User talk:2similar

Welcome!

Hello, 2similar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, when making a change please put the reasoning behind you change in the edit summery box on the edit page. This lets other editors know your intentions. If you leave this blank it is possible your contribution may be revert due to lack of understanding as it did here: [1]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Please do not edit the user pages of other contributors without their approval or consent. It may be seen as vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please visit the sandbox. -- Gogo Dodo 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your multitude of deletion nominations.

I strongly suggest you read WP:POINT. Furthermore, note that the seminary you want included would be most likely included if you could produce reliable sources that discuss it and make some claim of notability. JoshuaZ 22:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion retaliation

Hi, from viewing your edit history, it seems you've nominated a bunch of articles, because you were upset that Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia got deleted. We have a guideline that prohibits this at WP:POINT. Please read it. --Rob 22:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start it

I didn't start it, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did. You should blame him for disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate his point; whatever it is I hope it is sharp so that it hurts when he is forced to shove it up his arse. 2similar 22:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim was acting consistent with policy and guidelines, you are making a WP:POINT and being disruptive. Furthermore, the above comment constitues a personal attack which is not allowed under WP:NPA. I told you above what you would most likely need to get the article recreated. You can either choose to look for such sources or not, but in the meantime don't disrupt Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, he should be desysopped for that. But I am only making a WP:POINT because I could do it no other way. Anyway, they have proven my WP:POINT. They are hypocrits for deleting one and not deleting all. Now, will Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia ever get the page it deserves -- the page that was mercilessly murdered by Future Imperfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? 2similar 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, you will get a page when you provide reliable sources talking about the seminary and have some assertion of notability per WP:N. Note that the other seminaries you nominated generally met these criteria. If you can provide meet those conditions you will get it restored. In the meantime stop acting like a 5 year old whining about who "started it" and calling for desysoping of admins who are doing their jobs. JoshuaZ 22:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since this account has been blocked, I suggest you return to your original account if you find those sources. See WP:SOCK for our policy on such matters. JoshuaZ 22:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My original account was blocked by Future Imperfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- who has NEVER SPOKEN TO ME, Just bit me per WP:BITE. He should be desysopped. 2similar 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by the time I came across you, you seemed to have gone so far it didn't seem much sense talking to you. And, believe it or not, I was called away from the computer.

I can unblock you if you will behave decently. I have no problem with you creating that article again - you could have done that right from the start, just include a bit more information, you would have spared yourself and us others a lot of trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so are you willing to behave or not? If so, we will unblock the User:Waiting4 account and let you recreate the article. JoshuaZ 23:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RELIABLE SOURCE

Here you are J-boy:

I put the links into the article I wrote. These idiots still deleted it! 2similar 22:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, reliable sources should be independent of the organization in question. Please read the WP:RS in more detail. JoshuaZ 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so silly. They are good Christians (bless them). They're not going to lie about things like accreditation, or when they were founded, or who works there, are they? This is not Kent Hovind degree mill territory, is it? 2similar 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, our policies don't care whether they are "good Christians" or atheists or muslims or agnostics or followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. We don't know whether or not they would lie, we have no idea who actually runs it. In fact, for all we know, the website could be set up by Kent Hovind. That's why we need independent sources. JoshuaZ 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is staring at you below... \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/

MORE RELIABLE SOURCES

Ok, you are getting there now. If you agree to go back to your earlier User:Waiting4 account, I will talk to the other admins about allowing recreation of the article. JoshuaZ 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waiting4 was blocked by Future Imperative at Dawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) out of spite. 2similar 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. I can read the comments above. JoshuaZ 23:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~W4/2S, you did see my reply above, didn't you? - Fut.Imp. ● 23:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)~~ Piss off.[reply]

I can't go back to my original account because ^^^ this clown ^^^ has blocked me for *no reason*. He is a fucking idiot. 2similar 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are never called. Please stop making them. The point was that if you promise to go back to that account we will unblock it. Or if you prefer, we will keep that one blocked and unblock this one. But you need to choose one account, you need to stop making personal attacks and you need to stop making disruptive AfDs. Ok? JoshuaZ 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]