User talk:Tinebsen

Hello Tinebsen, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 20:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

The Woodcreek Faction[edit]

The subject's own website is not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason for deletion?????

If the original article had no other reliable sources other than the subject's website, then yes, the subject wouldn't be notable enough for its own article. Do not make retaliatory edits such as this one [1], they will be reverted as vandalism. Dayewalker (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does or did have reliable sources other than the website reference. I have seen PLENTY of articles that do this!!!!!!!!!. Regarding the other. Fuck yourself!

No personal attacks, please. [2] That's not going to help. Dayewalker (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever dude. I am new to this community & this is how I am treated. All I do is web surf. Planned a bunch of articles. You guys can keep your uninformative site which doesn't allow for real unbiased articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinebsen (talk • contribs)

An article which relies on what the subject claims about themself/themselves is not a "real unbiased article"! If you spot articles that have no sources other than the subject's own website, then mark them as "unsourced", and somebody will try to clean them up. If they have no reliable sources, just blogs and the like, then replace the non-reliable sources with "citation needed" tags, and somebody will try to clean them up. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did you even read the article and check the references? all of the info was based on a reliable source...a magazine article. name the ones you wish to dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinebsen (talk • contribs)

Yes I did; the only citation of any length was from a single writer at V3, a local publication in northwest Georgia with a claimed circulation of about 30,000. That does not constitute substantial coverage from reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does sir. How many articles have to be cited? Do the other links which show the film festival & television appearences occured not count?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinebsen (talk • contribs)

The criterion is "Substantial coverage in reliable sources"; mere mention of appearance in a minor film festival does not constitute "substantial coverage"; an internet "radio" shockjock website interview is not a "reliable source"; have I missed anything? (YouTube is not television; any moron can and does have a YouTube channel.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the G4TV Torrent feature, which is on television. Surely, a "moron" wouldn't have missed that. Clearly, your opinions about the "morons" on YouTube have clouded your judgement. I think it is funny and ironic that an administrator uses opinions to support the fact that sources do not exist when clearly they do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinebsen (talk • contribs)

I didn't mean to imply that only morons are on YouTube; that would be absurd and offensive; it's just that we get so many people who seem to think, "My YouTube vid had 3,574 viewers; I'm famous and I demand that I be in Wikipedia". YouTube is not a reliable source for anything, of course; but if you mean some actual television program, please provide a link to it. I'm really not trying to be unreasonable here, in spite of the vandalism to my talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely trying to start an article for these guys seeing as many of their accomplisments rival most of the YouTube people on wikipedia. The link was in my original post. If it isn't enough fine. I am not going to waste any more energy trying to change your opinion. http://torrenttv.ca/episode27.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinebsen (talk • contribs)

Torrenttv is not a reliable source; it's just another vid website, like YouTube but more obscure. (By the way, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for retention of another article; most of the YouTube people on Wikipedia are here because nobody's noticed their article to delete it; or because they are genuinely notable; . If you think there are non-notable articles here, please tag them for deletion.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent TV is a show that shows on G4TV Canada. Friday and Sunday 8:30 p.m. I watch it. http://www.g4techtv.ca/static/schedule.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinebsen (talk • contribs)

Do you mean G4techTV Canada? Actual television? If so, that's one reference. If you can find a couple more, you may be in business. (Continuing ad hominem attacks on other editors will not help, though.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I have already realized that nothing is going to get approved by you no matter I do. I know that you have a vendetta at this point so I don't care. It is impossible to please you. You hold this big power trip over deciding what is and isn't reliable. If any reference and I mean any reference has any data outside of that person's self promotion it is reliable. It is non-biased. PERIOD.

Signing your posts to talk pages, etc.[edit]

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I was wondering how I can report you for opinions on this matter.[reply]

Tampering with the record[edit]

If you wish to post additional content to my talk page, go ahead; but after-the-fact alterations are inappropriate, as they falsify the historical record. (And for that same record, I have no vendetta; just a dedication to the impartial application of reasonable guidelines.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report you for being unreasonable on this subject. Please send me that information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinebsen (talk • contribs)

You would request a "deletion review" of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great but what about reporting you specifically. I find you do have a vendetta against being neutral. You are really in no position to rule on that. Someone gave you the power to become an administrator. Let me be clear. I want to report you to someone who has more power than you. I wish to have their email address & contact information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinebsen (talk • contribs)

Then you would file a report at the Administrators' Noticeboard. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so there is a committee of your fellow administrators where you and others can giggle over the seriousness of your violation? I am thinking someone is in charge. I suggest you provide me with that Mr. Lowrey.

Vandalism[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User talk:Orangemike. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]