Welcome!
Hello, Lavd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Rklawton (
talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from
Nikita Denisenkov. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
AllyD (
talk) 15:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
All Wikipedia biographies require to be verifiable against independent 3rd party references. The specific notability criteria for a biography of an artist are here. As things stand, this biography doesn't meet these. AllyD ( talk) 15:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Nikita Denisenkov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
AllyD (
talk) 18:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nikita Denisenkov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikita Denisenkov until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Russavia Let's dialogue 14:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove
Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in
Articles for deletion debates, as you did with
Nikita Denisenkov. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please
comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
AllyD (
talk) 17:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to remove
Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at
Nikita Denisenkov, you may be
blocked from editing.
AllyD (
talk) 17:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
You cant propose it for deletion. Please stop doing it. Open deletion discussion if you want. And ask for community to evaluate your proposals. Lavd ( talk) 17:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Lavd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Don't see a reason for disruptive editing. I decided to spend some time on articles in AfD. I went through them and analyzed those with familiar subjects discovering evidence and information on the Internet and shortly expressing my view where I see the subject worth it. What went wrong?
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lavd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yes, I found this discussions through my article get there itself. I was just curious how bad were articles there comparing to my. Delete flag articles don't need another delete statement - so I supported interesting articles. Keeps are slightly different, I just don't have much to say but opinion. I spent time on each article not just copy-pasting. The way I get there don't mean I am wrong in my posting. I need posting privileges to counter my own article deletion. Can you please unblock only my discussion and article for me. ( Lavd ( talk) 20:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC))
Decline reason:
Obviously you have only a limited command of the English language. But your unblock request does not abswer the basic reason for your block. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You've already posted your objections. Experience has show that the more vociferously an editor defends an article they've created on the AfD page, the less likely it is to survive. If you really want to keep the article you started, go find sources indicating the article is notable. You can post that information here below and other editors can add it for you - assuming they meet our standards. Rklawton ( talk) 21:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"Delete on present showing. If there were some references complying with WP:RS, to show significance or notability, things might well be different. Note that I am not criticising the art - for me it is good and ought to be notable if it it currently isn't. But one doesn't need to be an art specialist to assess coverage. And it is coverage that wins the day on Wikipedia. A group might be brilliant, but if no-one has heard of them, they don't get an article. A writer of self-published books is unlikely to get an article, but if people read them they might find them good. Van Gogh probably wouldn't have had an article until he was dead and famous. This is an encyclopaedia - we record what is regarded as notable. Our rules and criteria might not be the best - but they are in force until something better is brought in. (Disclaimer: I am not an art expert, and haven't painted for some time, but I do have works hanging in a few private houses. Not notable, I'm afraid...) Peridon (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"
Judgng from this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikita_Denisenkov, you would probably be best to contact User:Beeblebrox and take him up on his offer to copy the article to your user space. AllyD ( talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)