Welcome!
Hello, Subdolous, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 and then place {{
helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Ioeth (
talk
contribs
friendly) 14:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To list an article at AfD for the second time, just use the template {{ afdx}} (using {{subst:afdx}}), and follow the directions there. There's no need to get clearance at deletion review first. Chick Bowen 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Articles for deletion thread [1] for this article you voted to delete it because there were not enough sources to show the notability of the article. However now several very significant sources have been added to the article that show the notability of it. They are::
Please reconsider your decision to delete this song. Several editors have compared this song to epic historic songs. This is what one editor said "It's analogous to deleting Waltzing Matilda, I Still Call Australia Home and The Wild Colonial Boy which are songs well known by Anglophones."
Thank you Ireland101 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I alerted Pilotbob and Someguy, you should probably see this. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- ROFLMAO he still thinks I am a sockpuppet? What the hell?? Isn't it obvious from my IP that I am one person? If it is not, than blame my college network, not sockpuppetry. Sasuke9031 04:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I encourage you to run a quick check on notability before nominating articles for deletion. Attempting to save an article prior to deleting it is encouraged by:
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination
- Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
I typical run the following quick searches for reliable sources
- Google web search
- Google News search
- Google News Archive search
- New York Times search
- For companies, Wall Street Journal search (last 3 months only)
For instance, I found 7 reliable notability references for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOV Pharmaceutical this way.
I hope this helps; thanks for all your work on AfDs. -- A. B. (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- PS, If I don't have time to do these things, then I just slap a {{ notability}} tag on the article and come back to it later or let someone else handle it in the meantime. -- A. B. (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I read your argument, yes. From your account history, it appears you're new here. I'd encourage you to follow A.B.'s advice above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, but also a wiki -- which implies a certain level of collaborative patience. Defective items are not always deleted right away, despite not conforming to the letter of the encyclopedia's expectations. Some core policies -- like WP:V -- must normally be satisfied immediately; but, for others, it is within the prerogative of discussants to propose solutions alternative to deletion. In this case, a merge was implemented. Although I didn't make it binding (and, indeed, an admin's authority to do so is very limited), I don't expect this merge to be reverted without substantial revisions. WP:PLOT notwithstanding, it is possible to make an encyclopedic article on the subject of Naruto geography -- the last revision of the AfD'ed contained the germ of this possibility, amidst much bad material. All things considered, in light of the discussion, I employed my discretion to resolve the debate in an amicable way that helped salvage the good, while discarding the bad. The article in question no longer violates any policy or guideline, as it is a redirect; its history is available to be merged, though. If any interested mind can make a sourced article out of the subject, s/he is not prohibited from trying, because there is nothing fundamentally unencyclopedic about this topic, the notability of the parent Naruto article never having been questioned. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I was not vandalizing this page. I was only removing an unsourced section which talks about different versions of the song. This was most likely done by vandals making up a false CD single. Anything this unlikely needs to be sourced. Ratizi1 ( talk) 06:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
May I inquire why you add back two additional refs for hobbies here? JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just for completeness. Is there a reason why they should be removed?
Subdolous (
talk) 20:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, since we have a secondary source for the statement, the additional hobbies aren't necessarily useful. And adding lots of citations that aren't fully necessary can make it harder for someone else to find the specific citation of the fact they are looking for. JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I help you keep an eye on this vandal? Tech43 07:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Thanks! :) Subdolous 07:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Anytime. Anytime. Tech43 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I received a message from you stating that the Eric Moore page was up for speedy deletion. I went to put a 'hangon' note on the page but it was already gone. The page I created wasn't gibberish but clearly written and presented in line with all other WikiProject AFL entries. As a VFL Premiership player his entry should comfortably meet all criteria. How do I go about getting this page back and keeping it there? Thanks. Lintornterry ( talk) 06:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- You should be able to recreate it again assuming it fits the criteria for an article. If I recall correctly it was deleted because it was just a blank page. If you recreate with the proper sourcing and assertion of notability, it shouldn't be speedily deleted, but it may still be deleted if it violates any of the criteria for article existence. Subdolous 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
My concern over your edit on Vincent Chin that "evidence clearly showed the attack, which included blows to the head from a baseball bat, was racially motivated" is that the Federal Trials ultimately acquitted Ebens of that charge, Nitz was never convicted, and the constitutionality of that fact cannot be changed. You refer to the state trial when you say they were not acquitted, but in those charges, racial motivation was NEVER brought up, and the reason that they were lightly sentenced was that they were able to blame Chin for starting the fight and wanting to continue it in the parking lot, after Nitz had already gotten hurt.
Attempting WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in light of this, we must leave room for an analysis much like the one that was made by Ebens defense, that it was a mere bar fight that spiraled out of control. Your reference to Wei to prove otherwise is faulty because he makes serious errors with his reporting, beginning with the "two unemployed autoworkers". Ebens was a foreman at Chrysler who only found himself unemployed after pleading guilty to the initial charges. But if he was employed, why would he have any motivation? So the evidence is LESS THAN CLEAR and the article has been studiously written to reflect that. To say otherwise would only encourage flaming modifications by those who have never actually studied the case. MMetro ( talk) 21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a courtroom, it is an encyclopedia. If there are reliable secondary sources that state a fact, then that fact should be included. WP:BLP is also irrelevant, as we are talking about a dead person here. Subdolous ( talk) 16:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is very relevant, as there are several Michael Nitz's in the U.S., with only one having been involved in the murder, and AFAIK, Ronald Ebens is still alive. If you want to say things were alleged to have happened, you could do so, but using secondary sources omitting that the racial statements are alleged does not absolve Wikipedia from its responsibiilities. MMetro ( talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, wikipedia is not a courtroom. The secondary source has been deemed to be neutral and on-topic, which is what WP:BLP states as the criteria for inclusion of fact. It seems that you're trying to discredit this source with WP:OR, which is of course strictly forbidden. Subdolous ( talk) 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider Asian American studies' blogs and commentary pages to be neutral POV. The case is, after all, a significant step in Asian American civil rights. Those columns cannot comprehend why the court results were the way they were because they've never had to exercise the WP:NPOV this encyclopedia adheres to. You do not have to lead the reader into thinking it was unfair, nor should you. MMetro ( talk) 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have proof that my statements are true, my scources are as followed: http://redrebelmartialarts.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-to-train-with-adam.html and http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/misconceptions.php I just don't know how to put the links on the main page. Kaiser jkd ( talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your first source is a blog, which under WP:SPS is not acceptable, and your second source doesn't support your edit at all. Subdolous ( talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I only put the second source there to disprove the other theories, and i will cahck for more scources for the first one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser jkd ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)