User talk:Trigam41/Archive 1

Archive 1

Forrest Craig

A tag has been placed on Forrest Craig, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hatch68 14:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You may want to create your article in the sandbox before creating the page about it. Or you could use the {{hangon}} tag in the article you've created. --EarthPerson 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has heard of Forrest Craig. He was a Senior Petroleum Engineer for Mitchell Energy and Development for 21 years. He holds a patent in Petroleum Recovery. He worked directly with Gary Adams as a troop commitee chairman with troop 777. Unfortunately, I cannot edit now. I have been blocked for "Innapropriate Moving", though I'm not sure what that is...

Subjective Comments - User doesn't want discussion.

It means you took something personally, lost your temper, then vandalized my user talk page. Wikipedia is about discussion and consensus, not payback for someone that upsets you. There are processes to follow if you feel that the article that was deleted should be returned. Check WP:DRV for details. Hatch68 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything. I'm still not understanding what happened! What did I do? What did I move? The only personal attacks I made were on your blog and were not affiliated with Wikipedia.

And since I have been blocked, I cannot comment or defend myself when I am called a vandal. I am not a vandal.

If you're so big in discussion and not payback, why have I been blocked? You don't want to discuss anything with me, you just want me to go away.

Here is why you were blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Trigam41&page= . Malicious user page moves.↔NMajdan•talk 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This person is now harassing me online and posting my name and address on his blog and claiming I'm a pervert. I'm going to contact the police and see what can be done. Hatch68 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

...due to derogatory and defamatory statements about my infant daughter.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks against another editor. Harassing someone elsewhere apparently due to a deletion dispute here will not be tolerated.--Isotope23 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I made no attacks or defamatory statements. I simply posted public information found on the Internet including links to prominent web-sites such as Google Maps.

Somehow I think posting someone's home address along with calling them a "pervert" falls well within the Wikipedia's WP:NPA policy.--Isotope23 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I called this user a pervert due to comments made on my blog regarding my infant daughter, not due to any action here.

In that case, you can either follow the block message instructions to request a block review, or email me and we can discuss your block.--Isotope23 23:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Delta Bombing Division

If you wish to contest the deletion (or even the method of deletion), list it at WP:DRV. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Provide examples to back up your statement that "It's fairly typical for Hatch68 to assume that any adming that disagrees with him must not have read the article" that you made here or I will report you for a personal attack. Your personal attacks on people and false accusations are in fact well documented. Everything we do is still in the histories and you'd do well to remember that. You made false statements about me to get your block removed, but you seem to be on the path to be blocked again. Hatch68 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This was not a personal attack. I was simply stating what I felt to be a subjective comment on your part. The article has been re-read by the admin and your stance has been supported. The article has been deleted. Please, move on. Trigam41 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I am considering your statement a threat, but will not take any action at this time... "Everything we do is still in the histories and you'd do well to remember that." Trigam41 17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hatch68 made the following statements on the Delta Bombing Division deletion page: "There's nothing to look up for references for. It was a total hoax page that someone made up in their spare time. I have no reason to lie about the contents of the article and not one person in the AfD review found anything remotely plausible about it." I'm not able to edit that discussion page so my comments are here: I don't know that there's nothing to look up. I don't know that it was a total hoax page. I didn't accuse Hatch 68 of lying. I have never stated that the material on this page was true or valid. I simply indicated that I was not able to view the contents of the page because they had been deleted. I did not know how to go about reviewing the information on the page. I received a response from Dina that was more appropriate than any of Hatch68's responses. Dina indicated that the discussion had ended and that the page could no longer be viewed by a non-admin. I understood and was ready to move on until I received threats from Hatch68. Trigam41 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You can fee free to boldly tag anything like that for speedy deletion. Obvious page creation vandalism or disparaging individuals should be tagged for speedy deletion. It's not overstepping your boundaries; that is what speedy deletion is for.--Isotope23 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Walker

I'm not actually arguing either way. verifiability isn't the issue here; notability is. I don't have an opinion either way on notability; I'd like to see that decided by outside editors who don't have a history with this topic or subject particularly give the amount of disruption that has surrounded Nysted related topics.--Isotope23 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is a guideline for the existence of an article, not the content of an article. I don't see a good reason to exclude this information (of course, with due weight... which would be very little... where is this info supposed to go?) — Demong talk 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC) comments actually by 67.163.7.227 (talk · contribs)... not Demong (talk · contribs). Demong is not associated with this IP.--Isotope23 13:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been no new arguments regarding this issue. The comment above is NOT original and this user has been making the same comments repeatedly. I am withdrawing from this discussion as it is no longer a valid use of my time. I wish the user luck in his quest to have this information included. Trigam41 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh contrary, this is quite original and objective aside from being a comment about a real policy. What Demong said is correct, and s/he did say it. Notability is not a requirement for content. It is required for the inclusion of an article. Policy dictates that Mr. Walker is entitled to have his discography present in his article and he is entitled to have it accurate (sourced) as much as he is entitled to have a picture. The picture and albums do not have to be popular or contribute to his net worth. The Demong comment is original, and it is a winner. It is decisive. 67.163.7.227 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

...it's a fancy way of saying something doesn't have "a snowball's chance in hell" of happening. I don't know the exact context it was used in here, but it is often cited as a reason for early closure of WP:AFD discussions where the consensus has already apparently formed before the 5 day AFD period has passed. It's not policy or guideline; it's more of a statement of position or interpretation of ignore all rules.--Isotope23 20:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the context... and I'm not sure why WP:SNOW is being mentioned. The article in question is an unmitigated disaster with no sourcing and what appears to be original research on the part of the article creator who has basically created their own book report here, but it's not a WP:SNOW situation per se. It might warrent an WP:AFD though.--Isotope23 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)