D'INC2006

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Most Dangerous Game Master, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ultimatewarpzone.com/episodes/epi06.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 02:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

How's Bayou (Captain N episode), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that How's Bayou (Captain N episode) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How's Bayou (Captain N episode) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of How's Bayou (Captain N episode) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Most Dangerous Game Master, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that The Most Dangerous Game Master satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Dangerous Game Master and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The Most Dangerous Game Master during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why do you insist on adding a category that shouldn't exist?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't make the category the way it is, but it should at least be adjusted. If African American coaches and baseball players have their own sub-categories, then so should African American football and basketball players (which there are even more of!). If I were to change it, I would add those two sports as sub-categories and take away the OJ sub-category. D'INC2006 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thought you might like to know that there used to be a full array of sub-categories, but they were all deleted a few months ago in a major miscarriage of Wiki-justice. We managed to get the baseball sub-cat restored, and I hope to get the rest of them back in the not-too-distant future.

PS - Thanks to your great work on populating it, I can now remove the "popcat" template from Category:African American coaches (which I created fairly recently). Regards, Cgingold (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your new African American football players sucks. First of all, there are issues with the name. For one, the term African American blows. Secondly, not all blacks are of African descent, so if anything it should read black rather than African American. And it also only says football instead of American footbal, which can also mean soccer in English. This category is pointless and should not exist.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a most useful category. cheers Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nope, it's retarded. I think I'll make Category:Caucasian sportspeople.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please don't. The category was already deleted twice at CFD. See the deletion log. I'm going to delete the category as a WP:CSD G4 recreation of a deleted page. D'INC2006, please remove all of these people you have added to the category and please look before creating something whether or not it has previously been deleted. When you click on a redlink to create a page, if that page has previously been deleted, it tells you. It's a good idea to pay attention to those messages. --B (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't face such vehement opposition when I helped populate African American baseball players and coaches... Thanks for the explanation, B. I appreciated that despite the fact you share the same opinion as Mr. Nelson - who, in his extreme professionalism, can only leave abrasive remarks and sarcastic comments - you did not do the same. "African American" is the most generally widely used and politically correct term for American blacks that I know to be used today (and is consistent w/ Wikipedia's other category titles for African Americans). Also, if you had looked at the parent categories on the bottom of the AA football players category (both of which had the word "American" in them), you would know that I am NOT referring to soccer (I have already seen in another recent discussion page that a category named "African American American football players" doesn't work). For a category you believe shouldn't exist anyway, you sure have a lot to say - but it is a moot point. I already knew that the category was previously deleted, yet I thought it should get another chance since AA baseball players was brought back from deletion, and since then, has beaten a deletion nomination twice. But my opinion doesn't matter, since there is apparently a hierarchy of Wikipedians here on the football side of these categories, able to speedily undo and delete a subcategory as if I had vandalized it. It's just a category, people - one which I'm not the only one believing to be useful and questioning its quick deletion. If someone has the time and intuition to make additions and populate a category - and does it with care and consistency, I can't get emotionally wrapped-up in whether certain ones exist. D'INC2006 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm gonna remove the African American players of American football category every time I see it, FYI.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

?! All right, have fun. I'm not even the only one adding it like last time. Guess the term African American doesn't "blow" - according to the majority.D'INC2006 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not a matter of opinion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it wasn't, the category would not be there now in the form that it is currently in. The majority had ruled against me back in April (perhaps rightfully so). Although lengthy; "African American players of American football" is better than my "AA football players" for the soccer reason that you indicated, and better than the repetitive "A American American football players" from which it was changed. In fact, the cat I added months ago should've, instead, been renamed to the current form. And I'm far from the ideally politically correct "elite", so I'm with you as far as "Black" over "African American". I have no problem referring to the group as "black" in general conversation. However, as I had noted earlier, "African American" is generally the most widely used and politically correct term for American blacks that I know to be used today. From a Wiki categorization standpoint, it is more consistent w/ Wikipedia's other cat titles for African Americans like AA actors, singers and politicians. The only exception I've seen is categories dealing with black hockey players, yet it would not necessarily apply since the sport is primarily Canadian. D'INC2006 (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's really annoying to have to undo your edits all the time.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Then don't; it's not like there's any incorrect labels here, or vandalism for that matter - something you'll never see coming from me. If consistent categorization w/ these player pages is annoying to you (at least when it comes to one particular nationality), I don't know what to tell you. D'INC2006 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Chris, I hate these categories as much as you but see the CfD that was closed about two weeks ago.--Giants27(c|s) 18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will continue to undo all of your edits to NFL players infoboxes and categories. They are not how we do things, so you might as well not waste your time.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not the only one making those type of edits, plenty other pages that I did not touch have the team categories done correctly and consistently. And one day spent on the offseason roster shouldn't make the guy a player for that team.D'INC2006 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's why it says he didn't play for that team. Like I said, I'm going to undo any edits you make like this so you might as well not waste your time.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

All right already, let someone with no life and plenty of time to "waste" battle you over that. Although those players are being categorized within teams that they did not play a single down for in a game that counted, there are bigger issues with these NFL player pages. Instead of categories for quarterbacks for each franchise, there should be categories for draft picks by each franchise like the NHL player pages do. Also, it would be a little better if the player's debut date instead of the debut year was on his infobox (like the MLB player pages). D'INC2006 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply