User talk:Sploooshman

Please do some research before nominating things for deletion. You have nominated a number of real towns, and you should know that real communities are ALWAYS considered encyclopedia-worthy topics. Nominating a township of 10000 people for deletion looks strange. One other question, is this your first account? (I am asking because there ae few newbie users who start off by nominating articles for deletion.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly would like to say the same as to what was said above, you have nominated several notable articles for deletion at

Hi Sploooshman. I think you should probably review the way that you are adding articles to AFD. The best example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Punk Rock. I happen to come from Australia, and I am aware that punk bands are most notable in Brisbane. Your other reasons for listing the article on AFD aren't valid, because anti-government propaganda issues can be resolved through editing.

My friendly word of advise is: stop listing articles to AFD until you have done more editing of the main article namespace. It's quite possible that you are seen as disruptive, which to be honest I wouldn't blame another experienced editor or admin from assuming based on your contribution history. You seem quite new hear, and though you are welcome to add articles to AFD, listing articles for invalid reasons is not something we encourage or even tolerate for very long. AFD is divisive enough as it is. So my respectful suggest is to stop for a while until you get some more experience under your belt. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing editors of unfairness for their reasonable comments at afd. If you resume this, or your string of patently unsuitable nominations, you are in some danger of being considered to be disrupting the encyclopedia. Consider this a formal warning. DGG 00:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say much, as DGG has advised not to. But I believe my comments at the AFD in the context of both that discussion and the discussion at WP:ANI (of which I was not aware) were entirely justified. Recurring dreams 10:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As DGG said, you are being rather disruptive with your AfD discussions. I know you're trying to improve Wikipedia, but if you're nominating pages that clearly don't need to be nominated, then it can be construed as

WP:DPR#NAC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 11:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

for the record, though an admin, I closed none of them. Most had been speedy closed before I even saw them.DGG 22:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just accused me of hiding behind an IP. If I knew what I'd done to upset you I might be more clear what you're talking about. Contact me here if you're allowed to stay up late enough. Nick mallory 06:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give you a bit of direction, as a teacher. All municipalities are, by consensus, fair game for articles. They may be called by differing titles in assorted nations -- towns, parishes, villages, cities, boroughs, and communes. They are real places, often with populations as small as 40 or 50 people, with elected or appointed government officials, and post offices, ZIP codes or postal codes. Making a AfD for any of these is just going to make other Wikipedians frustrated at you. Hamlets, on the other hand, especially those lacking ZIP or postal codes, and often with less than 10 people, may be nominated for deletion. Anything in between, we'll see. That's a good way to look at such issues. Bearian 00:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the AFDs, especially on transit centers and rail stations. Sure

Mbrstooge 17:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been

This edit

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. xC | ☎ 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. xC | ☎ 04:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. xC | ☎ 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail [email protected]. Daniel Case 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]