User talk:Heliomance

Welcome!

Hello, Heliomance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Birds and the Bees[edit]

Sorry for reverting your edit. It initially looked like a test edit from an anonymous user, so I reverted it and added a test message. I took another look at it, though, and retracted my edit, so it now points to The birds and the bees. - Bootstoots 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

Hi, I noticed you've been tagging a few articles with AfD (for example Fredrick chan). Some of these articles may be better suited to speedy deletion. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention... Mind matrix 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information for tagging articles for CSD is available here. Mind matrix 15:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DELETE and WP:CSD, these pages list all the tags you can use for requesting deletion. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

surely adding the name of the person who produced a certain song is constructive. It surely isn't vandalism?Infinitelyobsessive 13:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. My aim is to give the most successful producer of a certain music scene some recognition on this site, and hopefully further improve other arrticles related to grime. I am a neophyte, so point out my mistakes, as long as you know i'm not a vandal.Infinitelyobsessive 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition in Finland[edit]

Please stop! - I do not know what your point is, but the end result amounts to vandalism. Prohibition in Finland is redirected to Prohibition because:

Prohibition in Finland is covered in that article, in the section Nordic countries.
The redirect is now marked with {{R with possibilities}}. Even if the Prohibition article did not mention the Nordic countries, the redirect should still go there. There is no specific article on Finland, and the redirect is refered to from articles.

-- Petri Krohn 09:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status[edit]

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige (film)[edit]

Thanks for your comment. Where does it say plot summaries are not considered OR? I'm all in favor of user-written summaries but I think we should be consistent. I had a perfectly valid entry removed from the _discussion_ page of The Prestige (title: Angier's plan) due to some alleged violation of an obscure Wikipedia rule. So now I'm interested in knowing why the rules are interpreted in a very strict sense in some instances and not in others. Apparently some editors are more equal than others :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Para82 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply but note that almost all films (including the prestige) have discussions about plot details on the discussion page so I'm wondering what's so special about my addition. It's not like it is some crackpot-speculation from someone who didn't understand the film (like many other discussions on the Prestige film page btw). My entry seems to be very much inline with all the other stuff that have been discussed on the prestige discussion page. But apparently it is totally random what gets deleted, it just depends on which editors are online around the time it is added and what mood their in :( Wikipedia is on a very dangerous path here. I feel sorry for all those that have contributed during the early years of Wikipedia and made it what it is today. My feeling is that most of those editors wouldn't have contributed if Wikipedia had been run like it is today (most of the contributions would probably have been deleted due to obscure violations). Now it seems Wikipedia is "run" by people who entered 2-3 years ago when Wikipedia was already established and it's sad to see how they are destroying the heritage and spirit of the original Wikipedia. The only reason why Wikipedia appears succesful is due to those original contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Para82 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, regarding your comment "Whilst a plot summary isn't OR, speculation about how details of the plot were feasible is, as it is unconfirmed by the film." note that there is a VERY big difference between having OR in the article and having OR-discussion on the discussion page. In fact, it seems to me everything on the discussion page must per definition be OR. Hence your logic is invalid. However, instead of ruining the article I've now decided to clean out the discussion page by removing everything along the same lines as my entry.Para82 11:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and I now read the "point"-article and basically agree with it. But I don't understand why you don't yourself go and delete all the discussion entries that I deleted - they are just as OR as mine and just as unlikely to be of relevance to the main article. For instance the discussion on which borden is which etc. If you truly care about all these policies, and that's why you deleted my entry, how can you tolerate the 4-5 other entries that are just as much in violation as mine is? You have to admit that a Wiki user can only take this is an indication that the editor is prejudiced against that particular contribution/entry for some unknown (random?) reason. Para82 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your last comment. Whatever the reason I can see that the discussion page is now back to the inconsistent state (i.e. with my entry removed and not the others). I give up - you win. Wikipedia has become a terrible place of randomness and overzealous 'contributors' that apparently derive pleasure from deleting content just so they can see someone else's work go down the drain. So again, you win - the prize is that I will stop contributing to Wikipedia alrogether (and I was a real contributor, contributing hundreds of articles when nobody had heard of Wikipedia, very unlike the many pseudo (or even anti)-contributors seen now. I'm not the first to go and sure as hell not the last! Have fun ruling Wikipedia.Para82 14:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since you all enjoy referring to rules so much, perhaps what you should have read (and followed is this) are the most important pages: WP:BITE and assume good faith. Interestingly, I see very little of this (and here I'm not speaking of your edits). Instead I see people randomly and inconsistently deleting content (often contradicting themselves in their explanations) seconds after it is submitted. One must assume that certain editors sit and wait for some one to submit actual content so that it can be scrutinized against the infinitude of guidelines and restrictions silently put in place on Wikipedia. I say silently, because the people actually contributing are too busy to look at the meta-Wiki pages whereas the wanna-by lawyers have plenty of time to spend and are able to get "consensus" for new restrictions they can use to derail honest attempts at contributing. However, I must say that you specifically were actually quite polite in what you wrote, but still inconsistent (which you admitted yourself) and that is probably the worst problem for Wikipedia. The sad thing about Wikipedia is that the serious and competent contributors probably have numerous activities going on outside Wikipedia and hence can't devote much time to futile edit-wars. Consequently, Wikipedia is ruled by those who can reserve a lot of time and hence can make the required number of edits to get it their way. Sad but true :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Para82 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Japanese swords[edit]

Japanese swords, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Japanese swords satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese swords and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Japanese swords during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Burzmali (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Heliomance. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]