User talk:Iridescent

I don't like breaking up conversations. If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so make sure you watch this page. Thanks.

If you've come here to complain about me deleting an article, read THIS first

Michael Cortson

I see you are from London. I've been there and will go back someday. Do you have any suggestions for my article about Mike Cortson? I added a reference in there to his books.LaurieFoston 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The most important criteria for any article (not just biographies) is "multiple independent non-trivial sources" - basically, you need to show that at least two other newspapers/significant websites/books etc have written about him (see WP:CITE for how to source things 'correctly', but as long as you show in the article what the sources are, don't worry too much about getting it perfect as someone else will tidy it up). Because at the moment, the only sources are things he's written himself, these don't satisfy the "independent" part of that.

Biographical articles have some further criteria they also need to meet, in order to prevent people who, for example, weren't particularly important but had obituaries in two newspapers (thus technically satisfying the criteria) from having their own pages and clogging things up. See WP:BIO for a full list of how Wikipedia determines whether a biographical article stays up. Again, this needs to be demonstrated from independent sources - because Wikipedia is a 'tertiary source', it shouldn't mention any fact that hasn't already been mentioned somewhere else.

If it does get deleted, don't take it as a personal insult; it won't be because of you, but purely because it doesn't in this form satisfy the criteria. I'd suggest moving a copy to a user subpage (to create a subpage, put a slash and the title after your username, eg User:LaurieFoston/Michael Cortson; user pages are exempt from most of the rules about content, so you can keep it there, work on expanding it and then move it back into the mainspace when it's ready.

Hope that helps! If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me (but be aware that he's a subject I know nothing of, so probably won't be able to help with any rewriting. You may want to post a message on the Talk page of WikiProject Golf to see if anyone there has anything they can add to it, as they'll likely have more knowledge of the matter. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am too tired to actually say "thank you" in so many words. I think I will take a break and work on it again later. I'll send you out a note to let you look at it. I am up for criticism but he was actually very crass. I see you have a lot of fan mail. Thanks, again.LaurieFoston 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the hate mail still just outweighs it though... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

hey there

Hi IM GAY,

I saw your vote on the AfD for Sashank Mavayya. I was just wondering, would a dated prod be sufficient for articles of this sort. WP:HOAX clearly im a shitfaced wanker says that hoaxes aren't speediable, which is why I ended up putting it on AfD.

Also, I've noticed that i have no life and some pages that after one editor prods an article, a second editor can support the prod, and this shows in the form of a template on the page. I was wondering... how does that happen?

My apologies that im pathetic if this all seems a little random, you seemed to know about article deletion and I was curious about these two things. I saw you online, so I just thought I'd pester you :)

Best regards, xC | ☎ 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say a dated prod is more than sufficient, but AfD's probably better if the hoaxer's still online, as the hoaxer will just take it off meaning it needs to go to AfD anyway.

To add the "support prod" template, add {{prod-2|[comment]}} underneath the original prod, replacing 'comment' with your reasons. Personally, I've never really seen the point

Hope that helps! - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

True, the support prod always seemed unneccessary, but I still thought I'd ask.

Thanks for the advice!

Regards,xC | ☎ 06:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Trevor Ivory comment deletion

I don't know how your comment got deleted; I certainly didn't intend to, and it seems weird for it to have happened without my noticing it. I'd have said it was due to an edit conflict (which is possible from the timing), but I didn't get any warning about it. Oh well, computers are infinitely mysterious. Glad you spotted it and restored your comment. Trevor Hanson 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries - it was only a trivial comment anyway, not like you were editing out the keep votes or something... We've all done it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Québécois

Hello, I am contacting all non-anonymous editors who participated in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. It has been very difficult achieving consensus on the appropriate scope of the article, and the use of the word Québécois in a series of articles proposed by one editor. I am requesting input at Talk:Québécois. Joeldl 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Iridescenti. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. (By the way, why at the top of this page does it say to read something if someone disagrees with a deletion of yours, though your not an admin?) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. Forget about the question. Should've clicked and saw the big bold words. :) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I got fed up with "why did you delete my article" posts (the reason I disabled my email, since people tend to be a bit warier about posting abuse on talk pages). For some reason, even I was one of fifteen contributors on an AfD and halfway down the list, people always seem to think I'm the one who nominated them (see here for my personal favourite example - note that of the seven AfD's listed, I didn't even participate in four of them).

I hope you do pass your RfA next time - as I said on the discussion, all the problems I think you had are all well on their way to sorting themselves out, and I suspect most of the !votes who were oppose this time will be support next time — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mythical chickens

All...err, A very small subset of all Wikipedia sheds a tear at the AfDemise of this young, nay, too young, article. I feel your pain.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Beki Bondage page

Hi mate - I am really happy with your excellent article about Beki. Aside from great writing and the interesting way it is written - I see you have respected my pleas for privacy. I do hope someone else cannot undo the great job you have done because we are finally happy with it ! If it is within your powers to remove the link at bottom of page i.e Category:1963 births. I would be very grateful as I really don't want Beki's age to be revealed ( which I'm sure you noticed me ranting endlessly on about ). My reason being is that some people are still very rude and disresapectful and use this age thing as a put-down. For so called hard-faced rockers we are very sensitive you know !

Anyway - if you can do that I would be a happy man.

If you require any assistance with your article I was a member from Bombshells and now V.S to present day and obviously Beki will provide you with any info too. I guess an article from 'the horses mouth' so to speak would be regarded as 'conflict of interest' ... so , I dunno...boy it's frustrating.

Thanks again.

Stargtr