User talk:Enion Glas

Deletion discussion about Campuzano-Polanco family

Hello, Enion Glas,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Campuzano-Polanco family should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campuzano-Polanco family .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still in the process of being created. The sources will be added asap. Please be patient. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Enion Glas (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enion Glas: We are not in the business of being patient and you should not be asking for favors being so new here. In the future, you should create new articles at either our "Articles for Creation" project or in a user sandbox. Either option would let you take your time and develop content before our editing community begins editing it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest adding an "under construction" tag to the page since you uploaded it the mainspace prematurely. Let me know know if you need instructions on how to do so.Meatsgains (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

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 Campuzano-Polanco family. 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. WNYY98 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it has been decided that I will tag the article with "Under Construction" until its relatively finished. The notice for deletion says that it could be removed if the discussion has been settled, which I thought it had. I am a bit of a novice on wikipedia issues so please accept my apologies if I have violated anything. Thanks

You have taken away all the categories and a fair amount of citations. Along with the coat of arms of the family. Any reasons for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs)

I marked the article as "under construction" since you appear to be ignorant of the process. The deletion discussion is not over until it has closed per WP:CLOSEAFD. (An admin will typically handle this.) WNYY98 stupidly reverted everything you did probably because you removed the AfD notice. Their action was wrong and unfortunately it can't be undone semi-automatically. You're a new editor and often we don't give new editors much slack. You can reinsert the text of those references shown in the diff. Again, you are welcome to improve the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have chosen to include all of these notable people in one article even though most of them deserve their own article/page. Due to the amount of notables it makes the article very difficult and plain to read without highlighting the names of the people in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enion Glas (talk • contribs)

No. Per MOS:NOBOLD we don't use bolding that way. Go ahead and put it back the way I had it. Now is not a good time for you to rankle the community over formatting you don't understand. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read the guidelines now and will revert the bolding, but how do I highlight or emphasize the name of this people to avoid the article looking plain and uninteresting? Italics ok?--Enion Glas (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Use section headings. You can create lower-level headings by using more equal signs. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using section headings but it just higlights the whole sentences. Am I using them wrong? Can you show me an example of how you would do it? Thanks --Enion Glas (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I am pretty much done editing this article. Should we take away the notices of being in construction and/or considered for deletion? You mentioned that only administrators can do so, so I just want to inform you that I have finished constructing this article.--Enion Glas (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "under construction" banner. The AfD, however, was started on the 14th so it will not close until the 21st so that banner must stay. (AfD usually runs for seven days, sometimes shorter, often longer.) You'll have to wait and see what the consensus says. I'm not interested in being involved in this article so if you need help try the teahouse. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will do. Thanks for the follow up. --Enion Glas (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enion Glas, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Enion Glas! 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 experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Campuzano-Polanco family has been reverted.
Your edit here to Campuzano-Polanco family was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://elpoderdelarte1.blogspot.se/2015/03/cielo-de-salamanca.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys. I am pretty much done editing this article. Should we take away the notice of being considered for deletion? I was told only administrators can do so, so I just want to inform you that I have finished constructing this article --Enion Glas (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys. It has been 10 days that this article has been created and no consensus seems to have been reached. --Enion Glas (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Enion Glas, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Santo Domingo

Thank you for your contributions to this article. Please add citations. Many thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campuzano-Polanco family. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not operate how you might think it does or should. That's no reason to denigrate editors. You would do well to apologize. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this guy for his participation in the discussion. Instead of commenting on how to improve it he basically says "Delete- Nothing that I see gives me condfidence that this meets our standards with respect to sourcing or notability" Are you kidding me? I could care less if things sound to good to be true for this guy's taste, the sources are there for him to do his homework. I gave him 4 links in english where my "unique and interesting chapel" claim for him to look up. He probably wont look them up and just disappear from the discussion. You'll see. I will not apologize to a negationist and I am the one who has been denigrated by his verdict --Enion Glas (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Karyn Khoury

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 Karyn Khoury requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.cew.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=EventInfo&Reg_evt_key=331ed277-38dc-40bd-a210-b72abb5f9b77&RegPath=EventRegFees. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have used my own words to make the article more encyclopedicEnion Glas (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]