User talk:Mr. Guye/Archive 6

Steven Naifeh - promotional material removed with tag. Thanks! − Lizpetit (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

− − −

Speedy Deletion?

− I'm new to adding pages and I just spent half an hour writting it all up only to have it declined because of you editing it and loosing all my work. It was information about a sports team in north wales for your information. you would have seen it was only added minutes ago before you decided to jump the gun and add the delete tag thing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elementom88 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

− − −

Speedy deletion declined: Ahrar al-Jazeera

− Hello Mr. Guye. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ahrar al-Jazeera, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Some but very little coverage (see also http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2013-02/syrien-ras-al-ayn-waffenstillstand/seite-2). Would be better at WP:AfD discussion rather than speedy deletion. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

− −

Norman Alvis

− − Why did you put him up for speedy deletion. He is on other wikipedias and was the national champion. He is well known and needs to be on here.

− − Everyone tries to delete my pages. i'm sick of it.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

− −

Your recent tagging at Tomorrow (SR-71 song)

− − Five days ago you received some very good advice on your talk page. I believe it still applies, even though you seem to archive your talk page whenever it accumulates what you may see as unpleasant reactions to your editing. Your enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia is admirable; your recklessness is not. If you were to pick one article and work on improving that one article, I am sure you would get a lot of support. Scattering ill-considered tags and edits accomplish the opposite - unpleasant complaints. I just reverted your 'coatrack' tag to Tomorrow (SR-71 song). I'd much rather be here at your talk page thanking you for improving an article. I am sure many other editors who have left comments here, over the last few months, had also rather be leaving 'thank-yous'. - Neonorange (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

− −

Speedy deletions

− − I removed the tag of a place that you tagged, because places are not covered by A7. You have a history of poorly tagging articles, and I am going to request that you reread the criteria for speedy deletion, and if you have any doubts, use proposed deletions instead. Tutelary (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

− −

Norman Alvis

− − Please be more careful when nominating pages for speedy deletion. You tagged Norman Alvis for A1 and A7, neither of which are correct. The article had plenty of context, and clear claims to notability. Being a professional sporter should be enough to avoid speedy (though it may get you deleted at AfD); winning the American Championship is a very clear claim to notability. I have restored the page, you may take it to AfD if you disagree, but I'll argue for a keep there and expect a snow keep for it. Fram (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

− −

Dublin South-West by-election, 2014

− Ive stated my reasons why the article should not be deleted on the article's talk page.

− I found the notice of deletion quite unusual, given that there are numerous articles on various by-elections for national legislatures.

− CivisHibernius (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

− −

Your recent work at Contentment

− − I read your contribution to the Contentment talk page. Good work! The article does read like a marshmallow; sort of shapeless and not very nutritious. Full of, as you said, opinions and personal conclusions. I looked at one of the citations and was skeptical, at least from reading the just the abstract, of the study conclusion that the genetic component of contentment is as much as 80%. Above all, the entire article has, in my opinion, an Idealist bias; a bias toward the status quo, and, I think, a bias against material progress.

− − Explaining your reasons on the talk page is good. Perhaps your post will start a discussion. - Neonorange (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

− −

Your tagging at Cane Toads: An Unnatural History

− − OK, please slow down, as earlier recommended by several administrators. I noticed your tagging at this article. Why not spend some time correcting a few of the problems you found, rather than tagging and then speeding through other articles? It took me only a few minutes to remove one section that was untrue (first-person interview technique) and to find a citation for the BAFTA nomination. Well, alright, I had specialized experience to realize the interview technique was not an innovation in Cane Toads, but finding the BAFTA nomination WP:RS took just a glance at the BAFTA Wikipedia article, then a simple Google search, and then checking the BAFTA database for the years 1988 and 1989. You can do that too. And make valuable contributions to Wikipedia. And not cause more work for other editors. - Neonorange (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

− −

Real Friends

− − I was planning on adding more information and sources to the article when I had more time, but it's notable enough for now...Andise1 (talk)

− −

Deletion of the article RedHack

− − − − Hey Mr. Guye,

− − I saw your comment on the "RedHack" artivle and wanted to call of on you cancel the deletion. I have alreday updated the article, added many more english sources, and checked the whole article again.

− − This is my first edited article, I hope you can help me. I would appreciate to hear from you again.

− − Fluxfingers (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

− − −

Then vote against the deletion discussion. There is a link on the page. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

− −

I almost closed it as SNOW KEEP, but decided to let it run. WP writes about partisan movements of all kinds, if there is a decent news source. Readers are expected to have the sense to realize the bias of government and other sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

− −

Speedy Deletions

− − Hi. This is to let you know that I have just removed your "speedy deletion" tags for the following articles: Chris watson and Govindjee. I have also reviewed your work on Frank Harts, which is now the subject of an AfD debate, following your earlier "speedy" tag.

− − I am deeply concerned about your tendency to be unthinkingly trigger-happy in your use of the "speedy deletion" tag. It's easy to see from the timeline of your edits that you were merely clicking through new articles and tagging them, without doing adequate research on the subjects.

− − For example, I'm not an expert on Chris watson's sort of music, but I found four seemingly independent (non-commercial, non-advertising, non-social network) references to Watson in the first page of my search for him, and more on later pages. It looks to me as if there are references out there, so this page should be easy to tidy up for an editor with adequate musical discrimination. It certainly doesn't qualify as a "speedy".

− − Similarly, with Govindjee you don't even appear to have read the article, because if you had you'd see that he is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which (per our notability policy on academics) is prima facie evidence of notability. Combined with his senior academic status, his work (which is significant within his field), and his editorial activities, he seems very likely to easily surpass our notability guidelines.

− − Finally, you tagged Frank Harts for "speedy", and the article has now ended up in an AfD debate, despite the fact that there is excellent evidence that he's sufficiently notable to merit his own article. The actor in question has been in an important Broadway production, and now has a recurring role in a significant new TV series. This information is clearly stated in the article, and this alone should have immediately given you pause. I do agree that there appears to be a possible conflict of interest, as the article's creator appears to be the subject of the article, but it wasn't difficult for me to Google up a few independent references. Certainly, this article didn't merit a "speedy deletion" tag.

− − Looking back over this talk page and its predecessors, it's very clear that your excessive actions in tagging articles inappropriately has reached the point where it is getting disruptive. You're making work for other people and, despite being asked repeatedly to control yourself, are damaging Wikipedia. Please find an alternative outlet for your enthusiasm immediately.

− − RomanSpa (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)