Vslashg

Unless you request otherwise, I will respond to any questions or comments you leave on my talk page here, rather than moving part or all of the conversation to your talk page. I will also monitor pages where I've posted myself, so there's no need to copy my posts back here.

Use the following link to leave a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, Vslashg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

• 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 Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SoothingR 23:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Burnett copyvio

Wow. You're a real asshat. There wasn't anything at all about Burnett, so yeah, I used something already written (because I was lazy) in order to get something up until someone, possibly me in the near future, could re-write the article. I met the guy this weekend and thought he deserved to have an article about him in Wikipedia. --Brand Eks 06:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my tagging of copyvio material. Vslashg 06:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments

Just to let you know, User:Brandeks removed you copyvio comment from his talk page here and again after I reverted it. I'm not going to get into a revert war with him over his own talk page but just thought you should know. Savidan 23:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw those reverts, and yet he has reposted the deleted article. I'm not sure what a civil response to this is, except to mark the reposted copyvio material as {{db-repost}}. Vslashg 01:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Allan Weiner

Hi Vslashg. When you revert an article can you please check that you are reverting far back enough to remove all of the vandalism? ex.) Allan Weiner Thanks! Monkeyman 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about the edit conflict there. I'll look more closely next time. Vslashg (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

help

Explain to me how I could have done that afd better. I noted you fixed an orphan...I am a newbie to this part of wikiterminology...how can I improve? Kukini 08:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive contributions to Wikipedia. Happily there is a template that explains the AFD process in three easy steps, called Template:AfD_in_3_steps. This template shows up in a lot of places, but I like to refer to it directly.

Step two provides a simple line you can cut-and-paste which creates the start of an AfD page for you. Step three is very important, because it's how other Wikipedians find out that you've marked a page for deletion.

Let me know if this doesn't clear things up. Vslashg (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry. I was thinking of the "non-notable people and groups" criterion, which doesn't extend to websites, of course. Thanks for making the move. Choess 06:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious Question

What differentiates an editor's personal page with any Joe Schmo's page? Wikipedia should stick to its guns if it wants to claim it is an encylcopedia, and allow NO personal profiles in my opinion. (don't take this as an attack on you personaly, the whole policy merely seems hippocritical to me)

I'm not sure to what you are referring. If you're talking about pages in the user namespace, then the way I understand it is that they exist as a means to an end. The goal of the Wikipedia project is to make an encyclopedia. The project encourages a community, including user pages, becuase a community is a means to the end. Note that these pages are not part of the encyclopedia's namespace.

Let me know if I misunderstood the question. Vslashg (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user page. Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the guy. He's clearly on a roll. Vslashg (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for straightening out my AfD entries. I somehow manage to get them all messed up when I get to step to . . . seems like when I click on the link, I create the wrong page. But thanks anyway. I appreciate your help! (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 12:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ok

ok fuckwit will do dipshit twat bucket muthafucka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomibr (talk • contribs)

That's mature, kid. Wilson 22:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Qrrbrbirlbel

You're right - a redirect is better. Bluap 17:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geeks Paradox

Since you originally prodded it, thought I'd let you know that Geeks Paradox is now at AfD. NickelShoe 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

prod nomination

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that I deprodded your article, as I think it does meet notability (creating an internet meme is not an easy thing, though millions try daily). However, I did make a compromise, which I hope you won't be too offended about.

Due to the more famous Velosos out there (Diego Veloso, Caetano Veloso, Veloso (soccer player), etc.), I used the main Veloso as a disambiguation page. Your article is now located at Veloso (artist). I've also removed the autobio part about you being an active WP editor and moved it to the talk page as the {{Notable Wikipedian}} tag.--み使い Mitsukai 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti Misinformation League

In an age of misinformation reeking from every media source, to present Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is a fallacy. It is only as accurate and trustworthy as the individual who posts an article, and ANYONE can state or change ANYTHING. I chose to change things in a way that made it obvious that I was kidding around. However, how knowleadgeable are you or any member of the "Anti Vandilism League" on EVERY subject presented in Wikipedia? Earnestly presented, the most atrocious piece of misinformation could be published for the uninformed to assimilate as a valid piece of knowledge. In short, I think Wikipedia is DANGEROUS as is, and I challenge you to prove to me that the method of mitigating that danger by highlighting the inconstancy and inherent unreliability of Wikipedia through spoofy editing is WRONG.

All I can do is direct you to WP:POINT. It honestly sounds like nothing I say would convince you otherwise, and am sorry you are directing your energies towards damaging Wikipedia. Vslashg (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Adrienne Welker

The author of this article removed your speedy tag. I put one up but changed my mind as I don't think it quite deserves a speedy. If you still want it deleted I suggest using a vote for deletion.Some guy 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I listed the article under AfD to gather concensus. Vslashg (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding OSBi forums

Hi,

I am interested in why the OSBI Forums article needs to get removed? There are many other similar articles, related to the Open Source community that seem to be OK for example the one about Pentaho or Mondrian!?

We are a few people trying to create a place on the web where people involved in open source bi projects can get to share information. On many of the providers’ forums (which are not that many) some questions that are seen as negative (for example questions that show lack of functionality, or relate to competing open source products) are removed from the forums. Sometimes specific knowledge added to forums by users are removed because the provider want the information to get included in publications that is chargeable to the community or the provider want issues to handle by chargeable customer support services. There is also competition between many providers and therefore the forums are not independent and solution neutral. I hope our forums are not seen as competition to the great information available on Wikipedias pages about Open Source.

The article have only been on wikipedia for a few hours, and much of the interest for Open Source BI are in Europe and Asia, so why cant the article be left on wikipedia for a bit longer that the 5 days then if the interest is as low it may of course be removed. I understand that there are reasons to not keep information no one requests.

Do you have any advice for us to improve our article to not get removed!?

Cheers!

Eric

Thanks for the question. Unfortuately, the problem with the article is not one of article quality, but rather of notability and verifiability. It doesn't appear that there's anything you could do to improve the article, because the subject of it does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.

The two most important documents on this subject are WP:WEB, which describes what a notable website might look like, and WP:V, which requires independent, published sources about a subject before it can have a Wikipedia article.

The way to get an OSBi forum article on Wikipedia is to grow OSBi to a notable size, get coverage in the press, and then such a page would belong here. I'm a fan of OSS but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise. Hope this helps. Vslashg (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

link provided for edit on kennedy

FBC

The FBC is notable. Initially it was not, but it has now grown to be an important aspect of the furry fandom, as well as a considerable part of activities outside the fandom. Therefore, I believe this page is notable enough to stay. --84.65.148.123 14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It may be notable in the furry world, and as suggested, it belongs on WikiFur. But no evidence has been given that it meets the requirements of WP:WEB, and my search turned nothing up. Vslashg (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Another of the staff of the FBC has volunteered (Talk:Furry Broadcasting Corporation) to add to the article in order to bring it to a more professional (and notable) level. --Brushwell 16:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that the article is not notable, but that the subject is not notable. Changes you make to the article will not change the notability of the subject.

In any event, you should write your concerns on the AfD page, not here, since the process has already begun. Vslashg (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Racist

I erased it because it had been sitting there for long enough that several administrators had a chance to see the request and chose not to act (including myself). Sorry about that. I meant to add a note to that specifically but sometimes the RFP page gets clogged and some requests fall through the cracks. RFP really isn't the venue for this sort of thing -- you should take it to WP:DRV, where it'll be more thoroughly vetted by the wider community. Thanks and sorry for the ambiguity. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not really bothered that Amazing Racist is locked; I just wanted to make sure the removal wasn't a mistake. Vslashg (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

HotBasic

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from HotBasic, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotBasic, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Drmspeedy5

Template:Drmspeedy5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Vslashg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)