User talk:Veinor

Please add any new sections to the bottom of the page, sign them at the end by typing ~~~~, and insert an appropriate header; see examples below for how to do that. If you don't do so, then your comment runs the risk of being ignored. I will reply to them here.

PSA Artwork

April 2007 I added "trivia" that is factually true about the origin of PSA's logo airplane, which I created. I would like to suggest that the addition be reinserted, and that any info you feel is self-promoting can be left out. I am no longer an illustrator, and you have mistakenly presumed I am trying to promote my work. Not at all so. Just trying to relate the true history of the logo, and the connection to the film "Pursuit of happyness." ~~~~

additions were deleted

Hi, My additions were deleted. I want to inform the creative public that such user generated video games are available for free

My contents are as below

There are many social gaming web sites which allow social gaming community to connect, upload games, and compete against each. Most of the web sites are free and users can upload their unique games and play what other users have uploaded.

Arcadewarfare serves as an online social gaming web site. Online social gaming community can connect, upload games, and compete against each other for prizes.(Thivankasl (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

The problem is that the way you were adding this information didn't really add any information to the article; in addition, it's also a sort of advertisement for Arcadewarfare, going against the external link guidelines. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Veinor

Yes I just recieved your awful excuse of a message about not being able to make a 'Red Smoke' page.

You spoke about sources?

How about if I get permisson from the bloke himself and from hundreds of students that prove he deserves a page?

Answer me this, how the hell is this page offending anyone/anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red red red smoke (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It all boils down to verifiability; articles need to have sources, and there are standards for what can qualify. The creator of a thing can't be the exclusive source, since otherwise we could have an article called That sandwich I got last night at the student center (tuna with lettuce, by the way). Now, if for some bizarre reason there were newspaper articles devoted to said sandwich, there would be an article. But there aren't. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 12:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand that 'Red Smoke' IS a human being? The WORST example I have heard in my life, didn't make any reference whatsoever to my page? I can't believe you are stopping me creating this page? You still haven't given a valid reason, apart from giving me "Big MEANINGFUL Words" that makes you sound so highly intellectual, however your sitting there stopping me creating a page on a website? Who will type red smoke in the search apart from people who know of him? Red red red smoke (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel like having two discussions at once for no good reason, would you mind centralizing it on your talk page? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, just because Red Smoke may be a human being doesn't mean that we all of a sudden don't need sources in order to have a good article about him. You can't act as the exclusive source about yourself no matter who you are, and most people won't count as sources either. It's only people who're known to be reliable sources of information that can count as sources.

As for the 'it doesn't hurt anybody' argument, this is one that we tend to get a lot. But the problem is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide verifiable information; articles that don't have proper sourcing detract from this purpose. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 12:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm seems funny after my comment that you want to speak privately??? Perhaps I will have to 'boss' Red red red smoke (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like your talk page is any more private; matter of fact, if we get involved in a dispute that requires outside arbitration, people are more likely to check your talk page than mine. I'm fine with you discussing it on this page, I just don't like having to go back and forth between two pages for no reason. Your call. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 12:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not disputing son, I just think its a joke that I can't make a page for this man? How the hell have some people got pages then? Example, Adam Proudlock has a page? You having a laugh!!!Red red red smoke (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jospeh Cao

Please stop undoing my attempt to remove vandalism from the Jospeh Cao article, thanks 99.241.95.241 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I got the diffs mixed up. This is what happens when I try to multitask and revert at the same time. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, good work on protecting the page99.241.95.241 (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, good work. :)--Kross^Transmit? 05:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion of Paul Uppal

The article for Paul Uppal was deleted because it was decided that as a party political candidate he was a non notable person. It was you who oversaw the decision to delete the article. On May 6th 2010, Paul Uppal was elected MP for the British House of Commons parliamentary constituency of Wolverhampton South West. I beleive this makes him a notable person and the decision to delete the article on Paul Uppal should be reviewed. 92.23.36.48 (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.201.60 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Paul Uppal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul Uppal. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jttw (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks fifth, with 23252 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What? Does this include archives or not? Because I have an incredibly difficult time believing that even with archives, my talk page takes up 23 megabytes. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It probably does, but you might wish to ask at User talk:Svick.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's counting the counts that I used to do. That'd do it. I don't think anything uses those anymore, so I should probably delete them. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)