Erica Johansson lives in Växjö. All I found was this article in Aftonbladet from March 13 2007 that says she lives in Lindome, Göteborg, which makes sense since she trains youths in Mölndals AIK according to her web page. Could it be Camilla Johansson you're thinking of? Camilla is a native and resident of Växjö, competing in triple jump (and sometimes long jump) for IFK Växjö. The former speaks with a Gothenburgian dialect while the latter speaks traditionally smålandish. --Strangnet 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Headings again
Please re-read the earlier message on formatting headings, and please do this in articles. Rich257 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow down
Before you start accusing me of putting speedy tags on everything, i suggest you take a good look at the comments which are on my talk page. You'll see that it is mostly frustrated vandals, who want to yell at me. So, please slow down a little, before you charge me with such things. Now, as far as your article goes, a single line does not make an article. If possible, try to add at least some reference, that way people like me won't be tempted to take a shot at it? As such, nothing personal. Andante1980 12:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did check the articles, and now there are references. So, I'm not putting the speedy tags back. (Otherwise, I probably would have fired a subst:uw-speedy1 . ;-) ) Oh, and from now I'll let you know if any of your articles appear unreferenced. Andante1980 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Hatch68 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The news report of the murder checks out but claims of cannabilism and a barbecue for a friend's wedding are not substantiated. I have removed the speedy deletion tag but the article needs more information. Regards LittleOldMe 15:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did check the facts by reading the article you referenced. You made extremely false claims in the initial article, and they're still there in the history for anyone to see.  No where in the article is cannibalism mentioned, and the subject had not been "prosecuted" nor is a sentence pending.  Making false statements about someone is a personal attack, plain and simple.  Hatch68 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Null" edits
Hello Matrix17. Just wanted to let you know that it is not necessary whatsoever to go through articles simply removing blank lines as you did here and here. Such "null" edits simply clutter the article's history and needlessly tax server resources. Thanks and have a good one. -- Satori Son 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Steps for AfD
If you are going to keep on nominating articles for deletion, could you please at least follow the guide for AfD. Thanks. --Strangnet 14:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Bad Faith AfD nominations
They aren't funny. Please stop. Otherwise, I will notify the admins that you are purposefully vandalizing articles. --Mhking 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are continuing to violate WP:POINT. I take it this is some form of amusement for you? --Mhking 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, it appears that you are purposefully violating the articles in question. --Mhking 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously not only my opinion; all three of your AfDs have been speedily kept and closed. Thanks for sharing. --Mhking 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're the one who needs to cool it. Are you finished with this stretch of vandalism? --Mhking 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not just me. But you won't see that. Just stop. Please. --Mhking 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You should know that "Abuse of tags" is considered a form of vandalism. Nominating things for deletion which are obviously encyclopedic and notable is just a waste of your time, and other people's time. Trying to pretend that "that's your opinion, I have my opinion" is a lame excuse. Stop it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not archive ongoing discussions
You know better than to archive ongoing discussions on your talk page. Discuss the criticism instead of ignoring it. --Strangnet 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yamla sorry that you feel that way. Must be hard to be so bitter.--Matrix17 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also reviewed the unblock request, decline the request, and endorse the block. Newyorkbrad 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about what i did this is personal against me. and that was all i needed to know, thanks*--Matrix17 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal about you? I never heard of you before half an hour ago. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the block, though I only ever heard of Matrix17 today. It's amazing how personally you are taking all of this.  Must be hard to be so bitter. --Jaysweet 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
Take the 48 hours to cool down and read the links in the welcome banner at the top of your talkpage. The AfD's you started were for people who are clearly notable by the guidelines that the Wikipedia community has agreed upon for biographical articles. It might also be a good time to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I'd also suggest that you refrain from being so combative with other editors. Just because you don't agree with them isn't an excuse for incivility. Stuff like that will just end up leading to a longer, or subsequent block. I doubt this block is personal against you. Your actions warranted it; that is why it was done.--Isotope23 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your advice should not only be pointedto me but to all the others. i would be combatative if it wasnt for all the treathfull messages i recieve. thanks again and how can someone say that I didnt do it in good faith? thats personal anyway you see it. but no need to be discussed everyone here are very personal in their messages anyway..--Matrix17 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also seen what you have written about me Isotope to the one blocking me. Wasnt it you and strangnet how told people not to backstabb each other and that it is not good to write about others behind their backs. well your advices isnt anything you usually follows yourselfs here i can see. or as we say in sweden "kasta inte sten i glashus"--Matrix17 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I wrote was a matter of public record Matrix, I'm well aware that you can see it; the fact that anyone (yourself included) can view my edit history and see what I said doesn't really make it "behind your back" as you've put it (and if you have a diff where I told anyone not to "backstab", I'd love to see it). I stand by what I said there; it was a good block and one of the things that has frustrated many of the editors who have crossed paths with you is your complete unwillingness to try to follow even the simplest of style guidelines here.  When informed or reminded about them, you tend to react defensively and start accusing everyone of having something against you.  I'm not trying to be mean to you Matrix, but your attitude and unwillingness to follow the accepted guidelines here after you've been contributing here long enough to know them probably doesn't endear you to many other editors.  You are under no obligation to follow my advice, but the point is that if you continue to edit the way you have been editing up to this point you will likely find yourself having the same problems you've had up until now with other editors.  The fact that so many editors have taken the time to suggest that you follow certain style guidelines really should tell you something.  I strongly suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with the manual of style, policies, and guidelines here.  It may take some time to do so, but you will likely have less friction with other editors mercilessly editing your work and will generally be a greater asset to the Wikipedia community.--Isotope23 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok by that message you have proven that you actually HAVE been backstabbing me, thanks.--Matrix17 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not that important. kthx. JuJube 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Isoptope23 was very courteous and respectful towards you in his comment above, and instead of accepting his pointers and suggestions you answered back in much the same way as what got you into this situation in the first place. I think you could benefit from these few days of Wikipedia rest and check out the links at the top of this page, that we've frequently mentioned to you, and have a look around how others make use of Wikipedia and how they interact with each other. You have to understand that it has been frustrating for many of us who have tried to point you in the right direction, to only get comments like the ones you've left above back as answers, or just seeing our comments here archived without further action. At some point it becomes perceived that what you do is just for spite, which you have a great opportunity to prove is not the case when you return. --Strangnet 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A Word of Encouragement
Matrix17, I am sorry that you seem to be having a difficult time on Wikipedia. From my own brief review of your edit history, it would seem that perhaps your "Wikipedia Experience" started out on the wrong foot. It appears that several articles you wrote early on were nominated for deletion and that you received, what you may have considered, a lot of criticism in your early days as an editor. Although I've never had an article I wrote deleted, I can imagine that it must be a confusing and upsetting experience, particularly for a new user - and especially if you have any sort of personal connection to the article's subject matter. You need to understand that "notability" decisions really aren't personal. Reviewing your talk page history, I can understand how a new editor might feel a little "picked on" or "attacked". To my mind, you may have been a victim of WP:BITE. Unfortunately, it seems that your response has been to Bite Back! LOL!!! That really isn't the answer.

It seems to me that Isotope23, Strangnet and others really are only trying to help you. It may be difficult to see that when some editors are chiming in with unneccessary caddy remarks. There is a lot to learn on Wikipedia and it can take a new user quite a few months to get a handle on it all. Maybe you need to slow down a little bit and take the time to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedians are encouraged to "be bold" - but I'm not sure that's always the best advice for newer users! LOL! If someone offers you "policy related" advice on your talk page it would probably save you a lot of headaches if, moving forward, you acknowlege and respond positively to their advice. Rather than thinking of it as "criticism" - try to look at it as well intentioned "helpful advice".

I sincerely hope that you will take Strangnet up on his/her suggestion and try to turn this whole thing around when you return. You've made many valuable edits, and you certainly have the potential to become a valuable member of the community. There are a lot of nice people here, who I'm sure you'll enjoy working with. It's up to you! If you ever need any help or advice, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. Keep your chin up! Best Wishes! Cleo123 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A note to other Wikipedians, this relatively new editor appears to have received nothing but "criticism". When dealing with new users it might be advisable for all of us to offer some encouragement, as well. Reviewing his/her talk page, I'm really not surprised that this relationship has gone so far south. This is an important example of why WP:BITE should be a top priority when dealing with newbies. Cleo123 09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't like Matrix17 haven't had his/her fair chances to follow the tips and guidelines proposed by others. Matrix has on several occasions acknowledged them and thanked for the tips and pointers, but nothing happened from there on. That is one of the things that has been frustrating to a degree but mostly time consuming for the rest of us who've been fixing the formatting and asking for sourced statements etc.
 * A similar behavior where Matrix didn't want to (or understand) the guidelines on the Swedish Wikipedia saw lash outs against administrators there and have rendered in multiple blocks from editing (the last one a month long now).
 * Given this, it can only get better from here, can't it? --Strangnet 10:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll admit to biting, but only after being jumped on to begin with. It felt more like crossing the "don't feed" line, if anything. But that being said, I'll humbly apologize to Matrix17 and extend a hand of welcome when he returns, provided he is ready and willing to work together to make things better. --Mhking 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Irony
It is ironic that above you defend your nomination of Paris Hilton, yet you removed notability tags I added to the articles of beauty queens of third world countries. Those tags were meant to express concern that those subjects do not meet the notability guidelines, but they carry no administrative consequences. Would you prefer to see AfD templates on those articles? - Crockspot 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Adding sprotect to an article doesn't protect it. Only admins can protect. You can request protection at WP:RFPP. --Geniac 06:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did check the facts by reading the article you referenced. You made extremely false claims in the initial article, and they're still there in the history for anyone to see.  No where in the article is cannibalism mentioned, and the subject had not been "prosecuted" nor is a sentence pending.  Making false statements about someone is a personal attack, plain and simple.  Hatch68 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to remove warnings from your user talk page and refer to my edits as "nonsense" along with the near personal attack you made on my user talk page, I will report you for administrative action. Hatch68 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected killers or even convicted killers have the same protections against personal attacks as anyone else on Wikipedia. Accusing them of being a cannibal and roasting the victim on a grill were personal attacks. Consider yourself warned. Hatch68 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created, Christie Rogers, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Real96 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tatsuya Ichihashi
Please be careful with what you write about Tatsuya Ichihashi as in the article you accused him of murder. This accusation is unreferenced and amounts to an attack on that individual, who is innocent until proven guilty. Please keep to facts that can be referenced to a reliable source. Thanks Rich257 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You put this person in the category Japanese Killers, that is where you accused him of murder, or at least of killing. Also the statement about "Police suspects that Tatauya have beaten then strangled Lindsay" isn't in the article's reference, so it is an unsourced statement. Rich257 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't contesting the method of death, although that was unsourced and has been fixed (thanks), I was contesting that the text you added said that Tatsuya strangled her (read the above quoted text carefully). Rich257 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Esctoday
A tag has been placed on Esctoday, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on Talk:Esctoday. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Strangnet 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with articles
Hi. I see you've recently had a number of articles deleted, including Morgan Innes. Please take some time to become more familiar with the primary notability criterion: a subject is notable (and thus fit for inclusion) if it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Some of your articles had no real sources at all. The Innes article was deleted as being horribly insensitive - Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Please do take a little more time to research, find sources, and write calm and balanced text. Keen is good, but runaway keen is bad for you and the project. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Wayne Shepherd
Thanks for working on the article on Timothy Wayne Shepherd and its link to the Quanell X article. Deatonjr 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

XXL (band)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. One Night In Hackney 303 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Caution
Please do not make any further false accusations on my talk page. I have not harassed anyone, merely reverted your vandalism of the XXL (band) article and left an appropriate message here. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially WP:CIVIL and also WP:TROLL. One Night In Hackney 303 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
You need to tone down your rhetoric a bit Matrix. You've already been blocked with incivility being part of the reason for that block. As it stands you seem to be headed in that direction again.--Isotope23 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've raised your conduct on ANI, which may be slightly redundant now. One Night In Hackney 303 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tread carefully
Matrix, you need to understand something. There is a big difference between a deletion nomination you don't like or agree with, and a bad faith nomination. You were blocked for bad faith nominations, nominations which are self-evidently without merit and give the impression of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have not been blocked for this:. I have, however, blocked one or two people in my time, and deleted a few thousand articles, very few of which have come back in a worthwhile form, a few now exist as redirects. Wikipedia is not a directory, and we require multiple non-trivial independent sources for every article. Rather than attacking the nominator, you could try fixing the article by adding those sources. Because I am a cruel, heartless, evil bastard of a rouge admin, and I make it my business to see that unsourced articles get sourced or deleted. It's what I do. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
On the AfD for Jessica Lindgren, you wrote: "Strangnets nomination isnt 100% truthfull she has done modeling and is a requested model she also lives in spain and is pregnant which i wrote but was deleted as 'gossip'".

I'd like to make a clarfication: Did I remove the info on her modeling from the article? No. Do I assume that those who vote in an AfD read the article? Yes. Did I remove obviously gossipy tabloidal content about her current living arrangements, partying with friends in Spain etc? Yes. Were there a mention of her pregnancy? No.

Please don't misrepresent other editors' contributions. --Strangnet 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA
You might want to be a little more careful about calling people's actions "nonsense" in the future. I know you're passionate about the article's merits, but calling people names really isn't a good idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Date linking
The reason for linking dates is, mostly, so that user's preference for date format are used when displaying pages. Therefore, as per Manual of Style (dates and numbers) lone years are usually not linked, although this is up to an editor's discretion. As per this edit "16th November 2006" should be linked as 16 November 2006 to give: 16 November 2006. Thanks, Rich257 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the diffs next time
If you look here you'll see that I haven't touched the text itself. So your edit summary was unnecessary. --Strangnet 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good edit
Thanks for removing an external like with unclear copyright status (here).--Isotope23 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. good that i could help;)--Matrix17 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Preview
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Strangnet 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lindsay Hawker
Hi Matrix17, thank you for your comments.

Please keep your own advice in mind and be objective in editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, as such, minor information, especially about a rapidly growing current event such as this, should be added very cautiously.

It is understandable and expected for a family to be devastated for such a loss. It is however, not very notable. Notable would be if the family had done something unexpected, such as said something like "Serves the bitch right for going to gooksville" (this is me using a horrible example to illustrate the point, I'd probably punch anyone uttering such garbage seriously). As such I don't feel the notability of those details really fits into this article as the events stands.

On a similar basis I removed certain other links to "news" about the event. These articles were not very informative (beyond the current existing links, which are from the same website service), they were more "tabloid" style. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate place to put links.

Please continue to edit this and other articles, Thanks.--ZayZayEM 10:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Use of &#91;citation needed&#93;  tags - I used these tags (rather than deleting unsourced information) because I knew that editors did have sources, and I was even fairly sure those sources were in teh External links sections. However they needed to be in text imbedded for better clarity. Please do not remove such tags from articles, it is considered vandalism. Same goes for deletion tags. Don't take such tagging personally. If you can fix the problem highlighted by the tag - go for it. If you dispute the placing of such tags, utilise the correct procedure (usually talking about it on the talk page).--ZayZayEM 02:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Why is there a need to archive a 13 minutes old discussion? With your statement: "Hi. if you have any questions or suggestions just write to me!" it's certainly not inviting to try to comment, suggest or discuss anything with you atm. --Strangnet 12:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Article
My sincerest apologies! Feel free to remove the tag if you have already not done so. I just see a lot of articles like that that never get any longer. Again, I apologize. Have a wonderful day! Saber girl08 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

== desysoping JZG ==

I think that you and I should both formally complain about the admin status of JZG.--Lucy-marie 00:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Small suggestion
Regarding this, you might want to take a look at WP:CANVAS. Thanks. --Strangnet 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is innapropriate to tell other people to vote keep on an afd. this edit shows you canvasing, which is not really appropriate.  I reccomend that you read WP:CANVAS and in the future, not canvas again.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The way you worded it was obvious canvasing for votes. You did it, its in the past.  I am just reccomending that you dont do it again! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Why should I vote keep on those pages?--Lucy-marie 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect
I never used the words "canvassed." And no, he didn't attack you -- he asked you not to ask other people to vote, which is more than okay. What you did was inappropriate, so take responsibility for your actions and stop acting like a child. It's never okay to attack back, especially when you were not even attacked in the first place. Rockstar915 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackan's messages to you were not attacks, but telling you not to do something that is inappropriate. It doesn't matter if the person you told to vote didn't vote. What matters is that you engaged in an action that was inappropriate. So yes, I do believe you should take responsibility for your actions, and no, my comments were not an attack. My comments were founded in the belief (as held by people like Socrates) that only children do not take responsibility for their actions when they are indeed in the wrong. Furthermore, I did know the facts of the discussion, which is why I chose to enter it. Rockstar915 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. I know all of the facts. However, in the end, if you choose not to look inward but instead wish to lash outward, then Wikipedia might not be the best place for you to be. Rockstar915 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

One last time
It is not the nitpicky details that I am interested in. I don't care if you wrote on one person's talk page or ten. I'm not supporting Mackan's claims about "canvassing," so you can drop that point. What matters is that you did asked someone to vote, and that, in itself, is inappropriate. I hope that from now on you will be able to separate my claims from those of Mackan and will be able to respond accordingly. Rockstar915 18:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Obviously, you will not see your wrongdoing, nor change your mind. I thus encourage you in the future not to make any more personal attacks or encourage any more people to vote on AfDs. Otherwise, you will be blocked from editing. Rockstar915 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, it's time for both of you to drop it. Nothing productive is going to come out of further discussion along these lines.--Isotope23 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
This is just a quick note to say that you've been blocked. The reason is given in the block summary. – Steel 18:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly? i was warned 1 time. This is just a joke of justice.--Matrix17 18:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot wikilawyer your way out of this. You are 100% aware of what you are doing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You were warned at least one, two, three times, and that was just today. Just because you blanked your talk page doesn't mean we don't have a complete record of every edit made to it. Gwernol 21:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OO even more harrasment from you, if you was so certain on your case you wouldnt need to be writing back to me at all.You are taking it very personal and thats good, that means you are aware of what you are doing wrong.And just for the record gwernol i should archive the messages but since you blocked me for no good reason i couldnt leave the messaegs in the archive. so im not hiding anything as i have wrote before i am proud of everything i do,no need for personal attacks from you because of that anyway.And chris, wikilawyer? thats really mean of you anyway and just proves ones again that people here rather have edits wars then to have discussions like in real life, why be constructive when you can be rude. personal attack form you also..--Matrix17 11:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Matrix17, you've continued to accuse people of personal attacks and harassment and generally spouted complete rubbish. This page is now protected. It will expire in a week in the event you want to change your ways, though judging from your sv.wiki block log, I'm not very confident about that happening. – Steel 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
This is just a quick note to say that you've been blocked. The reason is given in the block summary. – Steel 18:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So funny
hhaha servant saber har blivit blockerad på svenska wiki i två veckor för sitt beteende och så klagar han på mig och predikar hur jag ska göra. Ja herregud, du är lika mycket kålsupare som jag.Bra att dom uppmärksammade detta lustiga beteende.Och så komiskt, med tanke på alla predikningar om rätt och fel:) haha,men så är användaren bara 18 år också, hoppas du lär dej nåt av denna upplevelse.lika mycket som jag har gjort.--Matrix17 11:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Please try to be a bit more civil towards User:UpDown if possible, you seem to be hostile towards him, and accusing him of vandalism, when that seems not to be the case. Being uncivil towards other users can cause the project to lose valuable contributors. Thanks. John Hayestalk 22:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * why should i be civil towards someone who int civil towards me. anyway dont care about UpDown anymore he has had his fun and put it up for deletion ,good for him.--Zingostar 17:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because being civil is one of Wikipedia's core policies. As far as I can tell UpDown has been nothing but civil towards you, but if you can provide me diffs where he has been uncivil I will warn him too. John Hayestalk 09:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Charley
I would like to thank you for supporting Charley's article because, as you know, she is obviously as notable then any other reality star!--Hiltonhampton 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah but people here on wikipedia look down on reality show stars and thats why they want to delete it, because she passes the notability just as mutch as any other of the reality stars like nikki etc... and the Afd tag was put on the page by someone who i suspect did it in bad faith and its not Ok in my opinion. anyway she will be on stricly come dancing and i hav eall the text saved so i just put it on when she is on the show.--Zingostar 17:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets hope it will be Keep anyway.--Zingostar 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that! However its too risky to accuse whoever put the tag on it, as I don't know who thought I think it may be UpDown, of bad faith.--Hiltonhampton 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Help
The page seems to have been restored already, but is now up for deletion. If you've got a good argument for keeping this article, you may want to put it forward at the deletion discussion. Regarding the stand-off between you and UpDown, please remember to always assume good faith. Although I'm sure you mean well, continually labelling someone as a vandal could be interpreted as trolling and could get you blocked. The best way to deal with disputes is to discuss the matter calmly and come to some sort of arrangement. The Mediation Cabal can help with this. In the meantime, if you need help, don't hesitate to ask.

Καροτ Μαν  09:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. but i suspect he didnt do it in good faith and that is what bothers me. Anyway thanks for the advice.--Zingostar 17:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Zingostar for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. John Hayestalk 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. I'm afraid sock puppetry isn't a very good idea. Using your I.P. address to support a vote is easily noticed, easily verified and easily blocked. Usually only your sock puppets get blocked, but depending on the circumstances you might be blocked as well. As tempting as using sock puppets may be when people don't see things your way, it's best just to grin and bear it.


 * All the best for the future, Καροτ  Μαν  07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)