In today's world, User talk:JzG/Archive 56 has become a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide range of people. From its origin to its impact on today's society, User talk:JzG/Archive 56 has sparked debates and reflections in different areas, and its influence extends to various aspects of daily life. In this article, we will explore in detail the various aspects related to User talk:JzG/Archive 56, analyzing its historical, social, cultural and economic dimensions. Through a multidisciplinary approach, we will seek to understand the complexity and importance of User talk:JzG/Archive 56 in the contemporary world, as well as its potential to generate significant changes in different spheres of society.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Hi, I just saw your edit at Mark Clifford. I'm not quite sure what you mean... I don't see any conflict of interest with the source cited. What am I missing? Could you please elaborate? Thanks --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Since this has been re-listed twice, I thought it time to comment again. I noted the redlinked elephant in the room, elsewhere, last month. ☺ One of the questions that people haven't asked is "Who is Sir Montagu Sharpe?". Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Guy. It's been a while since I've written anything here--years in fact. I edit pretty lightly nowadays, but one article I have become involved with is Donald Arthur, which is mainly the work of one person (User: PariahCarry). He has put in a vast amount of, to my mind, irrelevant material, and dozens of spuriously italicized phrases. I did a lot of cutting and cleanup, but he seems to want it all in there, and I don't really have the heart for a big dispute or revert war. Do you think I could get you to take a look at it? See my last edit and the previous 60K version in the history.
Many thanks if you have the time. Hope you're well, · rodii · 21:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi JzG, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ebru_TV. SmartSE (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you please RevisionDelete this? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Guy, Regarding your message, I must say I am disappointed that two Wikipedia entries referring to me and my band have been deleted.
Firstly the entry on Keith Law, I believe was entered by someone else, and not an auto-biography by me. When I noticed it, it was in need of editing. This is what I did.
Secondly Velvett Fogg, was already a 'stub' entry on Wikipedia, and once again all I did, was, to edit it. Indeed I believe initially the stub was expanded by one of your own admin team.
I have all my web-sites with great links back to Wikipedia, as I was proud of being included, by whoever! I am also an administrator on an American forum with our own Wikipedia.
It is a great disappointment therefore, that what seem to be two well presented and factual entries, should be deleted.
Regards,
Velvettfogg (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please help me understand why this article was deleted so suddenly? I understand from the deletion log description the grounds under which you deleted it but I have never seen an established, well illustrated article disappear like that, with no debate. Is there any way you could restore the article and allow editors to work on it in order to respond to your objections? I agree that there were sections that appeared promotional but I still felt it had merit and could certainly have been improved. I guess what I am also asking for is confirmation that it is possible for established articles simply to disappear so quickly, with only one person reviewing them? I have never seen it happen before, except to entirely new content. It seems harsh that whoever now wishes to start a new Terry Farrell article has to begin afresh when the version you've deleted contained a lot of useful content. I've no connection with the subject of the article or special interest in his work. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Please remain involved in the BLP discussion about this. If none of the three sources are reliable, the material should be edited out. But I believe they are reliable. I hope you feel you can opine on the three sources without divulging anything you shouldn't from OTRS complaints. I think you can. Thanks for considering it, regardless of what you decide. 22:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)David in DC (talk)
— SpikeToronto 18:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The "objectively provable significance" is in its coverage. I am of the opinion that the project is nicely served by incubating this one for a few weeks... as it is getting coverage.. Its simply a little bit too soon, and incubation serves the project by allowing editors to expand and source the article as it awaits its return. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you from Sardinia? Giacomo 23:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, There has been significant improvement of the article today, though much remains to be done. What do you think of it now? Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I see you have deleted the article due to an OTRS ticket. The article did meet the standards of WP:PORNBIO, and WP:ANYBIO too for that matter... Tabercil (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stephanie ackles is probably relevant. January (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello JzG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Meagan McKinney, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 20 books published in my view makes this more than an A7 candidate. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 16:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Carol M. Swain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the Speedy Deletion of this article was premature, as there was evidence () that the band does have a single on the Billboard charts. If I read correctly this meets the requirement of WP:BAND requirement #2 ("Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."). Unfortunately the Billboard link is dynamic, so as is it doesn't work for a reference link, but there should be something else out there. I know the article still needed work, but the subject does meet the notability requirements in my opinion. No, I'm not the creator of the article, just a concerned editor. Thanks for your time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It was a pretty big news article back when it happened, but he's not been notable since. I'll let it go to the vote and see what happens. Thanks for letting me know. --Zerbey (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
What exactly happened here? The actress was miffed because the article about her was deleted for lack of notability, so we create a disam page mentioning her but not linking to an article? If she's not notable, she is not notable, end of story, and doesn't even deserve a mention on a disam page. This is nonsense, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
See the last bit? Dabs are cheap and since the existing article is an autobiography I'd say notability was equally questionable in both cases! Guy (Help!) 11:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that as currently constituted, it shows up on the daily list of untagged uncategorized articles, which has to be cleared right to zero each and every day. Every single page that shows up on that list has to be dealt with, whether it's by categorizing, tagging or deleting, and there cannot be any "skip this one and let it sit here permanently" exceptions for any reason whatsoever. So if you really need the placeholder page to stay in place, then you need to find a way to ensure that it doesn't get counted as an untagged uncategorized article — because if it shows up on that list, whoever's tagging on any given day has an absolute obligation to do whatever is necessary to get it off the list immediately. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the re-creation, re-deletion and re-re-creation of this over the last day or two. Is the displaying of deletion logs now considered an "offence" (as the category descriptions puts it) for all BLPs, or was there some complaint made regarding this article in particular? I don't recall seeing a discussion about this, but maybe I missed it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a better understanding of what the problem is now (your original link on my talk page didn't really help me find that discussion.) Wow, people will complain about anything now... Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)