User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speedy deletion declined: Jeannine Taylor[edit]

Hello I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jeannine Taylor, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article content has been added since it was tagged. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That works too. (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion request for Barry White's Greatest Hits[edit]

Hello, I saw that you had requested speedy deletion for Barry White's Greatest Hits. I thought it a little hasty, so I went in and modified the page and brought it up to standards. Just an FYI. TeaganK (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That works too. (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Pencader Charter High School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


Broom icon.svg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism and make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Piandcompany (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


I noticed your revert at Grace Kelly and when I looked I see you were totally correct to remove advertorial. I don't have the patience to track what's going on there (but notify me about any specific issues if you like), however in case you are not aware the links can be found at Special:LinkSearch/* Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I tend to forget about the LinkSearch option. It was most helpful. (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Warning users[edit]

Were you aware that you should warn users after speedy tagging articles? At the bottom of the notice, a bar will read "Please consider placing the template:". Users may improve the article if they are notified why it is being deleted. If you have questions, contact me at my talk page. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have considered and choose not to. Since the warning template tells them to contact me if they have questions (they always have questions), and since I don't feel like mentoring any more newbies (done that countless times), I don't currently copy and paste the notice. (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
However, users are entitled to know why their articles are being deleted. Users will have questions regardless, and may have additional questions as to why their article was deleted sans notification. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You're wasting your time. I'm not going to change my position on this. (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you also have a position against usernames? — cocomonkilla | talk | contrib 03:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I do. Until Wikipedia requires them, I don't see the need to have one. Consider it an informal protest of the bias against IP editors. (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
But you're letting h4x0rs see your IP address :o — cocomonkilla | talk | contrib 03:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
LOL Given the huge number of security breaches at major supposedly-secure data centers of late, I don't think I'm at much more risk than the average online bank customer. But thank you for your concern. (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a recent speedy[edit]

Information.svg Hi Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I removed the tag on for Squier Ferm., a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion G11 because the page is not blatantly promotional. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. Talk of being so popular they couldn't keep up with orders, the personal tone, the insider knowledge, it all added up to promotional to me. You disagree. So be it. It's still far from being a neutral and objective article based on publicly available info, so at the very least the creator has shown a conflict of interest. (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy tagging[edit]

I know you refuse my advice but please refrain from tagging articles minutes after users have started them. You should not tag articles as A1 and A3 moments after creation. This can be extremely disruptive to editors and cause them to permanently leave (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you personally guarantee that all new pages with no content are reviewed in not less than one day and no more than three? If you can give me that assurance then I'll gladly leave them for you to tag. (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Tom Rice[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Tom Rice. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 04:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you put the page up at AFD for me then? As an IP editor, I'm unable to start new pages. The candidate is a textbook case of WP:POLITICIAN and It's pretty obvious at this point that it's just ibeing used as and extention of the campaign. (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the policies involved, so I can't resolve this. I can only see edit warring. Sorry. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 04:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty easy.

  1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[1] This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
  2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
  3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.

Now that you know... (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just took another look at the article, so I'll consider appropriate action--the page does seem like it's promotional to me. I'll warn the user in question. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 04:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a shame we have to go through this every election cycle. (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Nominated article for deletion as CSG G11. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 04:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe I should put everything back so the admin can see how promotional it really was... ;) (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
See this thread at the administrators' noticeboard. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 04:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably not a step I would have taken, but it will be interesting to see what comes of it. (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I've declined the G11 - the article is not unambiguous advertising. Take it to AfD. -CTS talk 06:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless WP now allows IP editors to start new pages, I CAN'T take it to AfD. And you do realize I didn't tag it for deletion, right? (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know - the comment was directed at Dragon 280. Just posted it here so that you are aware of the situation. -CTS talk 06:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thank you for that. (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing - a couple of still relevant article tags were removed, {{ref improve|date=July 2012}} and {{self-published|date=July 2012}}. Would you restore them please? (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)



Thanks for the report you made to WP:AIV. I blocked both acounts making the edits to the disc jockey page as they clearly quacked as being socks of each other. Thanks again :)--5 albert square (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Terrier Updates[edit] wrote: Changing sources I'm changing your changes back. Articles should rely on a number of different sources, not just one. As long as the sources already in place are reliable, there is no reason to remove them. (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I am a member of the Scottish Terrier Club of America's web development team and was charged with bringing the wikipedia Scottish Terrier page up to date in terms of its references and citations to the STCA and articles available on its website. The original wiki page has 47 references, two of which refer to articles from the Scottish Terrier Club of America that are no longer available (citations 9 and 15). After I was done I think the articles had 48 citations, one more than when I started: I deleted references to two articles that are no longer available on our website and added three references that contain similar information - two on our website and one of the AKC's. However, because the text read slightly differently, I had to alter it just a bit, but did so just enough so it was clear the text reflected the new citation. I also updated the STCA web link which was incorrect. Now, we are back to square one with dead references and dead links. Mbohl (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, you have a Conflict of Interest. Second, you also need to realized that STCA doesn't get to take control of the article. Third, I've gone ahead and restored your version - one of the refs I thought you'd removed in favor of your own was actually an archive site. My bad. (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of the conflict of interest issue and kept that in mind as I made my edits. I tried to make my changes very neutral by only changing information that was already referencing STCA sources, not replacing other info with STCA things. I appreciate the work you and others do for this site. Mbohl (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

4013 Jamestown Dr Hopewell Va[edit]

Although Google Maps shows this is an existing address, I believe the article's content is simply a joke. Additionally, the page was vandalism either way. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you undo my Steve Novak edit?[edit]

Steve Novak is one of the best pure shooters as evidenced by him leading the entire NBA in 3 point shooting percentage and one of the top in 3 point shots made. I really don't understand why you took that out. Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papi360 (talkcontribs) 04:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless.