Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Roberttheman2008

Response to Response

This is a point by point response to Roberts response.

Yes, you are a new member. Wikipedia has plenty of resources for new users that I recommend you read. The best of which, which has links to most of the others, is WP:YFA.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. If your edits were not objected to, they were likely constructive and helpful to the encyclopedia. Thank you.
The Unknown Creature article was deleted because it lacked reliable sources (WP:RS) demonstrating notability (WP:N), the facts contained within were not verifiable (WP:V), and it appears from those facts that there were not likely to be reliable sources forthcoming. Is this favoring the big man over the little man? Not deliberately, though that may be a secondary side effect of some Wikipedia policies.
You are welcome at the Wikipedia project. The articles you have contributed thus far, The SNES Game Maker and The Unknown Creature, are probably not, since they don't seem to meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.
No response needed.
The article on The SNES Game Maker violated several policies and guidelines, including WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, and apparently WP:COIN.
Doing what you think is right is fine, but you haven't gone about it in an appropriate manner. The Bill of Rights prevents the US Government from controlling your speech, but does not compel the Wikimedia Foundation to allow you unfettered access to put your speech on Wikipedia.
Responding to criticism of your threatening behavior by making more threats is the kind of inappropriate behavior I'm talking about above.
WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia policy, which means it has the consensus of editors and we are all expected to follow it. However, I don't think you understand what it says. NPOV is about the content wiithin articles, not the inclusion of articles. It is also just one policy, and does not trump other policies, such as WP:V.
I don't understand this statement.
Your decision to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation should be based on whether you believe the project is worthy. Wikipedia will not change policies, or take action, in an attempt to secure specific donations.
Agreed. No laws broken that I see.
Many points here, so I'll break it down
1. It's sometimes difficult to understand what you are trying to say when you write, and there are some recurring spelling errors in your text. This may lead some people to believe that English is not your first language.
2. Your threatening behavior is documented in the RFC. Additionally, you threatened me with a subpoena on your talk page.
3. As I addressed elsewhere on your talk page, I did not. I said it did not have a real release, meaning in theaters, at a notable film festival, or on DVD through regular retail channels. I don't deny the film EXISTS, and that someone has made DVDs and is selling them.
4. I don't understand your last statement in this section.
How you choose to administer your own website is your own business. Wikipedia uses the term SPAM a little differently from other places, see WP:SPAM.
It was not obvious. It certainly looked to me like you were trying to bribe Wikipedia with the promise of a donation.
No, they can't. You see, on Wikipedia, the editors ARE the administration. Certain users are given the technical power to enact consensus decisions, but the decisions themselves are reached by all users, using procedures like Articles for Deletion or this Request for Comments.

gnfnrf (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shoulld be noted

that user stopped editing on September 11. See Here. Hopefully, we can all put prior unpleasantness behind us without a block or a ban. Dloh cierekim 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at this September 21 diff of the user admitting to creating a hoax. It seems like the user intends to do the same thing as before. MuZemike (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 was a typo. Last edit was 9/21. 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)