April 2017
A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Elizabeth Guzman
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 Elizabeth Guzman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of B.J. Brown
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 B.J. Brown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Elizabeth Guzman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elizabeth Guzman 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/Elizabeth Guzman 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. reddogsix (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Your page creation
Hi, N I H I L I S T I C! Could you please cease your article creation and do something else? As you can see, most of your articles are speedily deleted. Could you please stop disrupting other users? If you want to experiment, please use your sandbox. Have you completed The Wikipedia Adventure? Thank you, Cheers, FriyMan talk 06:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's mostly just biographies that tend to result in speedy deletion nominations. New articles about districts will tend to not be nominated for deletion. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Carl Loser
Hi! I saw your message that you removed, and I feel I ought to respond. I think the problem that the article faced wasn't your doing; it was that his name really was Loser. When an article like that crops up, it would be normal to assume that the author of the article was being nasty about the person. To compound the error further was that article then described some negative aspects of the person in question, making it seem even worse. So the gut reaction was to nominate it as an attack page, and I (in my haste) didn't review it sufficiently before deleting; my apologies for that. I see that you have come to the conclusion that the person may not be notable enough for an article anyway, and I would have to agree with your assessment, so I won't restore the page. If ever he does become notable and you want it restoring, please don't hesitate to ask. Stephen! Coming... 11:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I think in talking about his arrest, I probably should've noted that he denied the allegations. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of B.J. Brown for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article B.J. Brown 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/B.J. Brown 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. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
N I H I L I S T I C, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi N I H I L I S T I C! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC) |
Individual articles for election results in each constituency
Hello. Would you mind stopping creating individual articles for the election result in each constituency. I'm fairly sure you must have seen my comment at WP:E&R, but I saw you are still creating them. They aren't notable and at some point I intend to AfD them, so I'd advise sticking to creating articles on the constituencies themselves and adding each individual election result to them. See, for example, how it's done with Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency). Cheers, Number 57 16:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Pickup (election) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This is a definition that should be in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. In fact, the definition is already there at [1]
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Overprescription has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This is a definition best housed at Wiktionary. See Wiktionary's existing definition of the term: [2]
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Guzman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Head Start (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
re: newspaper articles
Hey. From the looks of it, the deletions were the result of improper redirects (none of them were actually articles); all the articles redirected to Virginia places, which seemed to prevent article creation. Then again, the fact that only two have been created in the years since tells me that some of them may not be notable. It's one of those cases where I'd have to do a bit of research on the papers to see if they should have articles, since on the surface they should but if they were old niche papers from back in the day there may be little out there. Wizardman 23:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Well, a lot of those papers have gotten taken over by larger media companies, so can redirect there. In the process, some of them were renamed, so that may explain what's going on. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Referencing
I've recently gone through most of your recent articles created and the common theme is, whilst you evidently do cite sources, you only link to the URL without providing other important data. I'd like to encourage you to make use of User:Dispenser/Reflinks. Follow the instructions on the page, when you are done, you should be able to fill in complete citations with extreme ease. If you have any questions, feel free to ask :) —Frosty ☃ 03:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a way to do it without putting two edits in the history? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Use Wikipedia:RefToolbar. This tool allows for simple addition of the code in one edit, but you will have to retreive the data (date, title, retrieval date, etc) yourself. —Frosty ☃ 23:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like a pain in the neck. I'm just going to have to use reflinks, I guess. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Use Wikipedia:RefToolbar. This tool allows for simple addition of the code in one edit, but you will have to retreive the data (date, title, retrieval date, etc) yourself. —Frosty ☃ 23:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
VA state senate district name changes: why?
Why did you move Virginia Senate, District 1 to Virginia's 1st Senate district, and Virginia Senate, District 2 to Virginia's 2nd Senate district, and so on? There would appear to no good reason to change those names. The VA State senator's list refers to them as "District" + "number". Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Did you want to weigh in over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Naming_convention_for_Virginia_Senate_districts? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The article AND Magazine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No independent references. No statement as to why the magazine is notable.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Christopher Zoukis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Zoukis 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/Christopher Zoukis 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. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Tristan Shields for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tristan Shields 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/Tristan Shields 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. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . Guy (Help!) 08:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource instead
Template:Don't use econlib.org, use Wikisource instead has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. NeilN talk to me 09:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)- I feel like their intent was not "confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." They did post on my talk page, dragging me into something I didn't really have time to read. But their efforts felt like good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Ideally, though they should have gone after Guy. As Guy is also a good faith contributor (as far as anyone can tell anyway XD ; How many AN/I have they had?). Anyway, I oppose this block. If that means anything. I would like this editor to be able to post in my namespace. So that the specific issues they brought up maybe addressed in a more constructive and consensus based manner. Endercase (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, N I H I L I S T I C. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Editor's index to Wikipedia
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Endercase (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)