User talk:Peterchristopher

Speedy deletion of Tom Stearns

A tag has been placed on Tom Stearns, 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 {{hangon}} 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 {{hangon}} 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. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 10:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove notability by referral to independent verifiable sources, such as substantial press coverage. DrKiernan 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the talk page under the speedy delete criteria, which permit the deletion of talk pages without an accompanying article. I hope you find the pointer above to wikipedia's notability requirements of use. I think it's best to satisfy those before entering into further discussion. DrKiernan 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Tom Stearns Melons.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Stearns Melons.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had to delete this image as it was a copyright violation of an image at http://www.highmowingseeds.com/ DrKiernan 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Civilty

Your recent edits to the talkpage of User:CJLL_Wright is in violation of the Wikipedia Civility policies and indeed lacking any notion of common decency. Please observe the same manners when adressing people on wikipedia as you would if you met them in person. If this is your normal way of adressing people then please read WP:Wikiquette so that you may understand the correct etiquette to employ when interacting with fellow editors on wikipedia. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Mowing Organic Seeds

I provided my reasons for deletion in the edit summary, which you've obviously read. You might also like to read WP:NOT, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL.

If you think the article should be recreated, then take it up at Deletion Review.

If you want to complain about my actions as an admin, take it to WP:ANI.

Childish invective is unlikely to help your cause.

Your demand for apology is, under the circumstances, a little rich.

--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is the final warning you will get. Disagreeing with people is one thing, but you can't seem to behave civilly. One more insult, one more attack, and you will be blocked indefinitely. The choice is yours: behave or leave. A ecis^Brievenbus 16:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think I can't behave? You punks can't see past your own geek glasses. You can't see the original issue because you've lost sight of it, so excited about killing your father and screwing your mother.

You're going to attempt to block me for insulting someone, bungusbreath? Grow up. Calling people nazis is hardly an attack, especially when they are nazis. Indeed, to attempt to prohibit others from saying the truth is more degenerate than name-calling; you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I just say it the way I see it, and more often than not, I'm right (unlike you perhaps). You people get so worked up when you hear the truth, don't you. What would your mother think? What would your father think? Do you even know who your real father is?

OOh, "indefinitely", isn't that scary. Kill your father with one swift mouse-click. Now run back to mommy.

If you're lucky she'll let you mount her. But when you figure out what happened, you'll tear your own eyes out.

It's prophesied.

Peterchristopher 13:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No admin is going to take your complaint seriously if you cannot make it without insulting people. Sarah 13:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I also find myself unable to take any of you seriously when you can't recognize your errors & fix them. I guess we're at an impasse ;) Sorry about the swears, I didn't realize there were any of the innocent gender attending the pissing contest. Peterchristopher 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Funny dudes. User "Maxim" has now blocked me for one week. Courageous fellow, one whole week. But I can still type here on my talk page. How generous. What about indefinitely? Perhaps it's because Maxim only blocked me for the offence of "attempting to harrass" -- something not even a legitimate offence according to wikipedia's page on blocking users.

In reality, the reason to block someone like me has to be because it "is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia", "when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project" according to the wikipedia policy. So, does my behavior qualify according to that criteria?

But another question is, does an administrator severely disrupt the project, when he deletes pages inappropriately, and does not recogne legitimate demonstrations of notability as grounds to recreate pages?

I don't claim my behavior is perfect. But shall we apply the standard to anyone we meets the criteria, including you all? I don't think my behavior is any worse by the criteria than that of you idiots.

An idiot, by the way, is a "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning."

Peterchristopher 14:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your behaviour is blockable because it is disruptive and yes, the articles were deleted appropriately. I just read them and there was absolutely no assertion of notability. Sarah 14:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IF it is true that my behavior is blockoble for being disruptive, then your behavior is also blockable because it's also disruptive. How is your behavior disruptive? You have defended abuse of power by other administrators and claim it is justified, based on your misunderstanding of wikipedia deletion policy. You have made statements as an administrator without understanding your own policies, and in fact, you don't know the wikipedia delete policy, do you? I put up a hangon link, and I added relevant information to the talk page about the notability. I also (later) addressed the relevance on other administrator's pages, and in the deletion review. You and your fellow administrators screwed up first, and now you're making it worse by not confessing & atoning.

Now that I've done the research, I've learned that your organization has behaved the same way with hundreds, thousands, other editors. You may be in growing pains. You might grow out of it by having two levels of wikipedia pages: "fully authorized" and "tentative". You administrators would not behave in such a childish manner with the tentative pages, instead you could all focus on being the "first one" to "maintain the accountability" of your organization by policing the "fully authorized" pages. You could let the people who actually know something focus on adding "tentative" pages, that would appear in the search, but would have a "tentative" notation until they were around for several months & reached a higher level of editing quality.

Your destiny up to your organization. I think it's likely that if you don't grow up, we will desert you. Peterchristopher 10:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]