Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Blues Pills (May 2)
Help request reply
Thanks for your valuable notes. I've started a new article using AFC but it was rejected once again although i did follow the guidelines. Any other suggestions please?
Matt Dillahunty's Wikipedia entry.
Re: The unwelcome message accusing me of vandalism.
Hi,I'm not new to Wikipedia but I don't change its pages much. Today I received a message accusing me of vandalism, one which I resent. Thr changes I made were to the Matt Dillahunty entry. The page includes a number of claims about Matt's credentials which are without verification. Given how Matt positions himself it is in his own interest to stretch his personal credibility as a reliable source on the subjects on which he speaks. There is no corroborative evidence confirming the claim he is a trained Baptist minister or ever worked in computer software production. Both claims are dubious. Surely Wikipedia is not simply a vanity publication for anybody who fancies using its credentials to cook up a falsely positive public CV. My changes to the page merely called for the claims about his biography to be either backed up by a reliable source or removed or at least flagged as requiring substantive evidence. Without it users can make phoney entries about their own credentials. In Matt's case, phoney credentials is just what it looks like. Please adjust the page to reflect this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapourmile (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, it is most helpful. However, are you aware that the strident tone with which you deliver it is likely also to cause offence?
Yes, I believe I have been reverted before, looking at my own page, it was three years ago. That isn't a bad average if you ask me. If however you are referring only to the changes on the Matt Dillahunty page then regarding your point 2 and 3 I wonder if you have any evidence I had seen the various messages you imply I wilfully disregarded? If I haven't seen them I am no more guilty of the wilful ignorance you insinuate that you are of wilfully turning a blind eye to the plight of starving Griffins. With this in mind I would appreciate it greatly if you would volunteer to back down from your strident manner so this discussion can become something even productive and perhaps even beneficial to Wikipedia or something else other than your ego.
Back to the changes I made.
The change alerted to me in my personal page, which I have since read, condemns my remark which said "[ Corroborating Evidence? ]".
I have seen Many Wikipedia pages in which citations and various other corroborating evidence is called for and left unmolested. Perfectly reasonable I think in a public access reference source to have the statements fact checked.
I disagree with your reasoning that the number of editors vouchsafes the material, particularly in view of the fact the source of the claims is not cited. It is as likely the claims emerged on Matt Dillahunty's own biography published on YouTube and elsewhere, written by himself. Ironically the information cannot be falsified since we can't ask every church group and software developer if they remember Matt Dillahunty. I say ironically because acceptance based on unfalsifiability rather than proof is exactly the kind of reasoning he objects to himself, but only when the evidence goes against him it appears. It can however been left in doubt until it is corroborated by a reliable source.
Since it is likely that Matt Dillahunty himself is the origin of the personal claims made on his page, which has since become his personal dubious Wikipedia CV, and since we know of absolutely no Baptist minister who recalls Matt's supposed training, nor any software publisher who has handled his work, I think it is prudent to post appropriate queries on that and other dubious information appearing on the pages of Wikipedia.
Public confidence in the reliability of the information appearing on the pages of Wikipedia is already an issue for the site. I think this lack of confidence is not helped by your pouncing on people who call for verification while offering insufficient constructive report on how best to go about that exact task of making Wikipedia believable.
So, please, Wikipedia is, after all, reputed to be an encyclopaedia of sorts, and not a YouTube useless free for all where we all get our own entry in which heresay rules.
If you would like to do something constructive in response to this response, then do please simply inform me how to mark pages which beg the question "Says who?" without being reverted.
You really don't score well on the social graces scale do you? Good luck with being so bloody I'll mannered. So, if it's irrelevant to you then perhaps you will refer me to somebody to whom maintaining the reliability of Wikipedia entries is not irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapourmile (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed a few of your speedies -- out of the many very correct ones -- have been just a little careless. MGM_Path Communications Co. is was a merger of two of the most impt companies in the field, and therefore had a claim to significance--and in fact, is actually notable--()we should probably combine the information into one of the articles on the successor company or companies with a redirect, but that's another matter. Even Ani Yorentz has a claim of significance, a major role in a regular company; I don't think it's enough for notability tho, so I changed it to a prod. International Association of University Libraries was a duplicate, but it was a possible redirect, so I redirected it.
Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts.  Vanjagenije (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info but help me to correct the information
Desouza's School shouldn't be referred as Desouza's English Medium School, Rourkela. Instead it Should and is only referred as Desouza's School only. Because when abbreviated it short name is DEMS ( Deepika English Medium School) which is already a school in Rourkela and mainly referred as "DEMS". It can tend to create a lot of confusion across people trying to find it or try to use it in abbreviated form. The school is only referred as "Desouza's School" and Rourkela is the town in which its situated.
So there the Article Name should be "Desouza's School, Rourkela" Places where it found: In the School Diary, in the school prospectus, and in the school monogram which is stitched to the school shirt's of the students in this school. So please help me in correct the above and changing it to real name as it a great public confusion.
Its not as much reliable as that ! Desouza's School had a website in past but its not online anymore. Well its an English Medium school but it isnt called "Desouza's English Medium School" when confronted it with the school authorities and even the principle of the school. The abbreviated name which i mentioned earlier that's DEMS is uses to referred another school in the same city which is "Deepika English Medium School" , the name DEMS is widely used for that school. As "Desouza's School" its in the school prospectus and in the school diary that its only named as "Desouza's School" so thats why i created a article named "Desouza's School, Rourkela" I have given a refrence link you can have a look to the pdf and it also has a snap of the school bulding with the name inscribed.
You are cordially invited to revisit the article and the AFD. Thanks, 03:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead and delete it. To anyone who knows anything about contemporary alternative music, it's simply unarguable that a project of William Bennett's is notable. He was the man behind Whitehouse, one of the most influential and important noise music bands ever. I included sources from the Guardian and The Quietus, both of which are respected music publications. But I can't be bothered to do any more with it, so please go ahead and delete it – you've won. --Viennese Waltz 08:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk page deletions
Just to mention that a user deleting a "Please read" section from their own talk page is a good thing, as it confirms that they've seen it! No need to revert it. Editors are free to delete whatever they like from their own talk page, with the exception of certain administrative templates. --McGeddon (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)