User talk:RucasHost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My userpage was nominated for deletion on September 17th 2007, but by the grace of God, the result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

[edit] Speedy deletion of Rick Strawn

A tag has been placed on Rick Strawn 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 indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with our policies on biographies of living people? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If he is notable please document as stated in WP:BIO. Thank you Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

• If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

There is a huge article on him -- which received an award -- at Legal Affairs. I cited it when I started the Wikipedia article. There are also many smaller articles on the Internet, didn't any of you do any research before you deleted my article? --RucasHost (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You described him as running an "escort company". That's usually a euphemism for "prostitution ring" and tends to set off BLP alarms. Restoring article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That alternative meaning for "escort" is so new it's not even on the dab page for "escort" yet (might want to fix that). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because an article wins an award does not mean the subject of the article is notable. It probably means the author might be (actually I think she is). I added a ref and a video I found. The ref just rehashes the article you referenced from 2004. I still do not think he is notable but we will let the masses do their thing and see where it goes. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

—

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Go Daddy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. GreenJoe 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to heed this warning yourself, I've noticed you've been reverting as well. I am well aware of 3RR, thanks for the message. --RucasHost (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. GreenJoe 13:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a request for comments on the NoDaddy link. I humbly suggest we leave it out until we can get consensus on its inclusion. GreenJoe 13:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. --RucasHost (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Go Daddy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. GreenJoe 00:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GoDaddy

You suggested on my talk page that the source added for "NoDaddy.com" made the link valid. However, a blog post is not a sufficient source to support validity. Can you find something else more mainstream? For now, please keep this discussion on the talk page -- this will stop the "edit war" and allow for a discussion. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. GreenJoe 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Brenda Kim Martin

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Brenda Kim Martin, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Brenda Kim Martin seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Brenda Kim Martin, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You had better find some way of expanding that article, including some BLP-consistent manner of stating why she is being held in jail. It hasnt much chance at AfD in the present state, though I think it just barely passes speedy. DGG (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Schnoebelen Article

You asked who had placed the fact tags on the article, and as you could of read on the article's talk page, that was me. I placed them there because they needed to be there, not, as you alledged, for "bad faith reasons". Please be aware that making such allegations is highly frowned upon. If you can find the facts, you can fix the article. I have yet to see anyone do it. Hooper (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I wanted to let you know out of common curteosy that I have recently reverted a few of your recent changes. That is because they may be considered a wikicrusade of sorts. Remember, it is wonderful that you have your beliefs and great that they are working for you, but as a whole wikipedia does not evangelize nor censor anything for religious reasons. However, I am with you on the Dom article, alleged should definately be in that lead in. Hooper (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• And I agree. Your personal views of articles don't really have any place in an encyclopedia. If you're going to attach PROD tags to articles, you need to have a solid policy-based reason for doing so. Please don't do that again. Black Kite 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)