User talk:MitchCool

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MitchCool, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Michael Taddonio, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Calliopejen1, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Calliopejen1. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tagging a user page with an article speedy delete tag is a non-starter. Please stop. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and editing

Hi there. I recognize that you are unhappy about the deletion of the above article, but you must understand that Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion that the subject did not appear to meet. Please read our notability guidelines to see the requirements for articles to be included; the article that you posted did not meet those guidelines. (I was about to delete it but was beaten to the punch by User:Calliopejen1.) As was noted on the article talk page, the fact that someone exists or existed does not mean they are appropriate for an article; our biography guidelines require multiple non-trivial references from outside sources at a minimum. I'm sorry that your article was not appropriate; if you feel that you can create an article that is properly sourced and meets the guidelines, you may do so. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your deleted article

I see that you appear to be frustrated about the deleted article (and may have vandalized my userpage). Please don't take this personally. Please read our policy WP:BIO to see why he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. If you believe after reading the WP:BIO page that there are sufficient independent sources about him (like news articles about him that aren't just related to his death) please contact me and cite those sources and I may be able to restore the page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference to vandalism was you deleting other user's comments on my user talk page, which isn't permitted. As for the article deletion, Wikipedia isn't making a value judgment about which lives are worthwhile and which aren't, just about which have the required sources to be included in an encyclopedia. We just cover what other reliable sources have covered. Without reliable sources, it is impossible to be sure that articles are factual. (There are many other reasons sources are required as well.) I would recommend that you contribute to the memorial pages here or here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that you're now engaging in personal attacks, which are against policy. Please avoid attacking other editors. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please remain civil in your discussions with other editors. Despite what you might think, everyone who's engaging in conversation with you is trying to help you understand the rules that editors must consider when creating articles here. I have nothing against anything you mentioned; my issue was that the article did not meet our guidelines, as noted above. If we didn't have guidelines for biographies, we would have articles for every twelve-year-old with access to a school computer, among others. Again, please read the links that have been provided up above, and if you feel that you can recreate the article using the requirements that have been set out not by me, not by Calliopejen1, not by any single editor, but through consensus developed over the years by the Wikipedia community, then please feel free to do so. Tony Fox (arf!)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What did I do? Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are threatening me with sanctions when you do are not aware of facts.

ADMIN TONY FOX behaves in a pompous, arrogant manner..and has removed or blocked my account.

Apparently you have jumped on bandwagon with no due diligence being done... before you threaten to hand down sanctions, it would be a good idea to know what you are communicating about? NO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchCool (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not blocked from editing. You are, however, in a position where an uninvolved administrator - not me, as I'm now involved in the discussion - could quite conceivably feel that you are in fact over the line. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article

The Michael Taddonio article was deleted because it didn't assert notability. That doesn't mean notability doesn't exist, only that it wasn't asserted in the most recent text. There's a couple of options now:

Deletion review - if you think the article was deleted incorrectly, you can argue your case at Deletion Review. If successful, this simply restores the previous article to the encyclopedia.
Rewrite the article to assert notability and provide reliable sources - the previous article didn't explain how Michael Taddonio meets the notability criteria for a Wikipedia entry. Essentially it needed evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, for more than a single event. If you have the sources to satisfy these requirements and want to keep working on this article, let me know and I'll create a copy of it in your userspace as a draft to work from.

Its also important to remember that "notability" is a Wikipedia concept, and doesn't reflect on the value or importance of any real life person. Hardly anyone is "notable" enough for their own Wikipedia article, but that is in no way a personal reflection on them or what Wikipedia editors think of them.

Lastly, I appreciate you were annoyed about the deletion but some of your recent edits weren't the best way to advance your case. Others have already mentioned this, so enough said. Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]