User talk:Tunes666

Your submission at Articles for creation: THA Talks (September 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:THA Talks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Tunes666, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:THA Talks concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:THA Talks, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:THA Talks

Hello, Tunes666. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "THA Talks".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:THA Talks}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Parry (poet) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Parry (poet) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Parry (poet) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at For Britain, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Anne Marie Waters. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 14:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have added further content without citing a reliable source to For Britain and Anne Marie Waters after the warning above. Please note that Wikipedia describes organisations, including political parties, the way reliable third-party sources describe them; not the way they describe themselves. All parties will tell you they are lovely; that's not what our readers need to be told about. Bishonen | talk 14:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim on the current page is not backed up by any sources as the party has not yet released a manifesto. The sources provided are based on CLAIMS from various mainstream media, there for, the statement that "various media outlets have claimed they are 'far-right'" is 100% accurate according to all the sources provided and made available. This blatant political bias shown here will contribute to the growing concern that wikipedia is absolutely not a balanced source of information. I challenge these sources provided and how they have proven this party are "far-right" and that this is not just media perception as they anticipate the parties first manifesto? Tunes666 (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How this party is described by independent third parties is precisely what Wikipedia is interested in. When the party releases it's manifesto/party platform and those third parties describe it, we can then use those sources if they differ from the current ones. But we won't describe them as they want to be described. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you appear to be missing my point. I am happy to except you must not just print what any first party wants to be described as, and that you must refer to third parties. But the Party does not yet have a manifesto and has so far not committed its self to any policies other than reject the growth of Sharia Islamic culture and to assure democratic values in the UK. This does not as yet provide any political alignment other than western democracy. So I am not sure why you are taking the presumption from the media that they are far-right" as a provable fact and statement, rather than publish the accurate truth that "various media outlets are describing them as "far-right". What it seems you are saying to me is the media controls wikipedia and takes priority over the analysis of limited data. I for one would have to refer to wiki with more caution in the future if I now know I may simply be reading media publication transfered to a page claiming to provide facts. This has been very informative.Tunes666 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that reliable sources are just making up how they describe the party with absolutely no basis, please argue that point on the article talk page. I doubt that's the case, but you may know things I don't. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]