GAtechnical

I am new to Wikipedia and find some aspects rather puzzling. Simon Rumley is a respected screenplay writer and film director who has several feature films to his credit and worked with high profile actors such as Roger Lloyd Pack and Noah Taylor. Any google search would quickly show dozens of references to hsi work and he has been peer-reviewed and national press reviewed on many occasions. It may be that I make the mistake of trying to work "live" but I really need to see how teh page looks in real life, rather than just do it on a word processor. Also, I need to make live checks to other Wikipedia sources/references as these often form an integral part of the copy and the references. Maybe this method of working frowned on, I don't know. I can't say I find the Wikipedia way of working all that intuitive and it is often a struggle to understand what people might be referring to. As a writer who has researched books, I am certainly not unfamiliar with the notion of references and sources. As for my own entry at Nicholas Whittaker, I fail to see why I am any less noreworthy than several other writers whose biogs I have seen posted on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picknick99 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi GATechnical, you mentioned the artice was not adequately supported by reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ali_Riaz Then you also made a comment saying "References need to be in the article not as a list at the bottom."

Could you please elaborate a little more on your comments and causes so I can fix the submission and re-submit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.2.205.142 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. In the article when you make a point use these "<"ref">" and "<"/ref">" (minus the speech marks) and put the url for example inside the coding and then you will have an inline reference.

Hi GAtechnical, you recently declined 'Equal Marriage', a page I created about Scotland's campaign for same-sex marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Equal_Marriage

Your reasoning was that: "Probably best to merge/summerise with the gay rights pages we already have."

However, whilst I'm grateful you took the time to review the article and very much respect your opinion - I do disagree with your conclusion, particularly as it is clearly out of line with the content of other current Wikipedia articles. For instance:

• This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_Equal_Marriage is about a specific campaign for same-sex marriage in England
• This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Love is about a specific campaign for same-sex marriage in Australia
• This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_marry is about a specific campaign for same-sex marriage in the United States of America
• This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_Marriage is about a specific campaign against same-sex marriage in England
• This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Marriage is about a specific campaign against same-sex marriage in the United States of America

Scotland is a country with full control of its marriage law. As a result there is a campaign in favour of same-sex marriage (Equal Marriage - www.equalmarriage.org.uk ) and a campaign against (Scotland for Marriage - www.scotlandformarriage.org ). If the campaigns of other countries are notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page then surely so should the campaign in Scotland?

Equal Marriage is a major, unique, notable, award-winning campaign in Scotland that has involved hundreds of thousands of people, been featured regularly for five years across mainstream Scottish and international media, and has had a clear impact (the Scottish Government have responded by starting the process of legalising same-sex marriage in Scotland). This specific campaign has had such an impact that people across Scotland and beyond now regularly use the campaign's name and twitter hashtag #equalmarriage when discussing the general issue of same-sex marriage.

It is also particularly notable because it was the first campaign for same-sex marriage in the UK - predating the campaign featured in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_Equal_Marriage by over four years

I've tried to include plenty of examples of campaign activity in the article to show the notable impact of the campaign, and plenty of external references from respected sites like the BBC and national newspapers to prove its notability.

For these reasons and more would you reconsider rejecting the article? Or be able to tell me what changes need to be made for it to be accepted?

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.13.236 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the links. I've asked for the English ones to be merged to same sex marriage in the UK, under the Support and oppose English section. I suggest you merge your proposed article under the Scottish section as it would strenghen it with a nice one paragraph which summeries it. TBH both the English articles are crap, with uneeded info, apart from one paragraph so Isuggest a merge and that you do the same. GAtechnical (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, thanks for your work on this. Do you know when a decision is likely to be made on the merger? Obviously if all campaigns are merged into 'same-sex marriage in the uk' then I'm happy for my proposed article to be merged too, but if the decision is that other campaigns aren't merged I would like Equal Marriage to have its own page too as it is at least as notable, and arguably more notable than the other currently published articles. If the decision is made against merging will you accept this article? Thanks! 94.173.13.236 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

GAtechnical, hello. Thank you so much for taking the time to review my submission. I really appreciate it. I am new to the Wikipedia world. Can you point to any specifics that would help me get my submission approved? I have 30 references for my article. You may not be familar with insidehalton.com, but it is the website for The Milton Canadian Champion newspaper, which is owned by the Toronto Star chain. It's a very respected paper with roots dating back to 1858.

What areas are particularly lacking? Thanks so much. rodmclachlan (at) hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.66.201 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've now added dozens more newspaper stories from four different, additional newspaper sources. I've also included some of the prominent citizens and athletes who have supported the club over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miltonrotary (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 January 2013‎ (UTC)Reply

Ok I think you've misunderstood me. The club you're writing about is the Rotary. Now there is 30 odd thousand rotary clubs in the world. Apart from Rotary International, a garden and some awards there is no other wikipedia article connected to the club. There is certainly no page of an individual club and because no one else has created one leads me to conclude that the Milton club would not be notable for Wikipedia. However if you went onto the Rotary International page you maybe able to use some of your information under the Canada/North American section. Thanks for putting so much effort into you're submission, you are more than welcome to ask somebody else to have a look at it and resubmit if they feel that it's worthy of a Wikipedia entry. GAtechnical (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks GAtechnical for the feedback. I also chatted with another reviewer and he or she offered me some tips. Basically, it was suggested that when reading the article there doesn't appear to be anything notable or unique about the club that would justify it having it's own page. I completely understand. I'm going to address this issue with some more information that I think will show that it is highly unique and could have its own page. Thanks for taking the time to reply. All the best! Rod McLachlan (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi GAtechnical

Re - APPROPRIATION IN THE OFFENCE OF STEALING - A COMPARATIVE APPRIASAL

I have resubmitted the above article. You had deleted it before. I would kindly request that you find time to look at the article again. I believe that the sources of the article are authentic and verifiable. I also believe that the article will be of use to lawyers, judges and those who have anything to do with criminal law.

Thanks

Dr. Suleiman I. Oji Faculty of Law Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto - Nigeria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.78.224.9 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I won't be reviewing your article again. I usually leave submissions that I've declined to another user, unless your just being silly, so that there can't be any prejudice etc. GAtechnical (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note you didn't resubmit it and I didn't delete it. The article was already blank and I've resubmitted it for you. GAtechnical (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

In regard to Davis Cup/team results, if we are going to have them then why only display results for champions? The 'Davis Cup Champion' label seems entirely redundant even if it is used for that... Nalbandian with Argentina reached the final 3 times - why should this result not be displayed? It just seems entirely needless to limit it to champions - all World Group results are easy to display, at least. Asmazif (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2012 (GMT)

But with say the Wightman Cup there's only two teams don't see why you need a result comment just a champion label. With the Hopman cup and ATP World Team Cup it's an invitational tournament (despite the offical names) pure RR apart from a group winner play off and imo it's unneeded and clutters the infobox unless limited too. Also the other reason for limiting to champions is that there is a million biography pages just trying not to make work or clutter the box. Also another idea would be to declutter the infobox from junior and senior slams as no one uses the senior and most juniors compete in some way in qualifying for a slam and then that tab gets made redundent. WIth the point of world group it would have to be made clear on the DC and FC bits and it's easier and clear to just write champions, nips the arguement in the bud of what's included and not included. GAtechnical (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Entirely agree about junior/senior results in infobox - needless cluttering - senior results not really relevant, junior results can be put in separate juniors paragraph in the article. OK, I do see your point with these team events - however, I think the actual label itself (such as 'Davis Cup Champion', 'Hopman Cup Champion') is too long - it would either run over onto two lines, or if forced with a 'no break space', it would make every player's infobox (with such results entered) absurdly squashed/thin. So I'm happy with leaving the code with 'Champion' on the end, but just have the labels as the event names (e.g. just 'Davis Cup', 'Hopman Cup' etc)? Asmazif (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2012 (GMT)

See the point bit of a conundrum. I'm happy with whatever you label it as and am happy with the restrictions of its use.GAtechnical (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for reminding me. I just added some of references for Darryl Wezy and his images for Wikipedia needs. However, I need your support here as his big fan. Please don't delete Darryl Wezy page. Anyway, thanks for sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryl Mika (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. I have made a few changes to the article. Eshlare (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Colour me skeptical, but editors don't usually start off editing GAs with their first few edits. Given your tennis edits I think I know who you are. Why don't you request the WP:standard offer and try to come back properly. We need more editors willing to review Good articles and if all your edits get removed per WP:Deny then it just creates more work for the rest of us (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16#He to Hecuba) AIRcorn (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012–13 World Series of Boxing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Conlan and Sergei Kuzmin (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) 11:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Olympic Stadium (London) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to David Sullivan and David Gold

Adam Helfant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nike

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Category:Recipients of the Philippe Chatrier Award, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi GAtechnical,

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my submission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ikman.lk

May I ask why you decided to reject this article? I had provided citations to every claim that was made in the text - this is quite clear if you check the cited links, most of them are from prominent newspapers in the country. Newspapers in Sri Lanka are one of the most authoritative and trusted sources of news in the country, which formed the basis for my references.

Would be very kind of you to to reconsider my submission. If indeed you believe it is still not acceptable in it's present form, please let me know specifically what needs to be changed and I will edit accordingly.

Many thanks. Raad17 (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why would I reconsider when the subject is not notable. That's what the decline says the subjects notablity is not established. The subject has existed for approx. 8 months and is small fry. Wikipedia is not a worldwide directory of every company. GAtechnical (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The website is relatively new, but it is quite notable:

i) Pretty much the first, and only free classifieds website launched in Sri Lanka. Content available in both native Sri Lankan languages, which is also a first.

ii) It reached critical mass, 500,000 unique visitors per month within the first six months of launch.

iii) Received numerous mentions and citations from several leading newspapers in the country.

I have seen articles published on Wikipedia for far less. ikman.lk is a genuine phenomenon in Sri Lanka, and I believe it does deserve an article.

Please let me know how else I can improve this article, so it's acceptable.

Kind regards, Raad17 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi GAtechnical, if your decision is final, I would like to get a second opinion on this article. Can you kindly refer my submission to another reviewer? Much appreciated. Raad17 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just press the resubmit button on the decline box and wait. I will not review it. GAtechnical (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I take your point but that doesn't seem to be the existing practice. Other sub groups of the Irish Labour Party appear to have stand alone articles. For example;

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Women
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Youth

All of the articles on Irish political parties provide stand alone articles concerning youth sub groups where they exist;

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Fine_Gael
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93gra_Fianna_F%C3%A1il
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in_Republican_Youth
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Progressive_Democrats
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Greens_(Ireland)

It would also seem to be the practice to create stand alone articles when dealing with LGBT sub groups of UK political parties for example;

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Labour
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTory
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DELGA

Could you elaborate further on your reasoning in this instance? (Higginr (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC) 23:54 3 February 2013)Reply

The article therefore already exists then at LGBT labour? Does it not? GAtechnical (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Afraid not. That article refers to the LGBT group of the British Labour Party rather than the Irish Labour party. Different countries, different parties, etc. Higginr (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well I don't understand at the very least why the users haven't followed the naming conventions, i.e. Labour Party (UK) and Labour Party (Ireland) and therefore name the article Labour Party LGBT (UK). At the very least if you do create the article it should follow those naming conventions. GAtechnical (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

From looking at the UK articles the Lib Dem one should be merged as it has no reliable/independent sources and is part of the Lib Dems. The conservative one can stay as that is independent of the Conservative Party. The Labour one has confusing words so a bit more thought should probably be given. So to consider I think a "Sub Party" so to speak is worthy of an article as long as it's independent from the main Party. GAtechnical (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

That seems reasonable, I was working from the assumption that it is the only LGBT group within an Irish political party and hence notable. If the criteria is autonomy from the main organisation, I'm not sure my article fits that bill. More research and potential resubmit I think. Thanks Higginr (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your review of the article I've written on the GAISE documents. I respectfully disagree that the documents are not notable. I have added a citation that several (two that I have on my bookshelf, probably more) major textbooks in statistics have been informed by the GAISE documents. I think the GAISE documents are notable under WP:BKCRIT (1 and 3), and more notable generally. These are substantial documents that have informed textbooks and grants that have been awarded millions of dollars in funding by the National Science Foundation. There are plenty of sources that corroborate the claims made. I fail to see how they are not notable and urge you to reconsider. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, if one were to relax the definition of an academic journal slightly (as this is an academic work and not a traditional book but still not an entire journal), then I would say that it easily meets the first two if not all three criteria listed in WP:NJournals. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You clearly didn't read what I had put on the page then. If this was taken up and used within the ciricular then it would be worthy of a page. I don't see how it is notable right now when I declined it. Just resubmit it! GAtechnical (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that the article is clearly notable under WP:BKCRIT(1) and more generally, irrespective of its adoption wholesale into various curricula. Additionally, Google Scholar lists over 100 articles that cite it. Rather than resubmitting, I'm moving the draft into article space. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Which, with respect, you should have done in the first place as articles for creation system is mainly for users who don't have an account. It gets very difficult when judging articles when all you see is some random company/proffessor/doctor/person etc to know every single wikipedia rule off the top of my head and therefore where to look. GAtechnical (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I had never created an article before, so I just followed the Help:Userspace draft instructions. I thought that was the preferred way to create all new articles. I do appreciate your time and understanding in this. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you just decline this submission? 173.78.231.251 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fails notabilty as in not played for an NFL team, Canadian Football or Arena football. GAtechnical (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

As reviewing administrator, I removed your speedy deletion tag. An indication of having written books other than self published books is enough indication of importance to keep an article from speedy, though to shown notability the books must be shown important (tho not necessarily individually notable ). Also, holding a named professorship meets the notability standard at WP:PROF, which is a formal guideline. It's enough to pass not only speedy, but AfD. Please review WP:CSD -- and WP:PROF if you intend to examine articles in that subject area. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

TBF I was leaning to a prod for no references before I clicked that. Won't add one now as it would seem pointy. GAtechnical (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello GAtechnical, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Layla iskandar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Thank you for your message about adding references to my new page. I'm fairly new to editing so I hope I've done it right. If you could check and let me know that would be great. I intend to expand on the information on the page but I thought I'd make sure it isn't going to be deleted first! Best wishes Jawnlock (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Shri radha sudha nidhi to be deleted, please add a reference to the article

"Shri radha sudha nidhi" this topic is not related to "Biographies of living persons|biography of a living person". "Shri radha sudha nidhi stotram" author:- Shri Hit Harivansh Goswami the founder of Shri RadhaVallabh Sampradaya,vrindaban and published by Shri Hit Sahitya Prakashan, Vrindaban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swami sri hitdas ji maharaj (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey I have received the notification that you have deleted the page I have created about the Belgian Artist "Maïkel Blays". I do not understand why you did this. You also have reinstalled the redirection to the article "The Voice Belgium", which I had deleted; Maikel has no connection anymore ith this TV show, there is no reason to reconnect his name with that TV production. He is an artist who signed with teh Belgian Record label Odacity Records (www.odacity.eu) and his debut album is being released in march, with a singl edue to be released in about two weeks;

Please undo this deletions you have made, and delete the redirection of his name, to a TV show he has no connections with since more then a year.

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euromed (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have NOT deleted the page thank you. Someone else redirected it to the Belgium voice. Please recreate the article when his album or single charts and is notable according to Wikipedia music. IF he had won the voice then you better state it cause it has no place on Wikipedia right now. The sources were not reliable and he is not notable right now. GAtechnical (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am in the process of working on the article; adding references and sources, and you keep interfering and undoing my work .I am working on the article, and what you do is not editing, but just destroying my work before I have the chance to finishing it with sources ! This is not professional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euromed (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

And the lesson here is don't create pages too early keep them in your sandbox. GAtechnical (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You did nt even give me the chance to include info , reference and sources about his single and album, as well as the press release by the Record Label. One does not need to "win" The Voice " to be a working artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euromed (talk • contribs) 09:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just wanted to ask you kindly not to delete the article Felix Kjellberg, I spent quite a while working on it, and I would be more than happy to add resources asap. :-)

I know many people online are looking this page to be created, so please do not delete it. If you have anymore issues with the page, I will be more than happy to co-operate. Thank you!

Weir NI (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

For God sake. The template says you have 10 days from when I put it on to come up with a reliable reference. I can not delete articles and the tag will remain until it is sourced. Also I couldn't give a monkey whether according to you people want to read it or not. GAtechnical (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

How were the past ones not reliable references? They were what I sourced my information from. I was looking at other Wikipedia pages for reference examples, and Charlie McDonnell's page includes his YouTube channel, and maybe you don't care (might I add that it could have been worded more nicely), but other people do, and that should be a valid reason not to delete it.

If you could, please, any suggestions on what you would see as a "reliable reference"?

Thank you. Weir NI (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Charlie is a very dodgy article for referencing. Would not use that as a great example although it has links to the BBC and telegraph. A reliable reference is not youtube, twitter facebook or a blog (unless the blog is a respective jorno). A reliable reference is a newspaper or news website such as the telegraph, BBC, ESPN etc. GAtechnical (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the fast reply.

I managed to find three links, and I apologize to take time out of your day, but if you would be willing to check them, and approve or disprove them, I would very much appreciate it.

http://bloggar.expressen.se/lars/2012/03/kranika-darfar-ar-pewdiepie-sveriges-hetaste-internetstjarna/ http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/LetsPlay/PewDiePie http://pewdiepie.se/post/20174506902/miisen-look-who-i-found-in-the-newspaper-haha

Many thanks! I really appreciate it. Weir NI (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

First reference you have given probably is reliable (not 100%) the second one I would say no (and it seems to mirror/copy something). The third one you could use but be warned. All sort of copyright issues as in how do you know that the article hasn't been tampered with. Also cause it's his website by the looks of it I wouldn't try and hinge the article on it. GAtechnical (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you! I have added the first and third link to the References list. Weir NI (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

As reviewing administrator, I have declined a number of your Speedy nominations, as have other administrators.

According to WP:CSD, the criterion A7, is limited to:

"An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. "

The policy further explains:

"This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion."

Speedy A7 has nothing to do with notability, and the guideline deliberately avoids using the term. Any good faith indication of importance is sufficient. As an example, if a person is the author of a non-self published book, it's an assertion of importance, though only the small minority of such authors are actually notable.

If you think an article should be deleted and A7 or another speedy criterion does not apply, use WP:AFD, or if you think there will be no opposition, WP:PROD.

Even after many years of experience here, I find it helpful to frequently re-read WP:Deletion Policy and WP:CSD to make sure I am not drifting from the standards. I agree with the suggestion above that you re-read them before making further deletion nominations. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message concerning missing references for the article about former figure skater "Helli Sengstschmid". Please look again, now there ARE references on this pages, which confirm the contents without doubt. The rest of the page's text comes directly from Mrs. Sengstschmid-Tunner herself, ... Tiroltext (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've seen it. Yes when I tagged it there were none so feel free to remove the tag. Unless she has a biography out there or lots of newspaper reports then saying that the text comes directly from her is against BLP as there is no way we (other users) can verify the claims. GAtechnical (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fine, tankts. So I hope that the article remains intact. --Tiroltext (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please avoid commenting on other contributors like this; it's close to an WP:NPA violation. I've nominated a few articles for deletion myself, so I understand your frustration to an extent. But it might just be best to walk away from the discussion at times when things become heated. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear, GAtechnical. I've just added the references you suggested me in order to avoid de deletion of the article David Fernández Rivera. I hope the problem is resolved now.

Thanks, Ayoxa7 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear, GAtechnical. I've just added the references you suggested me in order to avoid de deletion of the article El Costell. I hope the problem is resolved now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kustom web wiki (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear, GAtechnical. I've just added the references you suggested me in order to avoid deletion of the my article P. V. Narasimha Rao Ministry. I think the problem is resolved now.

Cheers, Karan Kamath (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was a little struck by the comment you made in this diff. I'm sure you weren't being 100% serious but I just wanted to remind you not to WP:BITE. Have a nice day :). —Noiratsi (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this article is not unsourced, and was not when you tagged it with BLPPROD - please take to AFD. GiantSnowman 09:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The prod that you placed on John J. Hartin has been contested. The page has since been sent to AfD. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing Dance FM, GAtechnical.

Unfortunately FreeRangeFrog has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

PROD

To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.

I have no idea why I need to be informed of this. Secondly, when using tools to add delete tags it gets automatically marked as reviewed. GAtechnical (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have recieved an email about the proposed deletion of the page Dr Nicholas J Lowe, This page is a biography of a Dermatolgist who i work with, and all the information is first hand research, and information gathered from Dr Lowe himself, does this mean i still need references? Information on products is gathered from Dr Lowe and the website , www.drnicklowe.com, with this in mind, does the page still need references? and will it still be deleted?,

Thanks,

Press Office, @ Dr Nick Lowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrNickLowe (talk • contribs) 12:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Too late, it's already been deleted. But for the record first hand research is not good since we (other users) can't verify it and secondly it needs reliable sources, the subjects own website is not a reliable source. Also please see Wikipedia:Notability. GAtechnical (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Summer Olympics closing ceremony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Robertson (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) 18:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You nominated Umberto Ambrosoli for BLP PROD , although it had a corresponding Italian article with many references. I copied a few of them over to start with. The English article didn't really show notability , but the Italian one indicated he had won several prizes as a author, so I added that also. Even when you cannot read the language and wisely do not want to rely of G Translate, the references section can always be copied over even tho it may later need reformatting. I don't think it ever makes sense to BLP prod an article with a corresponding article in another WP that has references (not all of them do--some of the WPs are more careless about it than we are. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know, I've given 2012 Summer Olympics closing ceremony a GA review. It just needs a few minor details sorted out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. On en.wp we don't remove accents in non-English people's names unless someone changes nationality. Năstase is not an American, he's still a Romanian citizen. Please see previous RM in archive and Tennis names RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and the guidelines you quoted have been edit-warred, see page histories. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't care go away. GAtechnical (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well I did, until you insulted BDD and DJSasso. I see you've extended that to other editors since myself included.

(1) re your language on Talk page and edit summaries please read WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA.

(2) re your comments on foreign editors I'm not sure where the relevant guideline is, but I'm sure there is one.

(3) re deleting Boson in a RM is not acceptable.

Further information on these subjects can be found at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, GAtechnical. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

BDD (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since the suggested new name is an obvious misspelling (the reason has been explained by another editor), I would suggest that you withdraw and close this move request. I had assumed the proposed new name was a typo on your part, but I am no longer sure. Since the nomination is unanimously opposed, this course of action should be in accordance with the guidelines for closure of requested-move discussions and avoids waiting seven days. If you do not withdraw the move request, I would be grateful if you would restore my comments, which you removed, including my !vote of "strongly oppose".--Boson (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't be so fucking igorent and do some fuckijg research untill you get it into your thick head you will be reomoved.

  This is your last warning. The next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page edits, as you did at Talk:Julia Görges, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. In a few minutes, I'm going to provide to you my notice of the fact that this incident is being reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Your disruptive move of the talk page is uncalled for. You have been warned multiple times to cease the vandalism, but you have not stopped. Steel1943 (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's excessive. GAtechnical (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GAtechnical (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Didn't realise that one. Just wanted BWilikins to apologise for effective threatening me with legal policy to indef me when it was my first block. I apologise and won't make legal threats again and of course won't act on it. GAtechnical (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Absolutely denied. I see zero evidence at all that you recognize that your behavior has been disruptive nor an intention to correct it. To be unblocked, you have to convince the reviewing administrator that you understand the behavior that got you blocked and that you will not do it again. I'm not convinced at all with your accusations of hounding, your demands for an apology, nor by your socking and legal threats. I suggest that if you choose to appeal again, you better focus on your own behavior and all of your behavior including the edit warring and talk page disruption or you may find your talk page access revoked.v/r - TP 13:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

---

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.

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

B Wilkins has now apologised of sort but can you inform steel to stop hounding me, I have nothing to do with that IP. GAtechnical (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note to reviewing admin: - if the indef-block is lifted, a considerably longer block than my original three days should be substituted because of:

• WP:Disruptive editing - on Talk:Julia Görges the user deleted most of an RM that was going against him and opened a new one with the comment "all votes with per other RM#'s or Diacritics or I like it arguements will be removed and declared void."
• Block evasion on Julia Görges with 92.18.27.197 (talk · contribs) - user's denial is not believable.

JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note also socking via 92.22.82.168. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Note to John that is hounding now. second point WTF did you block me for then? Therefore that is not an issue, as that is already served the excessive (imo) first block. Secondly I asked you to tell Steel to quit it but no you attack me; I am not accepting that. John you are bared from my talk page for the reasons I just gave do not replace your comments.GAtechnical (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• No, it is not hounding. I blocked you for three days for edit-warring as a first measure to stop you moving the article against consensus. When I investigated further and realised the extent of your disruptive editing and incivility, I came back here to extend the block, but found you were already indeffed for legal threats. Since I made the original block, I will not decide on your unblock appeal, but the admin who reviews it needs to know the background, and to know that if you had not made the threat you would now be blocked for longer than three days. Do not remove my note until your unblock appeal has been decided, or your talk page access may be revoked. JohnCD (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Talkpage access revoked after this edit - you don't get to second-guess the reviewing admin. Any further unblock appeals will have to go through UTRS or BASC, but you seriously need to read the guide first. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Flickrworker (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for attempted evasion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

GATechnical, you're not doing yourself any favours. "Indefinite" does not mean "infinite" - it means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur". Evading a block shows the community that you're merely willing to break the rules you agreed to again and again instead of convincing us otherwise. I recognize that you cannot reply on this talkpage, and that's your own fault. You have been provided with advice on how to become unblocked - read WP:GAB and contact WP:AUSC. If you evade your block any further, you will lose that opportunity to be unblocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I have created a new page of Jean-Claude Thibaut under another username. Is this ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.202.92.6 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Sheryl Mika, the creator for Darryl Wezy and Maze of Fears page. I received the notification due to my deletion page. Actually, I don't know how to fix this. Can you help me to explain the rules and policy to make it properly? Please, I really don't understand, because I added the citation and etc that page needed. Please response my messsage. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryl Mika (talk • contribs) 05:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Template:World Series Boxing box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply