User talk:Andrewwisne
Madness
Welcome to the madhouse; please say hello
Welcome
Hi, Andrewwisne. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 04:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia! -- Chzz ► 04:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Andy Wisne
A tag has been placed on Andy Wisne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Andy Wisne, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Eeekster (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Andy wisne, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Andy wisne
A tag has been placed on Andy wisne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Dædαlus Contribs 04:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Andy Wisne
A tag has been placed on Andy Wisne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Andy Wisne, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Dædαlus Contribs 05:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Andy Wisne, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — Dædαlus Contribs 05:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Andy Wisne. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What you have written seems to make sense and so does mine. If everything I have written is fact then neutral point of view was not breached. If you read the biographies of well known actors mentioning vying for a role in a major motion picture is notable. Being a Notre Dame football player is notable. Being featured on the cover of the Los Angeles Times is notable. Being the subject of an award winning piece is notable. Delivering lines to Delta Burke is notable. Performing Stand up comedy with with Naasha Leggerro and Lou Ferrgno at the famous Hollywood Improv is notable. Starring in a show at the Improv is notable. Having NBC feature a half time show on the wisne family is notable. Please also refer to wikepedia pages below (simply being a Notre Dame football player) and compare to what Andy Wisne has already accomplished. It seems to be easy for anyone to distort what is or what isn't notable. I believe any twelve year old kid would instinctively say what Andy Wisne has done apart from anything trivial is a remarkable achievement already and it is duely noted by millions of followers. Andy does meet the basic criteria of what is notable after reading the guidlines for what is notable- Basic criteria A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
It goes without saying the stories were pretty deep my friend and they were intellectually independent. Further more another - General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
Significant coverage is more than trivial ( a story that helps and moves people is more than trivial, being a Notre Dame football player is more than trivial if one searches the "depth criteria") but may be less than exclusive (meets that one).[1] I think it goes without saying after reading the guidlines, saying this guy is not notable is an abomination to the system. If you have read the articles in the Los Angeles Times, and "Out of the Darkness" ( have you read them?)featured in the South Bend Tribune and Irish sports report it is more than trivial and the depth of coverage is MORE than substantial.- regardless Andy Wisne has met mutiple guidelines for inclusion in the category of notability. Rodney Dangerfield wants this guy to have a break- Andrew Wisne
Articles for deletion nomination of Andy Wisne
I have nominated Andy Wisne, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dædαlus Contribs 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
From the creater of the article- AndrewWisne
This was copied and pasted by me from an exert from the articles entry page which needs to be addressed.-- from Cunard on the articles entry page- AndrewWisne
Keep Though Andy Wisne may not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:ENTERTAINER, he passes WP:GNG. Several sources attest to Wisne's notability. Here is an abstract from Chicago Sun-Times; a look at the opening two paragraphs of this article, as well as its title, shows that Wisne is the main subject of this article. The same can be said of this article from the Chicago Tribune; a look at the title of this article (Wisne tackles the lively arts ; An ex-Notre Dame nose guard swaps lots of injuries--and more than 100 pounds--for a promising acting career) proves that Andy Wisne is the main subject of this article. This article from South Bend Tribune is a third source that proves Wisne's notability. Finally, this feature article from the Los Angeles Times is the icing on top of the three other news articles that confirm his notability. Although this article is autobiographical, it passes WP:NOTE and should be kept. WP:TONE issues can be solved through normal editing. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
General notability guideline Shortcut: WP:GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. *The article Andy Wisne meets this criteria
1. "Significant coverage"- means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.* The article Andy Wisne meets this criteria
No, it doesn't. I has several trivial mentions, but nothing concrete to establish notability.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) point That is false biased opinion. Someone who is well known and tells a factual story that helps people- Noteable my friend
After reading the line "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]" The depth of coverage is anything but trivial. The Publications are of the highest degress, it affected the masses in a posive way, and contained extreme depth. Again attack on th itegrity of the person at hand. In a nuetral point of view Significant coverage has been met and then some.- Andrewwisne May 25 2009
No, it is trivial. Period, it mentions you in passing, that is what we call trivial.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) point There we have it- you didn't read any of it. The story's were about me. All of it.- Last line proven false 2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2] *Writers Robyn Norwood (LA TIMES) and Jeff Carroll ( South Bend Tribune) are both writers of integrity and reliable.
Not only saying the article and what it pertians is trivial is offensive, it seems like an attack on the person's integrity. All sources are of the highest most respected of publications and in no way the information about Andy Wisne in those publications were trivial. That is way off nuetral point of view- Andrewwisne May 25 2009
I probably shoud not respond to this but I will. You said it mentioned me in passing? The story's were about my life. If you have read them Andy Wisne was the sole focus point of those stories. The stories were seen in The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tibune,South Bend Tribune, and the Irish Sport Report. The latter winning the writer first prize the the American Society of Journalist because of the unique and interesting notbale occrances,events and, the very nature of person it was about. Who was a Notre Dame star and current actor. The story's are icing on the cake.
IMDB is not a reliable source, period.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
point IMDB means Internet Movie Data Base. It could be compared to say that of an NFL.com which many people who own a wiki page used as referaces. IMDB keeps official track of an artsits work and records. Obviously that was a subjective opinion on your part. Without getting into an argument about positive and negative mindsets lets go back to neural point of view. IMDB is the official movie databse. Just like many NFL players use NFL.com- I have so many other sources I could use but this should be sufficient. A reason why it wouldn't would be entirely speculative 3. "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] ** Because of the depth and length of the sources from the Los Angeles times featured article on Andy Wisne and South bend Tribune there is a plethera of information written by established writers of integrity. Again the storys were long, in depth, and moving. Including Significant coverage and reliable.
I already covered these in my post.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 4. Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5] ** All infomation was derived from sources other than the auther himself. Including the 3 previous points mentioned above the subject at hand is notable for positve influence according to story's written by major publications independent of the wikepedia author. All information is true and correct as referanced.
Self- Publicity is negated. - all infor mation meets General notability standard. All infomation remains true an extremely relavant. Advertising- Negated Again a first place winner for a story on Andy Wisne that influences society in a positive fashion is not advertisemnt. It is a factual story and in some opinions, since we are using them, a work of art. All information comes from reliable and well respected ouside sources. Autobiographes are allowed given the fact of substantial secondary resources which there are. Saying imdb is not a reasonal resource is a slap in the face to the movie industry. Actors, writers, directors, producers and so on take their work very seriously.
Again, read point made at three.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 5. Reliable sources- goes without saying
- You are incorrect in several points. IMDB is not considered a reliable source because it, like Wikipedia, is user-generated: no one at IMDB is fact-checking the contents of that source, so it's impossible to use it as a totally reliable source of information. In addition, IMDB is not a source that confirms notability, because IMDB's standards for inclusion are different than Wikipedia- IMDB only requires that a person has been involved in a movie, while Wikipedia requires that that person has been the subject of significant writing. A person could play "Third Boy on Left" in an obscure made-for-TV-movie and be included in IMDB without being an apppropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. That you are writing about yourself is significant because you have a conflict of interest that makes it difficult for you to write in a neutral way, which is why all Wikipedia editors avoid writing about ourselves. In addition, it is relevant to the question of notability, because when a person is truly notable, they don't have to write about themselves- their many fans inevitably create an article about them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Rebutteling that point IMDB is not user generated and is an official source for all credited artist. It means Internet Movie Data Base-It officially records the artist's works. You have to be credited by a certain production and they have to then turn it in before you are credited on imdb. From then on it is at the artists discretion if they add biographical information onto it. But it is submitted to a comittee to deem factuality before it is listed. IMDB recognizes only official credit before credit is added. All information added is submitted and verified by their administrators to deem the factuality of the information. Meaning an official resource for artit's credit- just like an NFL.com used as an official referance for national football league players that have wikipedia pages. All information is reviewed making sure it is deemed factual. -Andrewwisne May 25, 2009
Being an artist extends those boundries of thinking about whether an arist is notable if they write there own article. I would say they are more of an artist if they do so. But that very argument is not relevent to the issue at hand. But as long as my personal integrity is attacked I will defend it with the proper information on this page. That is why sticking to whether it passes WP:GNP and WP: NOTE is important. It avoids decisions that have been influecned to the conscious or subconscious thought. It's like having a referee from the big 10 referreeing a big 12 game. We have to stick to what is relevant. I'm trying to avoid emotional debate but it seems as though some of you are tracking off course into a love hate issue. It seems to me more of the latter. Regardless it is irrelevant, needs to now be avoided, and an independent official admnistrator must review this in a neutral way.
Have the guidelines been met? That is the question at hand. Your comment about if a person is truely notable they wouldn't have to write their on article. Is that really true or is that an attack on the person's integrity? The only way a story gets told is if its initially told by that person. What one may deem as a non standard way of writing an article another would say it is expression of the truth that is relevent to notability standard and is factual - which it passes as in WP:GNG. Many artists have attained a high degree of notability by telling their stories, having their stories told for them, and some having to do it themselves. There are no certain rules or regulations except for an article to be relevent, to meet the general guidelines for nobility. How an article comes to fruition apart from this has no bearing on the debate at hand. Many rap artist, or poets may use a slang word called "thuggin". That is usually a word used to say the person had to fight for every inch to earn their nobility and to have their expression mechanism manifest, and a truth that positively affects mankind,- is considered not only notale but notable, and passes the wikipedia WP:GNG and WP:Note standards. One only is notable when they open up about themselves in one form or another. This seems to be a personal attack with ulterior motives but then again that seems to be opinion and specultation and vice versa. So lets just stick to the standard nuetral point of view. It meets WP:GNG and WP:NOTE. Tone can be adjusted- Andrewwisne May 25,2009
Works done on the imdb are added by the producer or an offical affiliated the movie, show or the like. Saying imdb is not an offical resource or if nothing else is vying persectives. As with an actor say an Al pacino, all of his works are offically recorded by imdb the same as an NFL.com records stats. Two different animals but for the sake of the argument a perfect example. Since that is mentioned I am going to add afew more referancs to the article. Regardless, imdb is not being used as the primary source of notabiity. As a former University of Notre Dame football player and having two well known factual story's by respected publications and writers definitly destinguishes Andy Wisne as notable. Besides that WP:GNP standards were met.- AndrewWisne- May 25,2009
- If you're unquestionably notable, then you can turn your computer off and go to bed; editors reviewing AfD, for the most part, want to find reasons to keep articles. The generally agreed-upon standard for athletes is that all athletes who play at the highest professional level are notable (in American football, that's the NFL), but there are articles about lots of individual college players who are significant to the sport. You've done everything you can; now all you need to do is wait a week or so and see how the discussion turns out. As for IMDB, it's useful, but other Wikipedia editors won't use it to confirm notability. You mention Al Pacino; he's unquestionably notable because there are lots of articles about him in newspapers and magazines, and he's won several top-level awards in his field- not because he is listed on IMDB.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Case In Point- You mention newspaper articles- The newspaper articles I have mentioned are of the highest respected Ap sources. Al Pacino is an actor I look up too. What degree of actor I may be typed as in your opinion has no bearing on the issue. I'm in the process of starting a movie career while he is already a well respected and establishd actor. I am an actor a present not yet a movie star. What degree of actor at present has no bearing. Again information that has no bearing on the simple guidelines keeps popping up. Thus indicating that there are personal opinions on myself and the writers of interety who write for the offical AP sources. That is why it should remind us that an independent person review this in a non biased fashion is necessary. Is the information factual? Does It pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTE- Yes- Andrewwisne May 25, 2009
Your article,
You can voice your concerns about it at the AFD, which is linked from the article page. Besides that, amounts of people who watch a subject do not make said subject notable. I have listed my concerns on the AFD as well. I stand by them.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a single point and that issue was never addressed about the imdb. Theimdb is an official source of referance for actors, writers, and directors. The same as if an NFL player uses and NFL.com bio as referance. Not only that- it seems to be an indiviual emotional response evading neutral point of view.- AndrewWisne- May 25, 2009
- We have rules here, and guidelines, along wtih rules that decide what is notable and what isn't. I could care less if you deserve a break, why? I'm not going to be guilt tripped into withdrawing the AFD. If you disagree, bring it up on the AFD, don't message me again if you're going to try to continue to guilt trip me, it won't work, and it will be a waste of time.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Trying to guilt trip others will not work, period. We all stand firm in our opinions, and no amount of guilt tripping from you will change that. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not give everyone who thinks they deserve it a page.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- No one is trying to guilt trip anyone. The only reasons this article shouldn't be kept is if the reviewers avoided the fact it meets all WP:GNG. standards. It passes WP:GNG. AndrewWisne- May 25,2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
- When you continue to talk about your injuries, and say stuff like, this guy deserves a break, yes, that is called guilt tripping.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- No one is trying to guilt trip anyone. The only reasons this article shouldn't be kept is if the reviewers avoided the fact it meets all WP:GNG. standards. It passes WP:GNG. AndrewWisne- May 25,2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to User talk:Ttonyb1, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Amalthea 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Also, stop adding hangon tags. They have no effect here or on the article, it is no longer nominated for speedy deletion. Amalthea 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Caps
I stand firm in my opinions, and no amount of yelling will push me into submission. You think the article abides by our guidelines, but in truth, it does not. It is outlined quite well at the AFD. If you want to prevent yourself from being blocked, I suggest you quit the confrontational behavior and disruptive editing.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Voting Twice
You are not allowed to do it, as you did, seen here. Do not do it again, or you may be blocked from editing.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This is your second warning, do not do it again. Vote fixing is strictly against the rules.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Dædαlus Contribs 23:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You called my edits biased, and told another editor he was deliberately making up false information. This is unacceptable behavior. — Dædαlus Contribs 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No it is the truth. Eveything you are writing is your own opinion. There is nothing wrong with making that clear. I feel just as strongly or more so about my point of view. In my position there should be no hesitation in declaring this not only a page of notability but a necessary one as well. Not accusing anyone but just as a reminder. Do not abuse your power to overturn essential ingrediants that make our society unique and positive. My story's documented by writers with integrity do just that. I am a former starting football player for The University of Notre Dame who has gone through a journey that has been well documented. I would like to request someone who is not affiliated with either one of us or has not been affiliated with this conversation to date to make a decision. Thank you-Andrew Wisne- May 24, 2009
- Truth is in the eye of the beholder, however, that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't make personally attacking others any more okay. You cannot call others bias or those who forge inaccuracies on purpose, it isn't acceptable, period. Do so again, and things will not go smoothly for you.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for the choice of words. Yes let's try to remain nuetral as an independent administrator will review this as mentioned. And yes that was my opinion and please accept my sincerest apologies. All information is factual, refranced properly, relevant, and meets al WP:GNG standards. Andrewwisne- May 25, 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
Third warning, do not vote twice, such is attempting to manipulate the outcome, and is not allowed. I have removed the part of your comment which had a heading of keep, as voting twice is not allowed.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Andy Wisne
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Andy Wisne. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This article meets and passes all WP:GNG. standards.- Andrewwisne- May 25, 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs)
Advice
In general, one short, clear comment on an AfD discussion is sufficient. Making lots of comments can be confusing, and isn't usually necessary unless new information comes to light. Don't worry; if this person meets the notability criteria, and if the sources on the article confirm that, then independent editors will vote to keep the article without your having to do a thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you FisherQueen. Just fighting for what I believe to be a relevant article for wikipedia that meets those standards you mentioned above. Thank you for mentioning that.- Andrewwisne-May 25,2009
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. — Dædαlus Contribs 20:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are free to do as you choose. But creating an article about yourself is pretty strongly frowned upon, so the more intensely you defend the article, the more it looks like you are only interested in self-promotion, and the more likely it is that the article will be deleted for that reason. As long as you aren't being disruptive, you are free to edit in any way that seems wise to you- but my experience tells me that the wisest thing you can do is turn off your computer and not check in on this article again until at least Friday, to see how other editors will see it when they can concentrate on the article without getting distracted by your edits. Take my advice or don't, as you choose. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
I can't even figure out how to have a non-confusing conversation with you, since you're inserting your comments randomly into the middle of your talk page. But in response to your latest message: as far as I can tell, you were not interested in the philosophical implications of Wikipedia's notability criteria before you decided to write an article about yourself, you don't appear to be interested in it in any area except the article you wrote about yourself, and I sincerely doubt you'll be interested in working to make the encyclopedia better after the AfD on the article you wrote about yourself is concluded. Users who actually care about the encyclopedia as a whole are therefore not likely to take anything you say on the subject very seriously. If this really is a subject you care about- and not just the subject of whether or not you can write an article promoting yourself- then try this: stay here for a year, working on reviewing new pages and participating usefully in AfD discussions, for 30-60 minutes a day at least three days a week, without once writing about yourself. Then share your ideas about how the notability criteria ought to be revised. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. — Dædαlus Contribs 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You do not sign your signature by typing {{subst:Andrewwisne}}, nor do you sign it by manually typing it out. As several people have told you now, you sign it by typing ~ four times, so that it looks like: ~~~~ when you sign your posts. Wikipedia will automattically parse in your sig. A tilda can usually be found left of the 1 above the Tab key, and you can use it by pushing Shift `. Please sign your posts. I am sick of having to clean up after you.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Listen clearly
Your hundreds of words of comment are making the AfD impossible to read. I have moved all of your comments to the bottom. If I missed the comments you made in the time it took me to reformat, I apologize; it's quite difficult to keep up when you are leaving a comment nearly every 60 seconds. Stop commenting on the AfD. You are disrupting the discussion, and not saying anything new. You may comment on the AfD again if you become aware of an additional reliable source that has not already been listed. In order to prevent further disruption, if you comment on the AfD again for any other reason, I will block you until the discussion is concluded, in order to allow it to continue in a way that other users can understand. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination). If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not make baseless accusations against others without citing evidence, otherwise it is a personal attack. I suggest you strike through your bad-faith label of others trying to manipulate the AFD. — Dædαlus Contribs 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree that he should strike it through. I've advised him not to edit the AfD again, and considering that he's been spending all day commenting on this article and still doesn't know how to sign a message, I don't think he will be able to format a strikeout anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Remember when I said that, if you edited the AfD again without having something new to say, I would block you to allow the discussion to continue in a coherent way? Well, after I said that, you edited the AfD, but your edit didn't say anything new, or include a source we haven't already looked at. In order to allow the rest of the community to follow the conversation, I've blocked you for a period of time that should extend until the AfD closes. After the AfD closes, if you'd like to make useful edits on topics that are not about yourself, you are welcome to do so. I'm sorry to have to block you, but I couldn't think of any other way to keep this discussion readable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It is completely unfair to block me. They are bashing me and manipulating everything I've written. With free speech on mind it is unfair to not be able to defend what is clearly right. I have given all my blood sweat an tears thus far n it is a shame some people see it differently. I did all I can do.
Your article
Hello Andrew
I am familiar with your accomplishments both on the field as well as on the screen and I think that it's a shame that wikipedia editors follow rules and guidelines blindly and allow them to lead them to deleting noteworthy articles. There is however absolutely nothing we can do to save the article from being deleted this time around but that's perfectly alright really cause there will be absolutely no way that they'll be able to delete the article in a few years time. Don't be wasting too much of your valuable time and energy on these people, life is too short.
Sincerely,--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)