User talk:Horrorshowj

Welcome!

Hello, Horrorshowj, and

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Please change your mind on the cherry stoner article. 213.218.224.238 10:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings and sorry about the jab. It's just that I've been on here long enough that I've become suspicious of new accounts (which of course we all start as). Good job on the David Christian article - thousand times better. I'll review it a little later (bit busy at work right now), but I might withdraw my nomination.--Nobunaga24 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I userfy his article although I am not an admin? Bearian 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I think he needs to do it though.Horrorshowj 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comments on the AfD for Morgan the Escapist are a bit harsh (and a little hypocritical considering your request on your user page about going easy on you because you're a newbie). I was briefly tempted to nominate your Sasha Knox article but that would have been in bad spirit even though there's a case against it. Morgan is notable and I thank you for partially recognising this with your comment that you think she'll "get there one day". What I'm asking is that people give a bit of leeway to allow better sources to be added.Circusandmagicfan 07:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

You've really confused me now. As of this post, you have posted two comments on the Morgan the Escapist AfD, both seemingly contradicting each other. I even went as far as checking the page history, to see if you really had added both of those comments yourself. Turns out you did, and both in one edit (see diff). The top one shows no understanding of Wikipedia requirements on referencing and notability, while the bottom one pretty much backs up everything I said. —gorgan_almighty 15:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't contradictory at all. It's

WP:N

but would be considered reliable sources in their areas. I've previously seen an AfD for subject of a biography written by a history professor, and an argument against subject notability because the book wasn't notable. So "notable sources" is a pet peeve of mine, because most of my WP time is spent in AfD.

Nothing in the article came from anything reliable or independent. If Escape Key were the most notable escapologist site in the world, I still wouldn't buy what was presented as proof of her notability. Like I said Weekly World News has notability in spades, reliability not so much. Horrorshowj 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the

for help, because I really don't know much about her. Also, I tried to look for some info, but didn't come up with much. Another thing you might could try if you find a page in Japanese is use an internet translator. I don't know of any good ones because I've never had to translate Japanese before, but I'm sure there is a good one out there somewhere.

I wish I could help more. Sorry. Nikki311 03:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, In order to keep the discussion whole, I have responded to your message on my talk page. -- JamesTeterenko 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was offline and I didn't get a chance to reply before the AFD closed. I see that it closed as a delete, and although my last comment was "weak keep", I won't be shedding any tears for that article.
I still think it's an interesting question, where is the line drawn for that type of athlete. With your traditional team sports there's that clear line, play in the pro's and your in, but it's a lot more of a gray area with fighters and the like. But that's a question for another day.
Regards,
--Cube lurker 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a multi-article AfD procedure; I just used

]

Sasha Knox

Companies do sit on scenes (not movies) for months even years after production. I am one of the curator of IAFD and the majority of those movies you point to show production dates for the individual scenes prior to her retirement. AFAIK she has stayed retired since her stated date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinh1313 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it is in austraillia in a galaxy far far away." No, it's not.--69.118.235.97 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. You reverted while I was lining up mine. Horrorshowj 22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I've added a fourth article to your AfD nomination for Faith Benson-McKnight, as the character Rhea Fitzgerald seems to be just as non-notable and hoax-y. Since they're purported to be from the same show, which is also included, I thought it prudent to add one to the other. Hope you don't mind. Thanks! ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Horror, did my answers here adequately address your questions/concerns? What do you think of the idea?Balloonman (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in the article on the first

]

Not that far apart

Hi Horror, I just saw a post of yours in the how to fix the additional criteria section and I really don't think we are too far apart. Based upon my reading of your posts, your primary concern is that the essays will be given undue weight at AfD's. I think that is addressed via the template that we've proposed:

{{essay-project-note}}

This essay explicitly relegates the essays to a secondary role. The sentence, "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." Won't be missed by people and it won't take long before people are educated to the fact that project-essays are secondary to N/BIO. For example, a project has written a guideline. Currently, an article goes up for AfD and somebody then points to the project's guidelines. Regardless of what scrutiny that guideline has had, it is instantly viewed as gospel by half of the XfD audience. The proposal is designed to establish the relationship between N/BIO/ORG/etc and the wikiprojects---with the wikiprojects as a secondary to the guidelines. By slapping the template on the essays, people won't ignore the key sentence. I say that because suppose I nominate an article for deletion. You then use a project's essay as proof that the subject is notable. I can then point to the sentence that I quoted above. If the essay has been used repeatedly and deemed valid, then it will garner respect at AfD's (ala the Baseball criteria.) Again, I don't think we are too far apart on our desires.Balloonman (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Horrorshowj. How are you? The article is better. However, you also have to convince other users. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I really, really don't like going back on my blocks, though... I'd personally wait and see if there's any reform. If you're unhappy with that solution (and you're free to be!) please bring it to other admins' attention on

]

Bullshido AfD

Hiya, thanks for the notification, could you fix the links you added as they currently link to the old afd not the current one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido (2nd nomination)) and may confuse people, Thanks agian --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may as well steal this header. You're right, looking back it probably should've been a delete; another editor asked me and I told him I thought the sources were good, but they don't really look that good anymore considering most deal with the site's notability. A deletion review, perhaps? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

]

Her name seems to be properly cited to what seems like a reliable source so I restored it. What is the

]

Competition Cams Article

• Comment - The Competition Cams article has been completely rewritten and re-cited with new, more credible sources. I urge each of the editors that has previously voted against the articles notability, neutrality, etc. to please reconsider.

--Jabarke1 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your question on my talk page.  :-) - Philippe 05:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retract it immediately or I will ask for formal action. It is clear that asking for two (or three if you count the perceived copyright violation) articles to be deleted is not a "mass" deletion, and pointing out both that the main clams in the article are unsourced, and that the article does even include assertions of notability meeting the appropriate guideline requirements, no less reliable third-party sources verifying/demonstrating the supposed notability, are "policy-based." I think any disinterested observer would conclude that you are deliberately making false statements maligning another person. Your behavior is disgusting. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you don't respond well to anything. It s thoroughly inappropriate to lie about other users. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WikiProject Pornography, I'm just letting you know there's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography about changing the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are comments made publicly by a person concerning that person's biography true or not? --Veritas, Semper 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Corroborating evidence" is unclear and is actually just another way of saying "I don't want this information on the web-page because I am opposed to it." As I stated before, the information should be on the page, particularly since it is biographical information that the person about whom the biography was written has stated publicly, both in the Google Video and under testimony during Charles Calderon's proposal of the porn tax bill before the California State Assembly. I am not deleting any of your information, but you are deleting mine. If you don't approve of facts that have been stated by an individual - and they are biographical facts - then you may create an entire separate section on Lubben on the Lubben webpage. Please refrain from deleting sources and citations. --Veritas, Semper 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the comments? How so? What L. Ron Hubbard work are you referring to? What is the source? Your use of the word "obviously" grossly displays your bias and refusal to expand your intellectual horizons.--Veritas, Semper 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagank (talk • contribs)

"News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."^[1] This means that the Violet Blue source must either be deleted or re-interpreted in order to de-conflict with this policy. Thank you.--Veritas, Semper 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagank (talk • contribs)

Hi, your speedy tag at Paul Nguyen was missing a '|', which I added, but it appears you had something other than G7 in mind. G7 is voluntary blanking, which you probably didn't mean. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Thanks for the note, I changed it to the intended category.Horrorshowj (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose to roll back the too bold change - comments? Power.corrupts (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the page doesn't seem to be allowing me to save any edits.Horrorshowj (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to do a bit of research before nominating an article for deletion. Now, you have people wasting time voting to keep an article that has zero chance of being deleted.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer Prize winner

]

Speedy deletion declined:

Monster Mack

Hello Horrorshowj. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

]

I removed a proposed deletion from Bram Dijkstra. A few minutes with search engines revealed that his books had been reviewed in the New York Times and LA Times, which probably brings him out of the purely academic author category. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Never on Tuesday. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wizard

.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{

the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --moreno oso (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NPA and ettiquette for WP:AFD

Please consider this an informal warning. My contribution history as a Page Patroller is clean. I regularly participate at

not good faith. I expect you to overstrike your comment in the debate and to acknowledge it with an edit summary. If you doubt me, please look at my contribs. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

June 2010

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. This is warning. You were asked politely here not to conduct this type behavior in an AFD. --moreno oso (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe I wasn't clear in my informal warning. An editor before your second accusation or WP:NPA voted Delete. That should tell you that the article is not

notable. I still await the overstriking. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Donny the deleted

What I fear has happened is that this person has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Wikipedia. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retract

Retract your personal attack, please. I am not an "anti-porn crusader." Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

Reverting vandalism isn't subject to the 3RR. If you feel "anti-porn crusader" is a personal attack, just point me to some of your edits that would disprove my conclusion. I'll happily clarify my statement if proven wrong.Horrorshowj (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did you just tell me that my courtesy blanking of the AFD was vandalism? I will not jump through your hoops - but imagine I was to start calling you a serial pervert across wikipedia, and asking you to point me to some of your edits that would disprove my conclusion. No need to respond, I've written you off. Sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of List of fictional places in Yes Minister for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional places in Yes Minister is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places in Yes Minister until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. schetm (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS