User talk:RGTraynor/Archive8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Eastern Nazarene College
Hey, thanks. Do me a favour and let me know what you think of the quoted material, updated from current sources. I've added a lot that I don't see as terribly necessary, and you still won't find in articles about even more conservative evangelical institutions, but if it must be said it might as well be sourced, right? As always, I value your opinions, so I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Aepoutre (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- If those are from the current versions of the documents, that's fine by me. As far as more conservative institutions go, the people who contribute to those articles can tend to their own knitting; I'm pushing five hundred articles on my watchlist as it is! That being said, I seriously doubt they have articles as well sourced as this one. Ever think of seeking GA status for it? RGTraynor 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your input. I've tried to make it well-written and well-sourced, and you've certainly helped with regards to both. There is a small amount of information, unavailable in print, that I've added from my experience, but I'd rather have sources for everything. I've thought about GA status, but I'll admit that I'm a bit nervous that it's not good enough or that people would see any personal connexion to the college as affecting its NPOV. Do you think it's ready? I'm willing to wait, haha. Aepoutre (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? For one thing, the GA process involves a review that will clue us in to problems people see with the article, if any. As far as COI issues go, while you working for the college isn't a plus, most people care a lot about articles they push to GA or FA, and you've demonstrably sought to include up to date, balanced information even on subjects many might consider embarassing, such as the Covenant (Come to that, I have no connection with the college myself, except for using its library once or twice and having attended a few of the theater club's plays). At the absolute worst, it fails ... but when it comes down to it, the determining factors for GAs are the depth and quality of the article, not whether the subject is monumentally important. Go for it. RGTraynor 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Erroneous Accusation
I removed no template from the AfD Duke Status page. You signed an IP-identified user's comments twice and I removed the second one. If this is not what you are referring to, please send me a link for the edit to which you are referring. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Two templates were appropriate for that comment; the first one,
{{Unsigned}}
, to replace the missing signature, the second, the{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
template to identify the anon IP address as one which had made no edits to Wikipedia outside that AfD debate, something that is frequently a sign of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, since vanishingly few Wikipedia users just happen to stumble into a deletion debate as their first Wikipedia activity. You inappropriately removed the SPA citation template, which was restored. RGTraynor 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)- Restore the time stamp, not your commentary. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you will agree with my removal of the original research tag placed on the second part of Duke Status. For each unreferenced statement there is a 'citation needed' tag, including one that I placed regarding Bradley's use of the term. Thank you for your recent contribution to the article, notably regarding the fact that Urban dictionary only includes one source. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's relatively moot, given that consensus is overwhelmingly against inclusion, and that I expect the article will be deleted anyway in a couple of days. RGTraynor 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It was you who gave the reminder that it isn't a vote, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. I've been amazed by how many article there are on Wikipedia without a single reference, yet Duke Status comes under such heavy fire simply because 4 or 5 editors haven't heard of it before. Thanks for your help nonetheless.--Mr.Fantastique (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Who used the word "vote?" Not I. First off, if you find articles on Wikipedia that are unreferenced, like any other editor, you're encouraged to use various tags (or the appropriate talk pages) to ask for proper sources, or file a PROD or an AfD if you think it is unsourceable. Secondly, your neologism was AfDed because no one had heard of it before. You've made claims about sourcing that proved untrue. You could change people's minds by producing valid, real reliable sources, but I imagine if they existed at all you would have done so already. RGTraynor 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was you who gave the reminder that it isn't a vote, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. I've been amazed by how many article there are on Wikipedia without a single reference, yet Duke Status comes under such heavy fire simply because 4 or 5 editors haven't heard of it before. Thanks for your help nonetheless.--Mr.Fantastique (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I did not say that you "used" the word reminder, I said that you "reminded us". It was you, after all, who placed the "afdanons" tag at the top of the page, included in which was said reminder. In the legal profession, one must pay close attention to the exact meaning of the words people use. I think this principle can be easily transposed to Wikipedia. Nothing I said has been proven untrue. You were unable to find an article in a newspaper that I may or may not have cited in error. You, however, have been wrong about several offhand statements you made. Why the need to make this into a feud ? --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't a feud at all. In a couple days, this article about an unsourced neologism will be deleted, and that's that. Anything beyond that, you can't imagine that you have any credibility here. You've made several statements of fact, in the article and in the AfD debate. Almost without exception, they've been exposed as fraudulent or easily faked. Instead, you've chosen badgering over doing what you would need to do to save your article; the conclusion I draw from this is obvious, if not pertinent. In any event, the concept of consensus includes that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side of debate, and that when you are, you need to accept the fact graciously and move on. Good luck with your future articles. RGTraynor 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- YAH!!!!... Just kidding. Congrats on the 9,000th and I know that most of them are appreciated ;-)
- ...and, feel free to re-remove what I re-added including my entry. I won't take it personal. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- (smirks) Eh, I shan't take offense! Thankew kindly. Gods, I need a life! RGTraynor 20:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- It isn't a feud at all. In a couple days, this article about an unsourced neologism will be deleted, and that's that. Anything beyond that, you can't imagine that you have any credibility here. You've made several statements of fact, in the article and in the AfD debate. Almost without exception, they've been exposed as fraudulent or easily faked. Instead, you've chosen badgering over doing what you would need to do to save your article; the conclusion I draw from this is obvious, if not pertinent. In any event, the concept of consensus includes that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side of debate, and that when you are, you need to accept the fact graciously and move on. Good luck with your future articles. RGTraynor 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did not say that you "used" the word reminder, I said that you "reminded us". It was you, after all, who placed the "afdanons" tag at the top of the page, included in which was said reminder. In the legal profession, one must pay close attention to the exact meaning of the words people use. I think this principle can be easily transposed to Wikipedia. Nothing I said has been proven untrue. You were unable to find an article in a newspaper that I may or may not have cited in error. You, however, have been wrong about several offhand statements you made. Why the need to make this into a feud ? --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Quincy College
Hey, I there are three things on which I'd like to check before making further edits to Quincy College. I'd love to hear your thoughts and reasoning :)!
- 1) You recently doubled the Quincy University links and moved them. Yes, I believe one would belong at the top, but not two, as far as I'm aware (seems non-standard, and a bit much besides). In addition, Wikiproject Universities dictates that the disambiguation note shouldn't be used unless a naming conflict exists. If I interpret that correctly, there would need to be two Quincy Colleges to merit its use. For example: Gordon College (Massachusetts vs. Georgia), or Wheaton College (Massachusetts vs. Illinois).
- 2) The source referenced for Quincy using the College's classroom space does not say that the city "took it over" but simply that classes were being held there, so I tried to make the article text reflect the same neutral fact of use. Since I have no "inside info.," I can't infer from the source that there was any force, and it seems more likely from the article that the College was doing the City a favour. Where did you get this information? Is it just hearsay or can it be referenced? Am I missing something/on crack?
- 3) You removed the External links section. I know that the link is in the infobox, but the infobox is meant to summarise and standardise, not to eclipse information from the article. "External links" is fairly standard, and I don't think the fact that it's also in the infobox warrants its removal.
Aepoutre (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the third count, there's no need to have a links section that has nothing more than what's already in the infobox. On the second, the city owns Coddington Hall (and always did; it's the original site for QHS), the lease was up, and wanted the space; it's been extensively reported in the Patriot Ledger. Doubling the Quincy University link was not my intention; it belongs at the top, as per current usage, but I can't see any reason to have it anywhere else. RGTraynor 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You're quick. I love it. Sure, I get the reason for removing the External link section, but how standard is it to just not have one (since Wikipedia guidelines don't seem to value conciseness over standardisation)? Does it hurt to keep it? Or, more to the point, does it improve Wikipedia more to remove it, or to keep it? Interesting about Coddington Hall.... I am obviously not too up to date on that. It sure could use more cited information to that effect. As for Quincy University, how would you interpret "naming conflict?" I can doublecheck Wikiproject Universities, but I'm almost certain that's the standard we're going for. I really need to finally add myself as a participant there. Aepoutre (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm ... would I think there was need for a disambiguation tag? I wouldn't myself, but plainly the IP who added the link thought otherwise. If you'd rather delete it, I won't argue. (grins) RGTraynor 16:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Iron City Beer Case?
In the AFD for LarsonObrien, you offered Delete under an empty case of Iron City Beer. There's a joke there, and I wanna get it. What's that mean? :) Rockhound (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, nothing complex. Iron City Beer is a longstanding local brand in Pittsburgh, with something of a blue collar, get-plastered-on-a-half-case rep. My first wife is from Pittsburgh, and I've spent a good bit of time in the area. (grins) RGTraynor 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. Heh heh. It seemed to irritate the pompous jerk who made that article, so I figured I'd get the story behind it. Funny stuff. Rockhound (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Enough so that he seems to have recreated the page. RGTraynor 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- People don't seem to get it, do they... Rockhound (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- They don't know. The public perception of Wikipedia is that it's (1) a really popular website a lot of people look at, (2) one of the top sites that come up with Google search engines and (3) anyone can pretty much put up whatever the hell they want. As long as it's easy for them to do -- and in this instant gratification age heaven forbid that you get anyone to read even the Five Pillars before being able to make edits -- this sort of thing will persist. RGTraynor 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- What's sad is that I've got an instructor in college who didn't know that Wikipedia information requires citations. I did a report, sourced some Wikipedia-linked citations, and nearly got an F on the paper... until I showed him the real deal with Wikipedia. Rockhound (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Of course not, because the "Academics don't accept Wikipedia" deal snowballs through the media, and since people are basically lazy (AfD as Exhibit A, on both sides of the line), they don't stop to question whether or not Wikipedia is reliable, so they just presume absent evidence that it isn't. RGTraynor 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- What's sad is that I've got an instructor in college who didn't know that Wikipedia information requires citations. I did a report, sourced some Wikipedia-linked citations, and nearly got an F on the paper... until I showed him the real deal with Wikipedia. Rockhound (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- They don't know. The public perception of Wikipedia is that it's (1) a really popular website a lot of people look at, (2) one of the top sites that come up with Google search engines and (3) anyone can pretty much put up whatever the hell they want. As long as it's easy for them to do -- and in this instant gratification age heaven forbid that you get anyone to read even the Five Pillars before being able to make edits -- this sort of thing will persist. RGTraynor 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- People don't seem to get it, do they... Rockhound (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Enough so that he seems to have recreated the page. RGTraynor 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. Heh heh. It seemed to irritate the pompous jerk who made that article, so I figured I'd get the story behind it. Funny stuff. Rockhound (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ottawa's Pizza Line
Really..because there is a source? Where is the source? Can you verify that the source is valid? Can you click the link to get the context of the source? When is a source not a source? If I cite an article, recent, that mentions the Sabre's famous French Connection line, can I then put a line in that article that refers to the line as current...simply because the source is current? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrashh (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like you want it more than one way. First it's that you don't care for the author of the article, now it's that you claim the article is unverifiable. May I ask what your intent is, come to that? Do you deny that the CASH Line existed? That's all the source verifies, although if you really want to see an online-verifiable one that badly, why not this one from the Globe and Mail, only a week old [1] ? Now that being said, I refer you to WP:V and WP:RS, which quite explicitly states that newspapers are valid sources, and that sources are not required to be online to be verifiable. THN is held in many public libraries, and you're more than welcome to look up the citation and challenge it if it is in fact misrepresented. (Just FYI, I'm also posting this to the Sens talk page). RGTraynor 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the globesports.com citation. I suppose the others are unnecessary. Alaney2k (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Larson O'brien AfD Discussion
Hello again. I put this on a new line for the sake of it being a new discussion. I recently posted a comment to that AfD, and I wanted to ask you, an experienced Wikipedian, if the comment was out of line or not. Should I have phrased it different? Rockhound (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- What, the one where you urged the LO folks to read WP policies and guidelines so as to know what our requirements for articles are? What would be out of line about that? RGTraynor 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bio: Athlete
Hihi, Thanks for the clarification...the back alleys of WP are difficult to navigate...so the way I read that (now) is that anyone that competes in even just one NFL game, or drives in one Indy 500 automatically qualifies as notable, but if they are amateur they have to have stuff written about them as well as having competed? Thanks for helping me learn :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're correct that playing in just one NFL game or driving in a single Indy 500 is deemed automatically notable; the records of the various leagues are considered evidence enough. The amateur bar is slightly different: the sport must be at the highest level of play and there can be no corresponding professional league. Given that, though, the same procedures apply. If I can demonstrate that you competed on the Canadian Olympic curling team, you're notable, even if there's never been anything written about you. However, playing football for Boston College doesn't cut it, since that is not the highest level of competition; I'd have to demonstrate you were otherwise notable ... for instance, you might be an All-American. In any case, WP:V trumps WP:BIO; if there are multiple articles about you in reliable sources, you pass.
- I believe, by the bye, that the WP:ATHLETE notability standards are ridiculously low. A footballer with a single cap for the Montserrat national team (such as it is), a scrub who played a single period for the NHL Montreal Maroons in 1927, they qualify, and that's silly. RGTraynor 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I totally agree, I stumbled on an article about a driver who raced in a single Indy 500, and didn't even finish! The entire article was one line with his "stats" in the race...but there it stands....thanks for the clarification, I guess I was getting it mixed up with just highest level amateur LegoTech·(t)·(c)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scuffleball (2nd nomination)
The article got deleted in 2005 and then undeleted in 2007 by an admin who overturned the AfD, so G4 doesn't apply. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the tip. RGTraynor 13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Everest Catholic High School
reply on my talk page. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
You do great work on hockey articles, I don't think people hear enough when they do stuff people like so, umm, well, umm, thanks!Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- (chuckles) Well, that's extremely kind of you. Thank you. RGTraynor 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please see WP:DATE for correct formatting instructions
Hi. Per Wikipedia:DATE#Dates of birth and death, locations of birth and death are not to be entangled within the lifespan brackets. Cheers, CP 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blues Metal
Hey you didn't read the deep purple story very well look up metal blues on google books you'll see where I got my reference--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the exact page you cited. If you'd like to try a different page instead, the book is still in the library. RGTraynor 03:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Schoolboy band?
This was quite funny. I realise you were being sarcastic (well, I hope you were), and you were right that the information was all already in the author article, but you did lose a useful external link when you redirected that article. I've now added the external link to the author article - that link should eventually be used as a reference, but hopefully those who later review the external links will see that and not just remove it. Without wanting to cause offence, could I ask that you be a little more careful when redirecting in future? Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Flags
Please take into consideration that the federal parliament of Canada has recognized that the Quebecers forms a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.224.188 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- And when Quebec becomes an independent, internationally-recognized nation-state ... well, the players listed will still be listed under the Canadian flag as long as they were born in "Canada," which is the standard per WP:MOS. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. RGTraynor 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Supreme Gladiator
A tag has been placed on Supreme Gladiator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Supreme Gladiator
Errr ... actually, that was a new article on which I was filing an AfD, and even there it was only the extreme unnotability of it that had me doing so that fast. Speeding an article moments after creation gives the creator zero time to respond, let alone improve it or provide proper sources, and for anything other than blatant vandalism or an attack page is obnoxious. May I inquire as to the extreme haste involved? RGTraynor 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the article was speedy deleted before you even placed the AFD tag, which created a new article instead. It was that new article that i tagged for removal because the AFD template was the only content in the article. I cannot say why the article was deleted so quickly before (Most likely because it met WP:CSD guidelines) as i have never seen the first article that was speedied. Maybe the deleting admin (User:NawlinWiki) can explain, because he deleted both versions of the article.
[edit] Blackhawks v Black Hawks
Hi, I can see why you're making the changes, unfortunately you're causing redirects. You should be using [[Chicago Blackhawks|Chicago Black Hawks]] instead of just [[Chicago Black Hawks]]. --JD554 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which just makes it ten times harder to identify which articles require changing in the first place. There are thousands of articles to change here, and no bot can make the distinctions necessary. Beyond that, I don't think redirects are appropriate here. Your casual user -- much in the same way all these pre-1986 "Blackhawks" got into articles in the first place, will assume without one that there's an error and go back and edit the name, causing the whole ball all over again. RGTraynor 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you: What ever you are using to replace [[Chicago Blackhawks]] with [[Chicago Black Hawks]] can surely be used to use [[Chicago Blackhawks|Chicago Black Hawks]] instead? Using a the proper piped redirect takes more load off of the wiki servers and should be used. I'm not sure how a piped link will confuse a casual reader. --JD554 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Simply put, I'm tracking these by going over lists with "Chicago Blackhawks" and looking for obvious pre-1986 articles. Do it your way, and that doesn't happen. The total load on the servers is certainly no more than I'm exerting writing this response. RGTraynor 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you say these are manual edits? If so, I must be missing something obvious, because all you have to do is type [[Chicago Blackhawks|Chicago Black Hawks]] instead of [[Chicago Black Hawks]]. --JD554 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- The thing I'll reiterate is what I said above. I need to search out these pages, and leaving hundreds of pages with unnecessary "Blackhawks" attached just kicks those pages back again as unaltered. RGTraynor 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Except it wouldn't because if you use "Chicago Blackhawks" as your search term it won't return [[Chicago Blackhawks|Chicago Black Hawks]] as that simply shows on the page as Chicago Black Hawks. --JD554 (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except the precise way I'm doing it isn't with Google searches; it's with What Links Here. RGTraynor 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich dickerson
Please review my actions at the above and let me know whether it is okay. If it isn't please let me know what I need to do differently in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yikes, I wouldn't have done that. Non-admin closures are only when there is an unambiguous Keep result, not a whiff of controversy and no judgment calls involved. It's plainly a busted nomination, but that's for an admin to decide ... and the nom could have always put together sound deletion grounds. RGTraynor 15:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your delete request RE David Codr
Im writing about the page I created today on David Codr. Admittedly I am not a very experienced Wiki poster, but I created this page as I have been contacted about 3 dozen times in the last few months from people looking for info on David as I worked with him 12 years ago.
Im not trying to be difficult or pick a fight, but if the subject is found on multiple search engine pages and there is a demand for information on this person, why shouldnt there be a page listed on Wiki?
Please do not delete the pages based on my ignorance to the nuances of wikipedia. I am confident if the page remains active, people more experienced in wiki will add links, footnotes, etc.
Here are a few additional links not included on the page as i didnt want it to appear as if it was created for promotional purposes.
http://www.musicians.com/blog/independent-artist-registry-take-your-music-to-the-next-level http://www.performer.com/the_best/judges.htm
I am guessing many people build pages about themselves for ego reasons or to get their a 15 minutes of fame and applaud your dedication. But David has impacted the lives of thousands of musicians through his Guerilla Promotion workshops, and effected the music industry by publishing the Music Phone Book for 10 years.
You may not be aware of how difficult it is to locate music industry contacts with all the turnover in the music business. His publication and teaching has had an enormous impact. Ive seen articles where unknown bands and national acts reference him and his contributions to the music industry.
If you have any suggestions on how to "fix" the page, any advice would be greatly appreciated. Again, im new to this and would like an opportunity to rectify my errors - I just dont know what they are.
Thank you for your time.
Jeb Hall Mamallama (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oh, you're certainly not trying to pick a fight; you want an explanation, which is quite reasonable. It is simply this: people tend to think that because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, pretty much any content can be included. In truth, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that, like any other encyclopedia, has standards for inclusion: verifiability and notability, in this case. For the former, I'd look through WP:V and WP:RS; for the latter, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. To quote from WP:V,
"Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis in the original)
- Oh, you're certainly not trying to pick a fight; you want an explanation, which is quite reasonable. It is simply this: people tend to think that because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, pretty much any content can be included. In truth, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that, like any other encyclopedia, has standards for inclusion: verifiability and notability, in this case. For the former, I'd look through WP:V and WP:RS; for the latter, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. To quote from WP:V,
- As far as reliable sources go,
"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
- That this shuts out people for whom reliable sources do not exist is true; it is also Wikipedia policy. How to fix the page (quite aside from the numerous stylistic problems with redirects) is simple: find reliable sources about Codr (not simply mentioning him in passing) that are newspapers, books or industry magazines. Good luck. RGTraynor 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Diamond (lawyer)
With great respect RG, I think you didn't read the article. It's far from blatant advertising. This barrister has acted in almost all the leading cases on religious discrimination, for Christians. He's notable, and I'm taking down the tag. Please discuss on the talk page if you want to.Wikidea 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] travis parrott for deletion
I just wanted to know why you wanted to delete the Travis Parrott article that I wrote. If thats the case, then why not delete Tim Tebows page? he is the quarterback for the University of Florida. He does not compete in the NFL yet he has a big page. Or how about Matt Grothe, QB for the University of South Florida. He competes at the college level as well.
I just want to make sure because I see a ton of pages that have been up for quite some time. Yet the first big article that I wrote, which took about 5 hours for Parrott, and its going for deletion. I hope you can understand where im coming from here. I just want to know more information so I can not have my articles deleted, thank you.
(321Baseball (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC))
- Simply put, I saw the Parrott page and not the other pages. Obviously there are many thousands of pages that might run afoul of various deletion grounds that no one's seen yet, and they're just as liable to go as any other. For sports people in particular, WP:ATHLETE discusses the specific criteria applying to them. As a general rule, an athlete who has not competed professionally, or at the highest possible amateur level in a sport without professional athletes, will not qualify unless he or she's won particular honors such as NCAA All-American status, conference MVP or the like or has been a high draft choice. Parrott hasn't done these things, and it looks like he's run through his eligibility; is he playing pro ball anywhere?
- Now that being said, the article does look like you put a good bit of work into it, and the right bit of work; Parrott just doesn't pass notability muster. I'd recommend looking over WP:BIO for a handle on notability criteria in the future, and I do hope you stick with writing articles, because you certainly have the skills down. Good luck. RGTraynor 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hot tubbing
The one I'm talking about wasn't on University drive. It was at the mall using an external entrance. - Denimadept (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Maltese Nobility
Ensure you and your partners go through all of my works and put them up for deletion. I am not going to fight them nor will I be bothered adding anymore data to Wikipedia. I hope you and your partners have that erection of satisfaction. (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2008 (EST)
- We are certainly going to evaluate whether the various articles pass muster for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. That is our responsibility to do. You have been raising furious and often uncivil objections for years - and in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN and WP:COI - and you would be far better off improving the articles to Wikipedia standard (as you said you would, and have failed to do) and providing reliable sources which we stand a chance of verifying. In my long experience, shrill declarations that anyone who opposes your articles can only be doing so through malice or ignorance is the hallmark of an editor who doesn't really have a policy leg or independent, third-party sources to stand on. Which angle would you prefer? RGTraynor 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)