ParacusForward

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi ParacusForward! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2014

How did you archive deleted revisions? Even with references, I don't know whether changes are substantial or not. I've already notified this in WP:AN (not ANI). --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I notice you have only 23 edits to Wikipedia mainspace. Please be sure to read WP:NPP and WP:Deletion, especially WP:ORGSIG. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your other contributions are subject to discussion in WP:AN. Please comment there. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! George Ho (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ParacusForward. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added 05:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm sorry that your early experiences on Wikipedia have involved a (wholly unnecessary) trip to the admin board. Whilst it's certainly true that you could use a bit more experience, you haven't done anything wrong, and I regret that you've had to defend yourself from a pounding at that most unwelcoming of venues. I hope you'll be able to put that particular episode behind you, and that you'll carry on contributing here. If you need help, the teahouse is a slightly more pleasant place to hang out than WP:AN, and you are of course always welcome to drop me a line on my talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you read the CSD criteria literally and applied them literally, exactly as an editor is supposed to do. Just as anyone can contribute on WP, anyone can comment--and just as this means there will inevitably be bad contributions, there will also be incorrect comments. Don;t let this experience turn you away, and don;t let it stop you from looking at CAT:CSD to see if anything can possibly be rescued. If you need held, I too am available. Both of us are admins very familiar with deletion process--and , unfortunately, also very familiar with the strange things that can happen here. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank you both very much. It is nice to receive some validation. The only other encouragement I have gotten is a "Thanks" to one of my edits which I felt pretty good about for a few days until I figured out how to use my watchlist and then saw that the person who sent it accused me of being racist around the same time, so I now believe that was probably sarcastic.

Dear Paracus I am flying out to Manipur this xmas may i requote a line from the iron lady of burma once when we received a bad review from the TLS we accused the fellow academic of being vicious. We had no idea what the word vicious meant. If you want validation from me then by all means go through all the edited content and reinput what you think is valid. But that takes effort. My prediction that the article will continue to be reduced to a stub is being fulfilled. Ok I am off now Paracus. You're a racist but I am going to be mingling with sociopathic monsters who have guns grenades but i feel confident I have three letters from local irish politicians with me a UK passport and some money. If it's any consolation I much prefer the company of western racists. No sarcasm intended at all. Slan go foil this is from Desmond Coutinho. What can I tell you. If you are still upset or need validation must be easier ways of getting it than from me. But if that's all you want. You're a simple man. And I hope you god grants you it. I am being really serious guy. Why would I want to annoy. I'd much prefer annoying some twat with a hand grenade. But I don't expect any validation from anyone for that. I just want to see my girl. Ok take care now. I think I clicked thanks because you hadn't actually removed anything of worth but on reflection i decided there are daggers in mens smiles and the comment was for all wiki editors who continue the rot here. Anyway must have too much time on my hands. Just got two more letters from some policitians and my airfllights and one hotel confirmed. slan go foil for definite this time. Please don't leave me a message if you think I am being terrible just take it on the chin and move on. Redo the page going through all the edits of the past two years that would be impressive though. not sure what signing means used to mean put your name below the thing desmond coutinho but that dont' seem to do it no more.

It was very frustrating to have my understanding of the CSD criteria called out as wrong without anyone actually pointing to wh — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesmondCoutinho (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It was very frustrating to have my understanding of the CSD criteria called out as wrong without anyone actually pointing to where I was interpreting it incorrectly, but instead pointing to unrelated topics. When I was called out for wikilawyering and no one else stepped in I was questioning if my literal interpretation of the rules did not fit the culture here. I am glad to see that it is, by at least some people, since it makes it easier to contribute when I know that the guidelines actually mean what they say and there isn't some secret code to follow.

While I now feel that my afternoon of removing dubious CSD tags was not disruptive to the project I don't think I will attempt it again soon. I didn't realize it was part of patrolling. I saw the WP:NPRSCHOOL page and stopped reading when it said you should probably have 1000 edits before attempting it. I thought patrolling was about marking new pages as patrolled. I didn't see any warnings about experience at the speedy deletion page.

Since it is part of patrolling and speedy delete pages are often new pages I now think that I probably should have followed up with PRODs and AfDs, myself, on the bad pages if I am going to remove the speedy delete. I thought someone else (like the original speedy deleter) would come along and do it, but it would make sense for me to do it myself. And this may help keep from upsetting the person who nominated for speedy delete. Ironically the one page I don't think deserves a delete at all is the page that precipitated the problem appearing on AN: Miss Universe 2014. With multiple people contributing and some interesting information I think that page has a chance. So while I think I will adopt this policy in the future if I ever come back to this work, it wouldn't have saved me the hassle this time.

While I was reflecting on my edits today, the one removal I regretted was 2016_Formula_One_Season. As per WP:SNOW I now realize I should have let it go through due to copyright violations. I tried to find a category it fit under at the time, but I erroneously didn't think copywrite applied because Wikipedia's license allows copying. I forgot that the Wikipedia license requires citation.

Even if that wasn't the case I'm curious if I should have left the speedy delete tag anyway? I think I may have been taking too literal an interpretation of the G4 clause. Although the article had way more content than the one originally deleted, both the new one and the old one had pretty much zero information about the 2016 season and so would still qualify for the same deletion reasoning. If a user recreated the page tomorrow with the 2014 content, and properly cited it, would we have to go through the entire AfD process with the page, then repeat it when he or she came back with the 2013 content? It seems there should be some speedy deletion criteria to skip this, but I'm not sure what it is. The 2015 content didn't feel like blatant vandalism, but maybe the 2013 and 2014 content would be? I would appreciate any insight either of you could offer on this topic.

Thank you both, again, for your encouragement. ParacusForward (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Deletion process is tricky, and probably not a good thing to be involved in immediately. It's a fairly sensitive area, especially for BLPs, and disagreements are likely to occur--we go as much by knowing what happens in similar cases as by using the rules as written. I've been doing it for years, and some of my actions in both directions get challenged, and more were when I was new at it. You are correct that when you remove a speedy tag, if you think the article should be deleted, it should be listed in either prod or AfD, but judging what to do takes some experience--there's no point in using Prod if the deletion is going to be challenged, and usually little point in using AfD if it clearly won;t be. For BLP's , BLPProd should always be used if it applies and you can't immediately find a reference. G4s are especially tricky, as I commented at ANB, because unless you're an admin, you cannot see the deleted article, and you have to guess from the comments at the AfD. The safest ones to remove are ones where there are new references for things that occurred later than the date of the AfD, if the new things are substantial enough that even by themselves they would justify an article. The best way of learning this or anything else here is to go 1 or 2 at a time, and see what happens. It also helps to concentrate on the articles that are worth rescuing, not everything that could conceivably be rescued--there are just too many.

The only real way to earn respect here is by writing articles or contributing to them substantially--everything else is secondary to this. See WP:FIRST for some ideas how to go about it. If you do not feel you want to start that yet, try some article maintenance, The most important is to look for unreferenced articles, and try to find references--see Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles for a guide to doing it. This will be a good start to writing articles of your own--as you go about this, you will see ideas. Another good place to start is Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify, which explains the various things needed. The easiest is adding links to other articles, being careful not to overlink common words.

Please don;t hold a grudge against the people who commented at the ANB--we are having some really utterly incompetent new page patrol and we are trying to upgrade it, so the question is a little sensitive. Kudpung especially is one of my best friends here, and it is very rare that we do not agree with each other. But we are care are all so over-worked that mistakes are inevitable. And the amount of work to do is why we need new people, so keep at it! BTW, though we do have a notification system, it's not reliable, and if you what someone to comment or want to ask someone a question, use their talk page. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Goonies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff Cohen (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) 09:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from user page

Thank you for your reply. I am still finding Wiki difficult to edit. The article I posted was researched. I made a four hour journey to the Newspaper museum in Collindale. Then my article was removed without any notification to me!Eseneg56 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)