User talk:Zingostar/Archive 1

Footnotes

As you are well aware by now the common use of references for certain claims in articles is by enclosing them with <ref>-elements to make footnotes. Please do take the time and make use of them, because it makes it much simpler to find out what part of a lengthy article that uses that particular source as claim for verifiability (and vice versa), as opposed to just adding a link to the end of the article. Read more on Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Strangnet 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tanya Gingerich

A tag has been placed on Tanya Gingerich requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Melissa Hanson

A tag has been placed on Melissa Hanson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

a bad faith nomination--Zingostar 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article was a speedy deletion candidate; it didn't make it clear that the person is notable, and the only source was imdb, which, as a site (like Wikipedia) composed of user-generated content, is specifically not considered a reliable source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lindgren Hello. Your edits to this page do not include proper markup; see the tutorial for info too. Also, please cite your sources so we know your info is verifable.

Another thing: Please don't put "don't touch my work" on your talk page: since Wikipedia is a wiki, people HAVE to edit your work sometimes! IF you have any questions, feel free to ask me!. Chicochango 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Lindgren When you create stub articles such as Jessica Lindgren, please try to find the appropriate specific stub tag(s) on the page WP:STUBS. This saves other editors work in categorizing the page, and makes it easier for editors with experise in the subject to find pages that need work. Thanks, — Swpb talk contribs 21:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ok thanx guys.

[edit] Comment I have nothing against you personally, but one of the key points of Wikipedia is that you absolutely have to source what you say in an article. It doesn't matter if you, I, or anyone else know if something is true... it has to be verified. Please read WP:V and note the bolded text Verifiability not truth. That is what you need to acheive in the articles you contribute to and that is the point you seem to be missing completely.--Isotope23 18:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I restored your user talk page Hi again! It is generally considered bad form to blank one's user talk page, as you did. I reverted the blanking, although even that did not restore all the content you've deleted today; it would be better if you restored all of it. Please review WP:OWN and Wikipedia:User page. Remember that on Wikipedia, even your user page and your user talk page are not yours; they belong to the community. Thanks. --Tkynerd 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I explained this to you immediately above. I think it should have been eminently possible to figure out that blanking isn't the only thing you shouldn't do on your user talk page (if you examined the links I provided). Other people's comments should generally be left alone (unless they are pure vandalism, which this one wasn't). Rather than removing comments you don't like, you should take them to heart. (Perhaps you are and I can't tell yet, but...) --Tkynerd 16:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) And once again the page was blanked. So I helped restoring it. Archive it next time, instead. --Strangnet 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Page blanked YET AGAIN. It is generally considered bad form to blank one's user talk page, as you did. I reverted the blanking, although even that did not restore all the content you've deleted today; it would be better if you restored all of it. Please review WP:OWN and Wikipedia:User page. Remember that on Wikipedia, even your user page and your user talk page are not yours; they belong to the community. Thanks. Dalejenkins 11:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note to me Hi I tried wikifying two of the three articles you wrote to me about, as the third was already quite decent by the time I checked. There was a problem though, the people belong to Sweden and Swedish is like Greek to me; as also there is very little about them in English. Leave a message for me in case...

--Bobby Awasthi 13:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addis Black Widow I've restored the Article for deletion notice to this article. Please allow the AfD process to complete . Looks like it will be kept anyway. You can edit the article, just keep the notice. Thanks --Scott 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I also put the notice back on Stefan Andersson, but I've cleaned the article up and I don't think it will be deleted. Feel free to edit, just don't remove the articles for deletion notice. Thanks! GassyGuy 18:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmo4 If you go to the library and opened an encyclopedia, would you expect to find a poorly-written misspelled article? Wikipedia isn't a blog, but an encyclopedia, that happens to be on the Internet. 90% of the bands put on Wikipedia are deleted. Wikipedian27 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove speedy deletion tags. You will be blocked. Wikipedian27 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmo 4 again Alright. Alright. Stop putting posts on my talk page, and I'll withdrawal the speedy. But promise me you'll put a clean-up tag on it. Wikipedian27 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment For starters, is there any particular reason you make comments on my talk page and then delete them? Look, the problem is that you are dumping a rather large quantity of poor quality articles and content here and expecting other people to clean up your mess. It isn't my intent to see you leave Wikipedia. What I want to see is you take a bit of time and read the policies and guidelines here and then follow them. I'd like to see you actually source your articles and learn how to format them correctly so you are not creating sub-standard articles for other people to deal with.--Isotope23 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing posts Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( Matrix17 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Also, three tildes (Matrix17) produces your name without the date and five tildes (10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)) produces just the date. --WikiSlasher 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links Please don't add any more YouTube links of Melodiefestivalen performances into articles. As far as I can tell, those were not officially released by the show and thus cannot be linked here. Please see WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking for more information.--Isotope23 14:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Torsten Lilliecrona An editor has nominated Torsten Lilliecrona, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torsten Lilliecrona and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (Matrix17 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil May I please remind you to comment on issues, not on other editors? Thanks! --Bonadea 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Det är verkligen inte personligt menat. Grejen är den att när någon nominerar en artikel för att raderas, vare sig det är snabbradering ("speedy deletion") eller radering efter omröstning ("Articles for deletion", det som hände Torsten Lilliecrona och Addis Black Widow), så beror det på att artikeln inte uppenbart handlar om ett ämne eller en person som är tillräckligt bemärkt för att ha en Wikipediaartikel. Det logiska är då att förbättra artikeln och lägga till uppgifterna som saknas, och inte bli irriterad på den som har nominerat artikeln. Du och jag vet vem farbror Melker är, och du vet vilka Addis Black Widow är, men en Wikipediaartikel finns till för dem som inte redan vet det. Att folk kräver källor betyder inte att de tror att du ljuger! Det betyder bara att de vill kunna bekräfta det som står. (Jag kunde till exempel inte avgöra att Addis Black Widow var så kända innan det kom källor som visade det, och jag förstår ändå svenska.) Sedan är det så att dina artiklar har hamnat i strålkastarljuset senaste veckan eller så. Det i sin tur beror på att du skapade väldigt många artiklar som helt saknade källor (dvs källor som de icke svenskspråkiga förstår) på kort tid. Det skapas hundratals artiklar om små obemärkta amerikanska popband varje vecka, som raderas nästan direkt -- det har faktiskt inte med nationaliteten att göra, även om jag mycket väl förstår att det kan kännas så. (En anledning till att jag började redigera i engelska Wikipedia var just att skapa enstaka artiklar om svenska förhållanden och hindra att de raderades direkt, och jag har märkt att jag hade fel; svenska artiklar raderas inte alls direkt, men vår bevisbörda kan ibland vara större.)

Detta blev långt, men jag tycker det är trist att du ska känna dig förföljd, när det enbart handlar om att följa samma riktlinjer som alla andra.

Vänliga hälsningar, --Bonadea 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Talk:Grynet Like I said on that talk page, I have one agenda, to see high quality articles on Wikipedia that meet our Manual of Style and make a strong case for meeting our policies and guidelines. Despite your contention that I've offered you no constructive criticism, I've spent the past several days on here and on several talk pages giving you links to all of the relevant guidelines and policies you need to read and should be following. If you are concerned that I and others don't know about a topic matter then that should be a red flag for you to adjust the way you are writing articles so you are making it clear when the article is created how the individual, group, or entity meets our guidelines and policies. Creating a large number of articles that are not formatted correctly and that don't make a clear case for why they should be included here with the hope that someone else will come along and clean them up is not a good philosophy to start contributing from. You really need to take some time to learn the ins and outs here before you continue creating articles because right now you are creating more work for numerous other editors as well as apparently becoming frustrated over how your contributions are being perceived. Beyond that, your theory that I'm somehow misusing power against you has no basis in fact. I've done nothing in regards to you or your contributions that involved anything other than the permissions any other editor has, besides deleting a couple of articles about American actors who didn't meet WP:BIO, so I'm not sure what powers I'm abusing here. Trust me when I say I would like nothing more than to see you start contributing sourced, verified, formatted articles that make a clear case per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:BLP, WP:N, and the like. Beyond that I would advise you to be aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as well. I've personallly taken no offense to anything you've said, but not everyone will necessarily feel that way and some of the things you've said, if said to the wrong person, could be perceived as a personal attack --Isotope23 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Shilpa You're section was badly edited and your spelling and grammar was severly incorrect. Such trivial infomation, with no source supplied doesn't need it's own section. Dalejenkins 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links When you set up external links, use ==External links== as the format. Also, add (in Swedish) to the end of external links if they are in Swedish. You are continuing to use the wrong formatting and expecting others to follow around and clean up your formatting is not a good way of operating, particularly when you've already been told the correct formatting here.--Isotope23 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Rich257 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC

As mentioned before to you, it is considered bad form to remove comments from your user talk page, it appears like censorship. Thanks, Rich257 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful writing articles

Per Oba Chandler, you added text that was flat out incorrect (Angels and Demons was not a book by Thomas French, it didn't win a '97 Pulitzer). This is why I keep harping on you to follow WP:V; you are adding information to articles that is blatently wrong. Take the time to read your sources and get the information correct before you add it to Wikipedia.--Isotope23 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Could you please use references the way they're intended, with <ref></ref> and the corresponding <references />? And adding several links to Expressen and Aftonbladet hardly brings any depth for English readers of the articles? --Strangnet 15:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Donna Hogan

A tag has been placed on Donna Hogan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contact regarding Bierenbaum

You put a message on my talk page regarding this article. Why did you do this? Bierenbaum is not related to any area in which I'd contributed. Please explain by leaving a message on my talk page.Kearnsdm 16:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)