User talk:Adrian 8076

Welcome

Hello, Adrian 8076, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - ^theWOLFchild 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Feel free to contact me

Thank you! ♥

Have a beautiful 2016!

❤ Adrian Guildford (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Adrian 8076[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rita Pam's sixth book, Sunday.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rita Pam's sixth book, Sunday.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fragments of her identity book.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fragments of her identity book.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muma Gee

Hi Adrian8076,

There are citations in the article that covers the lead. Is it necessary to include the citations there again when they can be found within the body of the article? and since the lead is more like a short summary of the article. Stanleytux (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stanleytux, If there are citations for those parts then feel free to remove the "Citation needed" notices however it'd still be best to include citations in the lead. See the article Genevieve Nnaji Adrian Guildford (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominees

Hi. I see that you're new here. I'm glad you're enthusiastic to contribute but you would do well to learn about Wikipedia before boldly charging forward. For example, I noticed that you re-nominated the Pope Benedict XVI article for good article status. As WP:GAI says, "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly and are familiar with the subject". Perhaps you're confused about that? That article has been re-nominated twice in the last couple years by more accomplished editors than you and they both failed, so I don't see how you can do any better. You have no edits on the article and I don't see any evidence of knowledge on the subject. My concern is that you'll waste the time of a reviewer that will specify what needs to be fixed and you'll be unwilling or unable to do so. You've nominated 10 other biographical articles for GA today alone!

So, if bringing these articles up to GA is work you're willing to do you are welcome to try. Be advised that GA isn't a throw-away process where you simply nominate it and wait to see if you win the lottery. I recommend you learn how to edit, get experience reverting vandalism, and start small. Again, we're happy to have you pitch in; just be careful not to bite off more than you can chew. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have nominated Alan Rickman for GA. I can't obviously see any reason to fail it, but I think you are fortunate that a death of a living person is normally results in their articles being greatly improved partly because there are suddenly well-written online obituaries to source from, and their death puts attention on everyone to look at the article and fix it. I certainly am sceptical you would know that the article covers the "Broad in coverage" and "Focused" parts of the GA criteria - I think over time the "Death" section will not be as important as you think it is now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedians we lose

By the way, in regards to your user page we keep track of deceased Wikipedians at WP:RIP and Wikipedians that quit editing at WP:MIA. So to answer your question, sometimes people do notice and do care. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Chris troutman Nice :) That was useful. Thanks! Adrian Guildford (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

How come did you fail my good article nomination for the Keeping Up with the Kardashians article? You did NOT leave any comments. You must follow the rules per WP:GAREVIEW when reviewing the article, which you DID NOT. Mymis (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis, the review was not properly conducted, and unfortunately Adrian 8076 plunged into GAs for the first time by nominating thirteen articles and attempting to review yours. All of the drive-by nominations are being reverted, and I'll be restoring your nomination so you do not lose seniority.

Adrian 8076, I suggest you take the advice given above and stay away from the Good Article process until you have gained significantly more experience on Wikipedia. Should you nominate again in the future, please be sure to nominate only one article at a time, and it should be one that you have worked on yourself and are prepared to make edits to when the review begins. Based on your attempted review today, which was inaccurate and not based on the GA criteria, it is clear you do not understand the workings of the GA process, which is critical if you are ever to review again. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]