User talk:Mthai66

Welcome!

Hello, Mthai66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Mr Cranky (band), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mr Cranky (band)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Mr Cranky (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 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. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British or European topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Not the right notice, but it should contain the useful links. In general, don't use MM/DD/YYYY or DD/MM/YYYY date formats. Either spell out the month, or in the case of short dates for reference tags, use the ISO standard format YYYY-MM-DD. MM/DD/YYYY and DD/MM/YYYY are too easily mistaken for one another, which can lead to problems with articles edited by a multinational group of editors. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it. Stupid template doesn't even include the link. Sigh. Sorry for the clutter. Date format info can be found here: WP:DATE —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note[edit]

A comment such as this, where you ask someone for assistance in a deletion discussion will almost always be interpreted as canvassing, which is not permitted. It would usually be noted on the deletion discussion page, but since you are a new user, I felt it best to let you know here, and I wanted to prevent adding fuel to an already contentious discussion. I have responded to your question about where to discuss the notability criteria, again it is WT:N, personally I don't think you will have much luck, but of course you are free bring it up if you wish. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate Student Essays[edit]

Yes, you linked two graduate student theses that are notable. This does not mean that all graduate student theses are capable of conferring notability. It suggests that graduate student theses by Noam Chomsky and/or theses that became the foundation of digital circuit design are notable. Not all graduate student theses are written by Noam Chomsky or form the mathematical foundation of world changing technology -- although some theses mention web forums. Also, I apologize for the "mental masturbation" comment. That was, in hindsight, untoward and unnecessary. I don't usually get carried away like that in AfD's, let alone ones where I came in rather late to the discussion. Nor do I usually follow up comments in a now-closed AfD on a user's talk page, but I thought your response indicated a misunderstanding of the difference between a notable topic and a source capable of conferring notability. That there are certain graduate theses that are notable is, obviously, beyond dispute. That all graduate theses are capable of conferring notability because some are notable is very disputable. Anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being funny?[edit]

I've removed tons of unsourced, self-promotional crapola from the Dux article. I've fought the fanboys who think Dux is some super-ninja. And you actually call that "having an interest" in him? Of all the ridiculous assertions. I'd think that a bullshido regular would support someone that is keeping the Dux fantrash off of Wikipedia instead of trying to call it a conflict of interest.....Or maybe you didn't really take time to read the edit history. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you are incapable of finding the edit history. I absolutely am not a supporter of Dux. I think he's a big fraud and the edit history proves that I have removed a pile of unverified claims made by Dux and his fans. Nobody could actually make a case for me being a supporter....they can fabricate the claim and repeat it, as you've done, but the evidence proves otherwise. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for attempting to harass other users. Attempting to harass others as you did to Niteshift36 is completely unacceptable. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Fences&Windows 12:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mthai66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here

Decline reason:

I didn't need to talk to F&W; I just read the discussion and followed the links. It seems that this is an apparent case of attempted outing. Even if your comments were made as a shot in the dark or an empty taunt (and the linked blog post at F&W's talk page suggests otherwise), it is unacceptable behavior. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Before I can appeal the block I need to know precisely which aspect of what I said to him is considered harrassment. If I am in violation of a specific rule, then I suppose I can not appeal. --Mthai66 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The claim is that this is considered harassment. I can't see it ... I will put the unblock on hold and ask the blocking admin for clarification.~~ Never mind; see unblock decline Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mthai66, this behaviour violated the policy against harassment as linked to in my block notice. You were attempting to threaten and intimidate another editor. Implicitly you were threatening to out someone and to publicly embarrass them - an action that has nothing to do with a dispute over content and everything to do with you getting revenge for the deletion of the article about Bullshido. If you state that you now understand why this was unacceptable (explaining why), and you apologise, and you pledge to never interact with another Wikipedia editor in a similar manner, then another admin might consider unblocking you. Fences&Windows 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows, I was not attempting to out, harrass or get "revenge". Someone forwarded me a FOIA public record sheet on the person in question an I saw a discrepancy. If I wanted to "out" him, I would have posted the exact nature of what I was looking at. No, I will not apologise for exercising my right to review public-domain information; no I do not wish to participate in Wikipedia any longer as I find your values repellant. And FTR, nightshift was not, to my knowledge, disciplined for inviting editor Cy Q. Faunce to "say it to my face". Why was that?--Mthai66 (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]