User talk:Nemesis the Fourth

Category:Womanisers

Hello, I see you created Category:Womanisers. However, this category is not appropriate for Wikipedia for a number of reasons. First, we do not indiscriminately categorize together real people and fictional characters. Second, we do not categorize people in a manner that could be considered derogatory or judgmental, contrary to Wikipedia policy requiring all content to have a neutral point of view and all content regarding living persons to be non-libelous and reliably sourced. Third, we do not categorize any content by characteristics that could be considered trivial, non-defining, or subjective in nature. For our guidelines on these issues, please see Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia:Overcategorization, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction.

Please also note that Category:Womanisers has been listed for deletion. If you wish to participate in the discussion, you can do so here. I would urge you instead to consent to the category's deletion so we can deal with it without wasting any time. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss creating any other categories, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Womanisers in fiction

The article Womanisers in fiction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources to back up any of these assertions; essentially original research and personal opinion

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Womanisers in fiction

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Womanisers in fiction meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanisers in fiction. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit closed discussions

This was brought up on WP:ANI, but there's no need for administrative action if you can simply indicate that you understand that the discussion is closed, and the proper way to appeal the finding is through deletion review. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that calling another editor a "silly little man" in your edit summary [1] is not exactly helpful and could be considered a personal attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age

Maybe I can't change your mind, but I appreciate that you've asked me my views. In many ways, I'm even more cynical than you are, so I enjoy the chance to talk to a fellow cynic. I remember our discussion. What I recall is something to the effect that the standards were higher when it came to dropping in sources and citations because people took it more seriously now than they used to, and you said nobody takes it seriously, and then another guy who wrote something like "Well if that's how you feel don't come here" or something similarly obnoxious.

In my opinion, the "Golden Age" was over before I got here (2007), and before people got a thrill out of nominating an article for deletion. In those early days, Wikipedia was building up its popularity and getting people used to the concept, and nobody took it seriously (I'd heard of it for several years and I thought it sounded silly). Maybe it still is a glorified online game, and maybe it shouldn't be taken seriously, but the hell of it is that people start looking at Wikipedia first when they're wanting to find out something. You type in a phrase in Google and there's friggin Wikipedia up near the top of the page. That's my first observation.

The second observation is that if someone's going to take Wikipedia seriously, then there should be a prejudice in favor of articles that link to something other than Wikipedia-- a book, a newspaper article, a website, etc.-- so that someone can answer the age old question "where does it say that?". It's easier to do this now; back when Wikipedia first started, there was no Google books or Google news, and most people had dial-up, so it was a lot more difficult to point to sources. Since that's what my prejudice is, I tend to argue in favor of saving articles where someone has cited to something. If there's a good topic but there's no sourcing, then the argument is to the effect of "if there aren't any sources, it should be deleted" (which I find is more effective than saying "keep, since someone will find sources"). If it's a great topic and I think I know where I can find sources, then I'll drop them in myself. There are some topics that, no matter how much sourcing someone comes up with, I will argue for a delete because of other factors, like "what if everyone wrote an article about their favorite high school basketball player".

Final observation is that I visit the articles for deletion forum a lot, because that's where I find the most interesting articles, and because it's a great place to sharpen my arguing skills, and because I truly do want to keep well-researched articles that I think are unfairly nominated. The reason I'm there often is that usually, the people that speak up first are more likely to be followed.

As far as my cynical observations about "people I can't stand" (don't worry, you're not on my list), I can't stand:

"Deletionists" who want to stomp another person's sandcastle for the thrill of it, which describes most nominators.
"Inclusionists" whose attitude is "someone-- not I-- will work on this one sentence article that I'm proud of having created"
"Lemmings" who echo the same comment as the person above them (I see that a lot-- it's like a string of "speedy delete, speedy delete, speedy delete" or "indiscriminate list, indiscriminate list, etc.")
Nobodies who argue that a person they read about in a history book should be considered a nobody.

Aren't you glad you asked my opinion? Seriously, I hope that you'll consider getting in on the Articles for Deletion forum. We need more cynics there. Thanks again. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Axl Rose, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord. Hello and goodbye again, Jupiter. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I've got to remember to sign out before getting revenge on an old enemy. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe don't deliberately sign using your old username in order to provoke someone. As usual your ego gets the better of you. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogance is a necessary trait for every great leader old sport. Also I wanted you to know precisely who was humiliating in order to make it all the more annihilating. Fitting don't you think, given all the times you've humiliated me. Did you like my username by the way? Nemesis, after the Goddess of Divine Vengeance and the Fourth because this is my fourth account. Dang, I'm good. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I caught that, of course, but by my count this is #5 (YourLord, Illustrious One, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Dominus Noster, Nemesis the Fourth), so you're a bit off. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Dominus Noster? --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your 4th account, but you already knew that. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished looking at Dominus Noster's profile. All I have to say for the time being is, lol. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block'd!

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]