|"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.|
Talk page archives
Murder of Brianna Lopez
Hi there. You deleted Murder of Brianna Lopez for non-notability. Would you mind reconsidering?
There appears to be more than enough coverage to find notability: Google News.
- This is an exceptional situation. In virtually every case that I've checked into, Google News sources are unuseful for notability, since notability demands secondary sources, and news reports are primary sources for the events in question. However, the news reports you found are providing retrospective coverage of Lopez' death, so they're secondary sources, and they demonstrate the subject's notability. Problem The deleted content is a mess, and I don't believe that it belongs in an article: much of it is profoundly unencyclopedic, it's written in an essay-like format, it's nowhere close to maintaining a neutral point of view, most of the content is uncited, much of the cited content depends on a blog, etc. To have a decent article about this subject, we'd have to trash everything and start all over. Therefore, although the rules say that a challenged PROD should be undeleted, I'm going to ignore the rules and ask that you start over. As I noted, one of the article's four sources was a blog, but here are the other sources, which will be useful if you want to start over:
- I hope you'll understand if it's hard for me to agree with your assessment of how useful the original article would be in creating a decent article, given the information asymmetry in play and the elevation of your personal judgment over consensus-driven assessments of how to evaluate and treat substandard material.
- Assuming that there is in fact problematic material, the explanation above makes it hard to understand why those problems are so extraordinary that they can not be resolved through the standard WP:BRD process. I think it makes more sense to simply restore the material, tag the problems, and give potential editors some material to work with, rather than kneecapping them because you "don't believe it belongs in an article." Doing so would be more efficient, more in keeping with WP protocol, and more likely to result in an article actually resulting.
- I hope you'll reconsider.
- The content is problematic enough that adding it into an article would warrant warnings, and blocks if the adding editor should persist; I will not restore content if restoring it would make me deserve to get into trouble. When content may not be added to an article, it doesn't deserve to be tagged: it needs to be excised. Moreover, content that must be rewritten is a net negative, and a redlink is better than a trash bluelink; even if it didn't include repeated policy violations, I wouldn't be collaborating in an action that actively damages the quality of the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 2 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
You've got mail!
Hi there. You deleted Materia Magica for lack of meaningful or substantial content of the page.
Well Materia Magica is a rather popular MUD with very unique gameplay elements never seen anywhere else, as well as a dedicated player base of over 400 players total. I've been wanting to write a proper Wikipedia page for it, but haven't had the time, so please don't delete it next time? Thanks a lot.
- The entire page consisted of nothing except an infobox: a page needs to have either prose content or list content, depending on its scope, and a page with neither one qualifies for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. Any sysop has the ability to import it but, seeing as they've never done that, I don't think they'd be willing to start now. You could manually copy over the page without anything specific to the English Wikipedia (like a template or something like that), and add a link to the initial version in the summary. However, I wouldn't move it over because I don't think it would stay on there for long. It reads like an autobiography, the author seems to reference three of Mr. Klarić's own books, and there's also a slew of his "booklets, comments, interviews, reviews, presentations", and other irrelevant stuff. And even if you were to cut all those bits out, I still think he wouldn't be notable. – Srdjan m (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nyttend, Just wanted to say thanks for kindly fixing the template I added, I never realized I'd done it incorrectly so just wanted to say thanks for that :), Have a great day. –Davey2010Talk 14:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Old staff accounts
The names of WMF staff accounts aren't quite standardized, so you'd have to search every variant to be sure: MGodwin, Mgodwin, Mikegodwin, etc. However, the idea of having accounts include either "(WMF)" or "-WMF" is relatively recent (it wasn't until 2014 that it became the standard rule), so I'd be surprised if people who started working at the WMF around 2005 kept separate accounts. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Please be a bit more careful
You blocked the wrong person
When you tried to block the person impersonating me, you accidentally blocked the wrong person. The impersonator is an IP hopper that impersonated me at 126.96.36.199's Talk Page, not 188.8.131.52 themself. As far as I'm aware, 184.108.40.206 never impersonated me. DarkKnight2149 03:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Nyttend, Vanamonde93, Catfish Jim and the soapdish In regards to the AFD for Sigma Sigma Rho, I'd like to propose http://www.browngirlmagazine.com/2014/09/eep/ as a secondary source (I'm having problems scrolling past the first page of the article, so show source on your browswer)should give all of it), to be supplemented as necessary by the primary source at the sorority and the school websites.(I'm a fairly experienced wikipedia editor in regards to fraternities and sororities and the fact that this the only member of the National APIA Panhellenic Association without a page is a little annoying, not a reason to have the page, just a reason that I want to work on it. :) )Naraht (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nice website. It might scrape through on WP:RS but the article still falls short of meeting WP:GNG. Looking at the wikipedia articles for the other members of this group of organisations, it's clear that many (most?) of them also fail to meet the standard required of wikipedia articles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleting needless redirection
So what should we do with a redirection with no links to redirect from? I guess this page is not needed any more, so it's still technical reason for me: Lover, Beloved: Songs From an Evening With Carson McCullers --kocio (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)