User talk:Gurgeh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tag has been placed on Shane Jolley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Shane Jolley is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Shane Jolley saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We just had a very substantial discussion on whether or not an article on Mr. Jolley and whether or not hos article should remain. You had ample opportunity to participate and did not do so. The issue has been decided, and the article was deleted. By taking it upon yourself to ignore the decision and thumb your nose at Wikipedia rules, you face being blocked indefinitely from Wikipdeia. Your article is (or I should say was) a mere re-creation of the original deleted article. Furthermore, it is the only article you have edited or created, which makes me pretty sure that you are a sockpuppet of one of the editors originally supporting the article. Jolley was deemed not notable because he has not been elected for provincial office. Merely being a candidate does not confer notability, particularly for minor parties (and the Greens are still a minor party, despite supporters' shrill protests to the contrary).

Please spare me the old "slippery slope" bull crap. And I don't give a rip whether he wins or not, as I'm from the States. Jolley is not notable, period. Stop violating Wikipedia policy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are "brand new," why did your article bear such a striking resemblance to the text of the article just deleted? And since it was deleted via an article for deletion discussion, it was acted upon by a number of other users, not just myself. Would you like for me to run a Checkuser scan to see if you are indeed a sockpuppet? Or maybe you should just go away. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for accusing you unjustly. We have had bit of a dispute around here about the notability of several Green Party unsuccessful candidates, including some folks who have tried to get around Wikipedia rules in various ways. One of those ways is by using what we call a "sockpuppet," which is essentially one or more "alias" accounts that users create for themselves, trying to make it look like more than one user is trying to do something, such as support or oppose the deletion of an article. The Green Party candidate discussions have aroused the ire of some of the party faithful, who don't understand why the candidates shouldn't each have their own articles. As it would happen, an article about Jolley had just gone through such a procedure, and the outcome was a decision to delete the article and move any mention of Jolley into a catch-all article about the whole slate of party candidates. Your actions appeared to mimic the sockpuppet accounts, primarily because the text you used was almost exactly word for word what had already been deleted. That's a common tactic of sockpuppets. The text you found through the search engine was actually a bit outdated, as the article had already been deleted.

Two rules have come into play here. One is a general principle that political candidates, except those for a major office such as a head of state, are not notable enough for an article unless they are notable for something outside their candidacy, such as holding a previous office, or some other previous action that made them well-known (movie/TV star, etc.). The other is a hard-and-fast rule that any subject whose article has been deleted through an AfD discussion should not be posted again. Of course, you're new here and had no way of knowing that — you just happened to fall into both those situations, and by doing so you unwittingly gave the appearance of someone attempting to evade the rules. Most of the time, under these circumstances, it is indeed someone up to no good. Not this time, alas, and I erred in assuming so. Please accept my apologies. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

one more point about what's notable by the strange rules here--any member of a state or provincial or national legislature i considered automatically notable. Not that many Greens have been so far, but if you can find any, the articles will stay. Make sure you emphasise that in the article. DGG (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Gurgeh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search