User talk:Rainingblood667: Difference between revisions
Nightscream (talk | contribs) |
m Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (1x) Tag: Fixed lint errors |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Hi. I noticed you deleted the material I added to the Criticism section of the article, giving the rationale, '''"Do we really need to know what a single wacko thinks about myspace?"''' Putting aside the fact that two different people (the author of the article, and a source he quoted) were given in that section rather than one, the reason it is valid for inclusion is because the article appeared in a major magazine that makes its business to, among other things, analyze social, political, and cultural trends. The author of that article, therefore, is hardly a "single wacko." If you could provide some rationale as to why Dave Itzkoff is a "wacko", that would be one thing, but I don't believe you did, as I looked through the article's Talk page and couldn't find any mention of this. So please don't delete valid material from articles for capricious reasons, okay? Thanks. :-) [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
Hi. I noticed you deleted the material I added to the Criticism section of the article, giving the rationale, '''"Do we really need to know what a single wacko thinks about myspace?"''' Putting aside the fact that two different people (the author of the article, and a source he quoted) were given in that section rather than one, the reason it is valid for inclusion is because the article appeared in a major magazine that makes its business to, among other things, analyze social, political, and cultural trends. The author of that article, therefore, is hardly a "single wacko." If you could provide some rationale as to why Dave Itzkoff is a "wacko", that would be one thing, but I don't believe you did, as I looked through the article's Talk page and couldn't find any mention of this. So please don't delete valid material from articles for capricious reasons, okay? Thanks. :-) [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
'''What someone put in an editorial section of a magazine isn't really encyclopedia material.''' How do you figure this? What does the fact that it was in an article (not the editorial section) of a magazine have to do with anything? Articles in magazines are not valid sources? Really? Where did you get ''this'' idea from? Whether it is valid for inclusion is determined, among other things, by its relevance to the section in question. Because the section is about criticism of the site, and of various aspects of the site, and because ''Playboy'' is a major magazine, an article detailing some of the criticisms of it is perfectly valid. I even put it at the end of the section instead of the beginning, in order to deemphasize the appearance that I was giving undue preference to it, and gave it its own subheading, in order to bring it line with the other subsections. You did not respond to my previous challenges to illustrate your "single" or "wacko" comments, and you have not illustrated this new argumetn about it being unencyclopedic. In the absence of this, the section is perfectly valid as an addition to that section. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
'''What someone put in an editorial section of a magazine isn't really encyclopedia material.''' How do you figure this? What does the fact that it was in an article (not the editorial section) of a magazine have to do with anything? Articles in magazines are not valid sources? Really? Where did you get ''this'' idea from? Are you planning on deleting ''all'' the material in every other article that is derived from a periodical of some kind? Whether it is valid for inclusion is determined, among other things, by its relevance to the section in question. Because the section is about criticism of the site, and of various aspects of the site, and because ''Playboy'' is a major magazine, an article detailing some of the criticisms of it is perfectly valid. I even put it at the end of the section instead of the beginning, in order to deemphasize the appearance that I was giving undue preference to it, and gave it its own subheading, in order to bring it line with the other subsections. You did not respond to my previous challenges to illustrate your "single" or "wacko" comments, and you have not illustrated this new argumetn about it being unencyclopedic. In the absence of this, the section is perfectly valid as an addition to that section. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
==MySpace 2: Electric Boogaloo== |
|||
Why did you delete the external links that somewhat criticized MySpace? -- <span style="color: blue;">[[User:Chris is me|<span style="color: blue;">Chris</span>]]<small> [[User talk:Chris is me|<span style="color: blue;">chat</span>]]<small> [[Special:Contributions/Chris is me|<span style="color: blue;">edits</span>]]<small> [[User:Chris is me/Essays|<span style="color: blue;">essays</span>]]</small></small></small></span> 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Fatass == |
|||
{{#if:{{{header|}}}|=={{{header-text|Attacks in the article [[:Fatass]]}}}==}} |
|||
Please do not make personal attacks{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Fatass| as you did at [[:Fatass]]}}. Wikipedia has a strict policy against [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]]. [[Wikipedia:Attack_page|Attack pages]] and images '''are not tolerated''' by Wikipedia and are [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedily deleted]]. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] policy, will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. <!-- Template:attack --> [[User:Hencetalk|Hencetalk]] ([[User talk:Hencetalk|talk]]) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== June 2008 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|left|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to [[:50 Cent: Blood on the Sand]], did not appear to be constructive and has been '''automatically [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]''' by [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]]. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. '''If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please [[User:ClueBot/FalsePositives|report it here]] and then remove this warning from your talk page.''' If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: [[50 Cent: Blood on the Sand]] was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=50+Cent%3A+Blood+on+the+Sand&diff=218791574&oldid=218752881 changed] by [[Special:Contributions/Rainingblood667|Rainingblood667]] [[User:Rainingblood667|(u)]] [[User talk:Rainingblood667|(t)]] making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-06-12T05:05:31+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 415931 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]] ([[User talk:ClueBot|talk]]) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 18:31, 18 March 2023
MySpace
[edit]Hi. I noticed you deleted the material I added to the Criticism section of the article, giving the rationale, "Do we really need to know what a single wacko thinks about myspace?" Putting aside the fact that two different people (the author of the article, and a source he quoted) were given in that section rather than one, the reason it is valid for inclusion is because the article appeared in a major magazine that makes its business to, among other things, analyze social, political, and cultural trends. The author of that article, therefore, is hardly a "single wacko." If you could provide some rationale as to why Dave Itzkoff is a "wacko", that would be one thing, but I don't believe you did, as I looked through the article's Talk page and couldn't find any mention of this. So please don't delete valid material from articles for capricious reasons, okay? Thanks. :-) Nightscream 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What someone put in an editorial section of a magazine isn't really encyclopedia material. How do you figure this? What does the fact that it was in an article (not the editorial section) of a magazine have to do with anything? Articles in magazines are not valid sources? Really? Where did you get this idea from? Are you planning on deleting all the material in every other article that is derived from a periodical of some kind? Whether it is valid for inclusion is determined, among other things, by its relevance to the section in question. Because the section is about criticism of the site, and of various aspects of the site, and because Playboy is a major magazine, an article detailing some of the criticisms of it is perfectly valid. I even put it at the end of the section instead of the beginning, in order to deemphasize the appearance that I was giving undue preference to it, and gave it its own subheading, in order to bring it line with the other subsections. You did not respond to my previous challenges to illustrate your "single" or "wacko" comments, and you have not illustrated this new argumetn about it being unencyclopedic. In the absence of this, the section is perfectly valid as an addition to that section. Nightscream 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
MySpace 2: Electric Boogaloo
[edit]Why did you delete the external links that somewhat criticized MySpace? -- Chris chat edits essays 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Fatass
[edit]Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Fatass. 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, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Hencetalk (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
June 2008
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand was changed by Rainingblood667 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-06-12T05:05:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)