User talk:WannaBeEditor

Speedy deletion nomination of Bikers Enforcement Unit

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bikers Enforcement Unit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/27/waco-twin-peaks-shooting-update-defense-attorney-files-motion-to-compel-cctv-video-release/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —teb728 t c 03:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC) HEY REVERT MY EDITS BACK PLS EARLANDREW SAID IT WAS GOOD

Why Lego OK while Loowi not OK?

Dear WannaBeEditor,

Regret that you marked Speedy deletion nomination of Loowi.

Why Lego OK while Loowi not OK? Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego

Please help to edit Loowi till you think it is OK. Thanks.

Regards, EduToys (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@EduToys, Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for contributing.

I don't think Lego's page is relevant here, so there is no point in discussing it.

As explained on the speedy deletion template, I have nominated the page for deletion because it appears like its entire purpose is to promote a company or a product. More information on it can be found by pressing the CSD G11 link.

Please note that you can contest the deletion on the deletion template, and you can explain why you think it should not be deleted. Ultimately, it is not my decision, one of the administration will look it over.

The article you wrote has too many problems to list, but besides for appearing to be promotional, its second biggest problem is that the subject is probably not notable enough to have an article. To understand how to write an article that is Wikipedia worthy, please see Wikipedia:Your first article. To understand Wikipedia's Notability requirements, please see Wikipedia:Notability.

I hope I was of any help. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear @EduToys, you are vioalting Wikipedia's rule by rewriting a deleted page. To un-delete a page, you need to contact an administrator. I have just alerted @Jimfbleak, to the fact that you are an account that is made to promote a product or company.

Michael Klinghoffer

Hi @Perezgraphics, I moved your conversation here, it is not appropriate on my user page. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) , or by hitting one of the sign your posts buttons.

Hi WannaBeEditor, I have a question about deletion - someone deleted my page, and now there is none of the work I did, is there any way to get it back? Thanks Perezgraphics

Yes, the way to un-delete a post is by asking an administrator to un-delete it. However, it looks like many admins were involved in deleting your page, and it might be difficult to convince them to reopen it.

I can see that the administrators that deleted your page did so because you failed to establish significance. This is not an easy element to establish, you need to show that the subject of the page is not just another player, for example you can show that he won awards. This criterion for speedy deletion is called CSD A7, and you will find more info on it by hitting the link. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a place to promote musicians. Additionally, an account can be blocked if it is found that its purpose is to promote or advertise someone. Good Luck. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC) בן עמי?

Thanks for your contribution on editting works

Dear WannaBeEditor,

Thanks for your contribution on editting works.

Might Loowi be important enough like Lego to be enrolled in Wikipedia in the future.

Sorry if we have disturbed your time.

Happy New Year!

Regards, EduToys 11:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly possible that Loowi will become notable one day, and if it does become notable, I am sure someone will write a great page about it. However, as explained to you by others, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or promote toys. I am sorry for your inconvenience, but we must maintain the quality of Wikipedia.

P.S. Opening new accounts for the purpose of advertising is against Wikipedia's policies, and probably won't be of any help to you. As you can tell, we are pretty quick to respond. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Allthefoxes

Dear @Allthefoxes, thanks for being a recent changes patroller, and for fighting vandalism. The community and I appreciate your contributions.

Regarding your reversion of my deletion on the Ger Talk Page , my deletion was not vandalism, I have deleted that comment deliberately. I do apologies for not writing an edit summary, I got distracted by something else.

The discussion starts with the following comment: "Any Gerrer rebels out there who are willing to share with us to what extent sex with a hole in the sheet (erroneously contributed to hasidim in general) is prevalent in Gur?? It would be greatly appreciated"

To simply demonstrate what bothered me in the comment, consider the following sentence: "Any African American rebels out there who are willing to share with us to what extent child molesting is prevalent in African American communities?? It would be greatly appreciated"

The comment is of a very suggesting nature, and it encouraged an argument that assumes that it is practised, but argues whether it is allowed by Jewish law. I researched the subject, and I found no proof to it. As far as I am concerned, it is an urban myth, or a deliberate attempt to disparage. I therefore found the comment and discussion disparaging, and I deleted it as per the guidelines found in Talk page guidelines: Editing Comments.

As a show of respect to your efforts to improve Wikipedia, I will wait to hear your comment before I revert your revert.

Best of luck. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@WannaBeEditor: - Feel free to revert. I didn't read into the context, and simply saw talk comments getting removed with no edit summary, so I reverted it. I should have taken a closer look anyways. Cheers. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @allthefoxes, done, and properly explained this time.

LOL --WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:WWGB Re: Euniversity

I have reverted your speedy deletion of Euniversity, because CSD A7 does not apply to educational institutions. Please be more careful next time. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Condescension is unnecessary. The first sentence would have sufficed. WWGB (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@WWGB, perhaps you are right, I apologize, meant nothing of that sort. Thanks for your contributions. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Pollution becoming the hazardous element of the environment

Hi I'm Sarthak Sharma. This is not a duplicate copy. Thank You

Respective sir, Hi I'm Sarthak Sharma. I have not copied the article from anywhere. I have only taken some hints for only writing 3 lines. Its my humble request that please don't delete my article. Thank You --sattu 11:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Sarthak Sharma or sattu

@WWGB, a duplicate copy does not mean that you copied material, it means that a page for that purpose already exists, and you can make your editions there.

Please be aware that you may contest the Speedy Deletion, but you may not Delete a Speedy Deletion template if you are the creator. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding article - Sridhar DOP

Sir,

I had created two pages today accidentally for Cinematographer sridhar .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhar DOP

These pages were deleted since I wrote the trademarks and personal quotes on the wiki page, which i had already posted on his IMDB profile ( check Imdb Profile link below ).

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7819649/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr4

I checked several wiki pages so that i comply with the rules. Now that I have removed removed all the content I had already posted on IMDB related to his personal quotes and trademarks and have also created a subpage for you to review and advise me of any corrections.

Subpage link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thekeenwatcher/Subpage_Sridhar

Bottom line .. I want to follow the rules and policies following your guidelines .. Please help me ..

Sincerely,

The Keen Watcher Thekeenwatcher (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thekeenwatcher:, I would recommend the following actions:

• Deleting the infringing sections directly on the page;

• Rewriting the section "Early Life" without content that is already on IMDB;

• Rewriting the section "Life and career" to sound less like a fan page / autobiography;

• Adding Sidhar's first/last name if applicable, or explaining why it isn't applicable;

• Adding references and source to Sidhar from independent sites to prove notability;

• After making those additions, explain what you have done in the talk page.

Please complete those additions on the page as soon as you can, and notify me when you are done, or after you made substantive changes. I will than examine your page to see if the deletion nomination should be removed.

Feel free to ask me any question. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir,

I have made all the changes you had recommended and have performed the following actions:

Deleting the infringing sections directly on the page;

Rewriting the section "Early Life" without content that is already on IMDB; Rewriting the section "Life and career" to sound less like a fan page / autobiography; Adding Sridhar's first/last Initial ; Adding references and source to Sridhar from independent sites to prove notability;

You can find the updated page here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thekeenwatcher/Subpage_Sridhar

Thank you for your support and guidance

Sincerely,

The KeenWatcher

Thekeenwatcher (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thekeenwatcher: First, I intended that you make the changes directly on the page, to prevent its deletion for G11 and G12 (Hint: read those links to understand their meaning).

Second, the reason I helped you edit the page, is because I though and hoped that you might be able to establish notability. However, I have done some of my own research, and I don't think the subject is notable enough to be worthy of a page in Wikipedia (please don't take it as an offence if its you). To be notable, the subject of the page must meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability. For example, if the subject won awards, and received a lot of recognition, that might establish notability. If I create your page again, even if it is not copyright infringement or advertisement, it will probably qualify for deletion A7 (Hint:press the link to better understand this criterion).

If you want, you can try to post it again if you can remove the violations, and establish notability. I can also ask another editor to take a look and make a comment.

--WannaBeEditor (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

Thank you very much for taking time to review my article and helping me point out my mistakes and your suggestions in creating better articles.

I didn't want to call that article "Sridhar" since that's already in use . I thought it could be called "DOP Sridhar" or "Sridhar G". Moreover the article "sridhar" doesn't really have a content that supplies some vital information regarding the topic "Sridhar" as discussed on that article. So This article could be replaced with that article .

That's is not my suggestion or anything . Maybe, that's just my opinion. Maybe some people might find lot of information from the already existing article "Sridhar" and its really good if its already serving the purpose.

Again, I don't want to resubmit it unless you find that my article could be posted on wiki with the same title- "Sridhar" or with the these titles "DOP Sridhar" or "Sridhar G".I don't want to argue on just creating a page for a person, since that would sound like advertising that person.

Either post them or delete them all, so that there is not even a deleted record of that person found on the real "Sridhar" in question , Because people who know him may get offended or even report to him if they saw a deleted page about due to some violation which traces back to us or me.

And they wont even care its a Wiki Policy violation but it would look like the person violated something. As i said everyone has different opinions without even totally reading the content.

I don't want media and others hunting me for spoiling that guys name on internet space.A Lawsuit against me for just creating an article , that's the last thing I want now. I understand if it cannot be done. Rules are rules.

Please don't take it personal , I don't even know you. Maybe, you would be someone who would save me from an accident in the future with a good heart. This mail is for Wiki Sir, not you personally.

God Bless You Sir,Happy new year 2016..

Sincerely,

The KeenWatcher

Thekeenwatcher (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thekeenwatcher: As far as I am aware, it is not possible to delete a page's history, and I am certainly unable to do so. However, I don't think it makes Sidhar look bad if the article about him was deleted, and no one can have a legal cause of action against you for trying to write an article.

--WannaBeEditor (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: MiTAC Holdings

Hello WannaBeEditor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of MiTAC Holdings, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm just going to redirect it instead. . Thank you. GedUK  13:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hi. Please make sure you have a good understanding of the language of the WP:CSD criteria before tagging pages moments after creation with tags that don't apply. Sky verdone is/was clearly not a G2 test page. It is probably an A7, and it's certainly a WP:BLPPROD, but in the case of both of those tags we should be giving editors a little bit of time to expand the page before tagging it for deletion. A lot of times editors don't realize that when they hit "save page", the page goes live. They think they're just saving their progress. A little bit of patience helps to stop being too WP:BITEey. Either way, a page that is making an effort at being an encyclopedia article is not a "test page." A test page is something along the lines of someone just messing around with syntax. Let me know if you have questions. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nick, I read your criticism, but I must disagree. Before tagging as test, I googled the name, and concluded that there was no real intention to create a notable article, it looked more like someone wanted to check how fast we will find it. Furthermore, once I concluded that their is no way to establish notability, their is no point waiting. Feel free to argue, it is just my opinion : -) WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi, Thanks for removing the tag on Eucalyptus sessilis, could you also please remove the tag on Eucalyptus semota? Best regards Hughesdarren (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hughesdarren, Done, it is certainly not applicable. However, I had on my mind to ask you if you don't think it would be better to redirect al those individual Eucalyptus species to the List of Eucalyptus species rather than creating individual articles for each one. WannaBeEditor (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy on Retagging with CSD:A7

Please see Mar George Rajendran SDB where an IP editor has removed an A7 tag, and I think it should be restored. As much as I looked, I was not able to find WP's policy on re-tagging with CSD:A7 after it was already removed once (for a bad reason). Thanks in advance.

WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no specific policy on restoring removed speedy deletion tags. It is, of course, subject to the same policies, guidelines, etc as other editing, including the policy on edit-warring, and the bold, revert, discuss approach is usually a good idea. It may be good practice to generally not restore a removed speedy deletion tag unless the removal seems to completely unreasonable, or the removal appears to have been done by the person who created the page, but instead to consider taking the page to a deletion discussion, in the case of an article Articles for deletion. Sometimes WP:PROD is a reasonable alternative, especially if the person who removed the speedy deletion tag indicated (for example in an edit summary) that the removal was specifically because he or she did not feel the particular speedy deletion criterion applied, rather than because he or she thought the article should not be deleted at all. However, there is no point in putting a PROD on an article if it is clear that another editor thinks the article should not be deleted, as the likely outcome is that the editor will just remove the PROD.

As far as this particular article is concerned, I have to say that the A7 speedy deletion nomination is invalid, as being a diocesan bishop is certainly a claim of significance. The article certainly does not contain enough evidence of notability to satisfy the notability guidelines, but whether that is because he doesn't satisfy those guidelines or because he does but nobody has added suitable sources to the article to show that he does, I don't know. I suggest that the next step should be to search for sources: if you find them, add them to the article, and if not then consider other routes to deletion, but, as I have already said, A7 is not appropriate in this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@"JamesBWatson" thanks for the clear answer, I am glad I asked before nominating it for speedy deletion again. WannaBeEditor (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi WannaBeEditor. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing excellent work! A few concerns: first you are not properly warning vandals after reverting their edits. Huggle and STiki will do this for you, but I trust that you will remember to do it manually when needed. Also remember that some edits, while unconstructive, were made in good-faith. We don't want to use rollback on these types of edits, instead using the "revert as good-faith" option, which Huggle, STiki and Twinkle all have. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your hard work, and don't go too fast with the automated software! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@— MusikAnimal ^talk - Thanks a lot, I will put the tool to great use. WannaBeEditor (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your fantastic contributions to Abramski v. United States. Keep up the good work! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree - Thanks a lot for my first barnstar. I have added myself to both of the projects that you recommended. I am sure we have a lot of cooperation to look forward to. WannaBeEditor (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhythm and dance

This article deals with material that is not included in the general article Dance - as I know, having worked upon that article and just about every other major article in the category. It deals specifically, as you may guess, with RHYTHM and dance, which, for some reason is not covered elsewhere in depth and requires its own article. Otherwise I'd not be writing it. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Redheylin. I did see that you included new materials and citations, however, I strongly believe that the material you added should be added to the Dance page. Did you consider doing that? WannaBeEditor (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did. I have been working on dance and music articles for many years. Please note that "any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material" is exempt from speedy deletion under A10. There is no article about rhythmic aspects of dance, and this is an aspect of fundamental importance. To delete it would be as absurd as saying WIkipedia had no use for an article on dance costumes, dance moves, dance venues or any other aspect. Redheylin (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you consider rhythm so closely allied to dance that there is no need to separate the two. This would be a mistake, since the amount of new and authoritative material I am adding speaks for itself. The subject is vast and is not properly covered, hence, as I rarely do, I am adding an entirely new, long article. Redheylin (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Redheylin - I am unconvinced that you are correct. I did remove my own A10 tag when I saw that there is new material, however I don't see why it needs a new article I would strongly suggest and support a merge. I guess we might need some help from outside if we can't reach an agreement. WannaBeEditor (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you wait till I have finished the first writing - which will itself only represent a fraction of the material available - before you consider the possibility of merger. I think you may find that the new article exceeds in length that into which you want to merge it. You have still not advanced any positive reason why such a merger needs to be considered. Goodness knows I have seen off by merger dozens of stub dance articles that were never going to become extended, but this is a subject of primary importance that is not covered and that ought to link to a considerable number of related articles to which it would be inappropriate to link the general article dance. Please contact me later on this. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC

@Redheylin - No problem, I will wait. Good luck, and thanks for contributing. WannaBeEditor (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Redheylin: Just wanted to let you know that someone suggested a merge (not me). WannaBeEditor (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Amazing the number of people who propose destruction for no reason. One guy a while ago managed to get a category of 100 dance articles removed - just a complete loss of a whole dance category cos he didn't like the name. Still, this guy has no reason at all, nor, need I say, any dance article edits. But everybody knows everything about dance, natch. This is why I don't contribute as much as I did. Redheylin (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's going to take a couple more days to put it all in anyway. Real world stuff. Redheylin (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your dynamic and quick response and words of encouragement. Hnhusain (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

HEYYOU MADE A MISTAKE Earl andrew said it was fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPOEOFKJF (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Shrouk shams

Dear WannabeEditor Regarding the issue you are asking about Of course i am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits and i deleted the paragraph because it's a misleading informatin and the editor who added the paragraph should make sure before adding this information it's not misleading and i am responsible only for the edits come from my account not the other i'sp for the picture yes i am responsible for it and other sites using this picture i don't mind plus i am not a very good user of Wikipedia i am trying to add something and learn that's all Thank you --Shrouk shams (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)shroukshams--Shrouk shams (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shrouk shams:The section you deleted is not misleading what-so-ever. It is well referenced, and I looked up the link myself, and had the pleasure of hearing Khaled Youssef making those statements to the TV. I suggest that you look up the link, and have the same pleasure, your name suggests that you speak Arabic. I don't see any reason to remove it. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome award for twistersister. I copied it and gave him one too. Thanks. Moscowamerican (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)