,

Welcome!

Hello, Erechtheus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ForestH2 20:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erechtheus
You classified an article I created as a bio stub seconds before it was tagged for speedy deletion. I am hoping you may be able to offer some assistance. The article I created was created entirely independently of an earlier article by the same name. The earlier had been deleted (albeit admittedly quite rightly in that case) last month by a certain someone that I suspect is not entirely unbiased in their opinions. Not surprisingly the same editor is involved in instigating the current deletion process. I am seeking help of some sympathetic and non-biased wikipedia content editors to assist me in better understanding the review process and perhaps assist me by offering the time to review and comment on the deleted page. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Yogidude 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added verifiable information and cleaned up the content prior to your reinserting the "nonsense" tag. This is a real person, with a long trail of verifiable information, as long as you take the trouble to look outside the web. Can you remove the nonsense tag? Thanks.

Niketkp 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you try to make speedy deletion of the page U.Z.Z. I am its creator. And I want to know why

I accidently deleted the templates you inserted into the Mod Kashin class destoryerarticle, also how do you change article names? I'm not sure if I created the misspelling or what though.

Sorry once more, I need help with a formatting question regarding a refrence I added that dosen't seem to appear under the heading for refrences. Lordevilvenom 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new. Do you want me to put in stats? Like, I'm not sure the exact number of people killed or anything. I'm not really sure what you'd like. What would you include?Template:Unsigned:Effervescence92

Hi Erechtheus - No problem at all with deleting my article - it didn't meet the encyclopedia criteria! And now that I know about the criteria, I agree with it. Thanks for the note on my user page.

For me, the issues with using wikipedia are that I am so, so busy, and the few times I have time to write I don't also have time to wander through all of wikipedia's rules. For me, the time choice is one or the other - contribute, or learn the rules, which can mean hours and hours of wading through policies which may or may not be relevant. At which point I lose the train of thought about what I wanted to contribute in the first place. Sometimes it's easier to contribute and then let someone who actually knows the current policies (and where to find them) edit.

...and BTW, I have a question - all of the users I've met so far are men? Nice men, but is that just an odd coincidence or are there more men using wikipedia than women?

Pls respond on my user page, as the chance that I'll make it back here is slim.:) - Aunt Amanda

I saw that you claimed that I was adding nonesence to the article. I don't exactly understand what you are referring to. I added valid sources that legitimize the claims that the story has spread. I certainly don't think this constitutes vandalism. [tarzanman21]

Thanks for your message. _________________________________________________________ Yours truly, Ume$h Ghosh Blog http://umesh4ever.blogspot.com Orkut http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=3632382679451682289 Yahoo Messenger (redacted by Erechtheus) MySpace www.myspace.com/umesh1985 Esnips(Free ebooks and my songs) www.esnips.com/UserProfileAction.ns?id=c7449333-3ba6-40fc-8199-207120342dee _________________________________________________________

Erechtheus... Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support. Erechtheus, thank you for your supporting opinions. Your trust in me to use the tools means a lot, and I hope that I can live up to your standards at some point in the future. Yours, Thε Halo Θ

so yeah....ok if it bothers you that much, then by all means tag it with an unsourced tag....Abstrakt

Please note that Alana Grace's songs on MySpace have been played over 400,000 times. Many people are interested in her music.

With this in mind, I would be grateful if you would remove the notability flag on the Alana Grace article.

Thanks,

User:JD_Fan

Given that more music is being marketed and sold on-line, I would argue that plays on MySpace should be one criterion among several for notability. Perhaps that policy needs updating, especially since artists will soon be selling music directly to the public by way of MySpace. Please see the article on this in the Washington Post. [1]

Please note that Alana Grace has a song on the soundtrack CD for the movie "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" (a movie that grossed $40 M). I would argue that being included on the same CD as established artists such as Chantal Kreviazuk and Natasha Bedingfield is itself a mark of notability - especially when a number of the reviews (e.g., on Amazon) said that the song by Alana Grace was one of the strongest tracks on the CD. Some even said that the CD was worth buying for that track alone. In fact, her song on that soundtrack/CD attracted so much attention that she was invited to sing it live on national television (on the Today show on NBC). That CD has been out for about 18 months and is currently ranked about 7,000 on Amazon - not bad for a CD that has been out that long. The Amazon reviews are at: [2]

As for tours, Alana Grace toured California last summer as the opening act for Ashlee Simpson, which gave her some visibility in that market. However, I wouldn't say that she sounds anything like Ashlee Simpson (much better, much stronger, in my opinion). Listen to her songs on MySpace, and see what you think.

On a point of more general policy, I would argue that the Wikipedia is particularly useful for finding out about new and emerging artists, and it would be good to have some flexibility in evolving, adapting, and applying the criteria of notability. For my part, I am always looking for new music by new artists (e.g., by following the "Listeners Also Bought" leads from one singer to another) - and whenever I do find a new artist, I always start with the Wikipedia article (if it exists) on that singer.

User:JD_Fan

Thanks for making me aware of the notability criteria. I have added my own set of comments to the talk page for these criteria, on "Niche Markets + New and Emerging Artists". Please see: [3]

PS: The comments on that talk page mostly refer to artists outside the USA. Generally, I write about Canadian musicians - but I believe in recognizing quality wherever it is found, which is why I wrote about Alana Grace, an American musician (whom I think will do very well here once her CD comes out in early 2007).

User:JD_Fan

HI I'm just letting you know that I'm acting on behalf of the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project in creating their page for the encyclopedia. The content is copyright to the non-profit organization therefore with prior permission I was able to go ahead and "create" the page as for the image I do not know how to remove/ re-upload it

Not sure why you put a source notice on the pages I just created which was Air Burkina destinations and Air Ivoire destinations... but my sources are oag.com and the airline's official site, and we don't usually put references on the destination page for airline destinations we only say our sources when we insert a destination or remove one. -chris^_^ 04:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erechteus - just noticed your comment about the above on WikiProject:Aviation. The issue is probably better posed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines instead. Cheers --Rlandmann 05:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your speedy deletion suggestion for this article because it does provide context, although I do support including the content into the main MuchMusic Video Awards article as I can't see this ever taking the form of much more than a short list. Neil916 (Talk) 05:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate the work you do at Wiki. There is a major positive result for Wiki quality, and it is time consuming and thankless. It is unfortunate that your skill and efficiency provided an opportunity for a minor incident. From memory, you provided tags within 2 minutes of the opening edit. Even at that point there was reference to author, book title and the publisher -- Oxford University Press. As you made a polite recommendation to me, I make one to you. How welcoming is it to tag articles within 100 seconds of the first edit? Did you check the information that was already verifiable? OUP publications are not notable? How much citation is needed for one sentence? Really, my only advice is "relax", you are doing your job too well! I trust you take advice as freely as you offer it, we are on the same side. Cheers. Alastair Haines 07:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays! :D It is Winter here in Australia, cold but no snow. A good time for work ... and editing. Enjoy your weather along with your break. Alastair Haines 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you on your break. But Erechtheus was the traditional founder of Athens. The roots of law and democracy? Curious about your Wiki handle ... drop me a note sometime if you feel inclined. Cheers. Alastair Haines 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what sources are necessary for an album which is a stub. I can't think what information on there could possibly require verification. As you stated, I've searched and found many albums, some with actual information besides a track listing, which don't have references.

Quoting WP:V: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article"

I don't understand how a track listing of an album is likely to be challenged. Are you challenging the validity of this? If not, then WP:V says it doesn't require a source, to my reading.

Feel free to go ahead. I honestly and totally fail to see how this is an "appropriate" template. Circeus 03:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the regular naming scheme for the site. All the other towers followed this until their official naming. World Trade Center Tower 5 is the official name for the placeholder of the unofficial JP Morgan Chase Tower which does not yet have an official name. The section in the 5 WTC article is outdated and the building will not be called 5 World Trade Center anyway. Besides there is plenty of info which I am adding right now along with sources. The PA NYNJ already made it official that this project will happen. I will remove the section in 5 WTC and merge it into the new article. JRWalko 02:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The page certainly needs work. There's several articles mentioning the building but they are scattered. It's a multi-day project but I'll get WikiProject NY City to contribute some more info.

Surely any organisation with Royal patronage is notable? References are in the article. Dbromage 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give another look to that page? I added some references.

I am also dubious about the notability of middle and primary schools -- in fact I more often than note opt to delete high-school articles. My actions were almost entirely taken in an attempt to deal with what I see a a hughe amount of miss-use of A7 recently. Had this been taged with an A1 I would probably not have asked for its undeletion. I will probably convert it to a redirect when i have a chance, if it hasn't been significantly improved by then. DES ^(talk) 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh i'm less than fussed about how you view me, with a negative shadow or not. But hey, I'm glad that you managed to understand what i wrote, and well done on your efforts to help Wikipedia, I'm sure proud of you.

However bad the article is, and however trivial the subject, I dont think that "The Security Guard (Dilbert episode)" can be said to have no context, simply because it didn't link to Dilbert or give the date. Looking at other such articles, some have been turned into redirects to the "List of Dilbert episodes", and this seems entirely reasonable to me. You might want to do that, once you've checked the date of this one & added it--that's just an editing change. Personally, I would support doing likewise to the others that still have separate articles unless a particular one has some real content. I'm a fan of Dilbert myself, but separate articles for this seems a little absurd, and the redirects would be in line with the developing consensus on episodes. Obviously, expect flak. DGG 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I hadn't forgotten, but I've seen stuff get deleted while I was in the act of editing the tag! You got there before me--in fact, I was going to use a prod to--well-- prod the author a little. We seem to work the same way. DGG 00:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that in the UK and wurope most team are formaly called "clubs" -- perhaps that is mistaken. For the mattr of that, i belive that US baseball major league teams are formmal "clubs", as a historical artifact, but they surely aren't clubs in the A7 sense. This one is borderlien it seems to me, and I don't know sports as well as some, so i prefer to err on the side of caution. Why not use a prod, if you think this ought to go? That takes no more effort than a speedy tag, or not much more. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite probably right. But when ther is a serious "question in [your] mind [as to] what is meant in the article we're talking about" then IMO a speedy is a bad idea, and indeed AfD is probsbly the way to go. Or jsut wiat for improvemetn, and afd if none occurs after a reasoanble time. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're in violent agreement here. Good day and thanks. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, there is no useful purpose continuing the discussion we started. Therefore, I won't be continuing it. Erechtheus 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Except that it was no "discussion." It was a one-sided conversation, where I was attempting to have a discussion. And you refused to meaningfully engage in any intelligent discourse. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Come back and read what you have written in that AfD once cooler heads have prevailed. I'll give you another hint: I'm not the only one in that deletion discusion who refused to answer questions posed by others. I know there is at least one other thread where you acted in precisely the manner you find so offensive when I do it. I quite readily acknowledge that I attempted to limit the scope of our discussion, but it was because it was getting far out of the scope of what needed to be talked about there. If you really want to continue discussing it ad nauseum, feel free to throw this back on my user talk page and bring the topic up. I'll acknowledge you made some good points outside the realm of what matters to the Davis article, and it just may be possible we can come to a meeting of the minds. I don't know that it's worth it, though. Your call. Erechtheus 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I will respond to your post. But, I have had a busy weekend. So I will reply within the next day or so. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 04:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I have a few free minutes, so here goes. I will fashion my reply in three sections. Section 1: Prefatory comments. It's quite interesting ... I looked at your user page and we have many similarities and commonalities. We are almost "twins" in our profiles, characteristics, demographics, interests, etc. I was surprised to see how similar we are. That probably is the cause for much of the friction between us and the unwillingness to bend from both sides. I am wondering if you are an Aries, as well? If so, that would be the icing on the cake, and I will fall over in my chair. Section 2: Procedural matters. It seems that you and I debate/discuss in very different ways. The way I learned is: person A makes a point; then person B counters that point and makes their own point; then person A counters the counterpoint and makes their point; then person B counters the counterpoint and makes their point. And, it is an ongoing cycle, back and forth. That is, issues are raised and addressed. With you, what I saw was: issues are raised, you completely ignored them (that is, you did not address them, you did not answer them, you did not counter them, etc.). You simply ignored them. And, quite frankly, that is a terribly immature way in which to have an argument / discussion / debate. It's not very adult. It's really tantamount to when a little kid doesn't get his own way -- and he sticks both fingers in his ears and keeps shouting "na na na, I can't hear you" and ignores the other person. I will offer this. Perhaps a better way to address points is this: "Joe, I see the point that you are making about JonBenet Ramsey. Yes, that is a good point. And I guess on some level it does weaken my argument and my position. I see what you mean." OR You can say something like this: "Well, Joe, I do see your point about JonBenet Ramsey. However, the Jessie Davis case is very different because of x, y, and z." I think that those are two much more reasonable and responsible and mature ways to address the points within an argument. Address them, don't ignore them. What that does is two things: (1) it forces the person you are debating to present more counterpoints and counterarguments to support their argument. OR If you present valid points, it lets the other person see that your point is correct, valid, etc., and they may be convinced / persuaded by your argument. This is how I learned to engage in proper debate. Which also extends to conversations / arguments / discussions / disagreements / etc. Section 3: Substantive matters. You kept asserting and maintaining two things. (1) That you need to have a conviction in order to assert that a crime even happened. And (2) that one of the elements of asserting / proving the crime is the conviction itself. You and I both know that those are ludicrous positions and 100% not true. They are also legally, logically, and logistically impossible. I am sure that there are many non-lawyers who read Wikipedia. And I was certainly going to dispel them of any incorrect / inaccurate information that you were putting out there. Being non-lawyers, they might just actually believe the assertions you made. And I found that irresponsible, and I attempted to correct it. Those are the three sections I wanted to address -- prefatory, procedural, and substantive. Also, I notice that you did two other things ... this probably falls under the "procedural" section. (1) You would always side step an issue rather than address it head on. And (2) when you could see that I was making valid points, you would alter / change / restate / reframe the issue at hand so that it would match what you wanted. For you, the issue was never firm. For you, it became fluid to match your needs and arguments. That is certainly not proper debate. There were many examples of this, but one was: toward the end, after I made many many many many valid points and after I successfully countered many many many of your points, you all of the sudden reframed the issue and raised the bar to "the State of Ohio must prove beyond any doubt that a murder occurred." You threw that in at the last minute, I guess after you realized you were sinking. You and I both know that is legally incorrect, not to mention physically impossible. So, in a nutshell, that is my reply. And - quite frankly - I guess I still do not know what your position is, and what point you were trying to make. So, not for nothing, but what does that say about your ability to argue / debate / discuss / defend / persuade / etc.? I am guessing that you will take much of this as a personal affront. But these are my honest assessments and how I feel about these issues. In any event, I think that the bottom line is: we approach debate / discussion / argument / persuasion in two very different ways. And, ultimately, mine is the correct / proper / established / traditional way. Your method, I guess, is just something that you made up along the way. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Section 1: Sagittarius, but I don't put much stock in astrology. That would seem to be another difference. Section 2: I understand where you're coming from, and I'd agree that in the context of a free-wheeling debate, it's best to address all issues. That's not where we were in the context of that AfD, though. What I probably should have done was take it away from that forum after about 2 rounds because we quickly stopped saying much that was all that important to the deletion discussion. I'll happily admit error there, and I'd invite you to review the rules of AfD and the discussion itself to see for yourself where I'm coming from. You made some good points, but they were not particularly relevant to the discussion related to the deletion or retention of the article. If we had been discussing the issue here instead of there, the discussion likely would have gone in a manner you're more accustomed to. Compare this to the way it goes in court if you will. Section 3 I will certainly agree that I asserted that on Wikipedia, you need a conviction to assert a crime happened. I'll also agree my statement, while true in many cases, is quite incomplete. What you clearly need in order to say anything remotely controversial on Wikipedia is a reliable secondary source that says it first. Would you agree that is true? That would mean that it's certainly appropriate to report the Black Dahlia event as a murder because it has been called that in tons of places. It would also mean that it wouldn't be appropriate to call anything a murder until somebody else has first. As to your claim that I indicated an element of the crime must be the conviction, I strongly believe that is a misstatement or mis-analysis of my position. I think the issue there once again is that I was talking about what is acceptable on Wikipedia, not what must be proven during trial. What must be proven in a trial is irrelevant to the matter we were discussing. You have also misstated what I said about the state of Ohio near the end of our discussion. I asked you a question: "Can you actually give us a cite where the state of Ohio says without any doubt this was a murder?" I didn't say anything about what the standard of proof in a trial is. I made a suggestion that if you're talking about putting something here on Wikipedia and it's based upon the analysis of the state prior to any examination by anyone, they'd better be pretty certain about it. Possible murder doesn't mean murder. Investigating it as a murder doesn't mean murder. Finally, I really don't take any of this personally. I've been around this crazy world long enough to not take anything anyone says on the Internet too seriously. You obviously think you have this debate thing down pat and I don't. I'll manage to sleep. Feel free to respond. Erechtheus 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I finally have found a few free minutes to respond to you. Thanks for getting back to me. (1) Yes, it is true that the original debate was whether or not the Jessie Davis article should be deleted or retained. Somehow, you and I got off on a tangent of the correct title of the article and whether or not the word "murder" was appropriate. So, yes, I agree -- we were both arguing off on a tangent. And, as you suggested, it would have behooved us both if one or the other of us suggested bringing the debate to some other, more appropriate forum. (2) Yes, I agree that in order to make a statement on Wikipedia, one needs sources to do so. We are not in disagreement there. (3) As to your last point, you originally DID indeed suggest (not suggest, require) that the State of Ohio needs to show without any doubt that this was a murder. (I also am not talking about proof at trial.) It is, of course, impossible for anyone at all -- including law enforcement officials in Ohio -- to prove much of anything (including this crime) without any doubt. That is an impossible standard not only in the courtroom, but also in the context of Wikipedia citing rules. You also claim, with regard to Ohio law enforcement, that "they'd better be pretty certain about it." I would posit that, indeed, they ARE pretty certain about it, and hence (due to their being pretty certain about it) they brought official charges consistent with their "pretty certain" certainties. Also, you say that "a possible murder doesn't mean [an actual] murder ... Investigating it as a murder doesn't mean [an actual] murder." I would say that this is NOT merely an investigation. Rather, AFTER an investigation, formal charges were brought -- due to and as a result of an investigation. Thus, the State of Ohio is not simply investigating whether a murder occurred. They have already investigated that question -- and they have indeed concluded that a murder did indeed occur. And, as a result, they brought formal (murder) charges in court. (4) So, I guess the bottom line is that you feel it cannot yet be called a murder, and I feel that it can. Thanks for your input. (JosephASpadaro 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I see the sources now, but I didn't before. Sorry about that -- I guess I just scanned a little too quickly on that one. Erechtheus 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at the time, I hadn't added any references yet. I just added them, so you were right to put the "sources" header at the top. jj137 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Erechtheus. Regarding the notability of the Midgets article (was it you who tagged it? I wasn't sure if it was you or 24.5.90.70), I added 2 quotes which I think do a good job of saying why they are notable. I also wrote in the talk page about other ways in which the band satisfies the guidelines for notability. Hopefully that will satisfy the issue. However, if you are still in need of more quotes/sources/notable things, please contact me/write on my talk page and I will do my best to amend the situation. Many thanks! Julian Maestas 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

"Are you familiar with WP:MUSIC? I don't think you're there at this point, but I think you're making a claim of notability (and therefore this isn't speedy deletion material). I'd suggest looking for reliable sources you can add that might establish one or more of the things listed in the notability guideline I linked above."

On the Talk:Toiling Midgets page I addressed most of the requirements for WP:MUSIC as you suggested; I thought this would be enough info; did you see the quote I added about how the Midgets were one of the first bands to experiment with dub and post-punk elements? I thought that generally the pioneers of something, the people breaking new ground, were notable. If this is till not what you're looking for, please be more precise in your next message so as I know exactly what to fix. Many thanks! Julian Maestas 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and p.s. not to be confrontational, but I am not a noob ("I don't think you're there at this point"), which you would have known if you had read my user info. I've been on Wikipedia since March of 2005. Julian Maestas 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't act like I'm a newbie here. You're obviously very hopped up on self-importance so I won't waste any of your presumedly important time. I know the guidelines here, which is why I know you adding those template to that page is full of shit. If summarizing a primary source is original research, then the entire concept of research has no meaning. I used no original research, I made no claims that weren't stated by the author himself. For fuck's sake, it's only a summary of a book. If you keep disrupting my work, I will report you to an admin. Have a nice day. Kuralyov 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's very frustrating to work for ages on "previewed" edit source versions of articles, such as Gerald Ashby, which are often a 'wikification-in-progress'. Although you are not to know this, of course.

And when you have the edit source just right, you "Save page" - only to find an Edit conflict due to someone adding an uncat tag to an article which you are in the process of adding cats to. Although you are not to know this, of course.

No particular reason for bringing this up. I do often wonder, though, why editors don't get stuck in adding cats themselves (long job), rather than just adding uncat tags (short job). If you've any observations, I'd be interested. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to appear to be casting nasturtiums on your editing prowess - that wasn't the intention. As you may notice in the mentioned article history, I got confused during the 'edit save' process, and rolled back instead of expanding. Apologies (through frustration). Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that there are other readings but I read the word "real" in the phrase "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content" to modify all of the nouns and noun clauses that follow. ("real person, real group of people, real band, real club, real company, or real web content"). Dsmdgold 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could see where you might think that given my edit summary. That was sloppiness on my part, I reused a previous edit summary that was I precise as it could have been. Either way, I think that PROD is the way to go here. Dsmdgold 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erechtheus

You added a "unreferenced" tag to my article on the A835 road ... I'm still a newbie to making new articles and I don't quite follow ... what references do I need for an article like this? Not as if it's something from the news which I could quote.

Thanks in advance Iainjones1980 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I've put a few references in ... Iain

Hello, Erechtheus. I hope that Polish Ministry of Sports site (.gov domain, in English) will be accepted as a reliable source. Regards Lajsikonik 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You are a member of the Law Wikiproject and apparently a Lawyer - yet you tagged the Khmer Rouge Tribunal for speedy deletion and then got into an edit war when it was removed. Is it just me or is there something terribly wrong with this picture? I'd be interested to hear your views. Paxse 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small point – the admin who protected the page first called your exchange edit warring - not me.

The A1 tag is for articles with no context - rather than no content. I've come across these occasionally. Pages that have something like "Bill was born in 1948 and left home at the age of 15." With no context for Bill it's impossible to know if the page is encyclopedic or not. The Khmer Rouge Tribunal on the other hand has all the context (and bonus notability) it requires in the article title - therefore it should not be tagged under CSD A1.

It might also be a good idea to re-read the explanatory text at the top of the WP:SD policy page: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub; if so, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and consider notifying the page's creator."

1. Could this article have been improved (and would it meet WP criteria for inclusion)? Definitely
2. Was it newly created? 34 minutes old when tagged? Yep.
3. Was the creator informed? Nope.

A couple of other points. The user who created this article Jpylam had been a registered editor for only a few hours. In these first few hours he made 36 very useful and productive edits in the area of Cambodian government and politics. Coverage of Cambodian topics on WP is extremely poor and we desperately need interested editors to help expand coverage. As an example I estimate that there are at least 1000 missing articles on basic Cambodian geography. After some edits to Khmer Rouge and finding the KRT was a red link, this editor started a page on the Tribunal - her/his first article on Wikipedia. I suspect he then started googling and reading sources - his next edit was an excellent (and properly formatted) list of the major reliable primary and secondary sources for info on the Tribunal. While this was happening you tagged it for deletion. Then both of you went back and forth - him trying to add content and removing your CSD tags and you retagging the article and filling up his (brand new) talk page with warning notices. See the note on my talk page for this editor’s experience of creating that article.

What happened to not Biting the newcomers?

Don’t get me wrong – I think tagging rubbish articles is useful work that helps the project – god knows we have enough dross. But tagging useful articles, while they are being written, is just disruptive – it creates more work for other editors and most importantly it scares off new contributors.

Checking your contribution history, you tag lots of articles. Checking your talk page you also get quite a lot of complaints. Tagging is useful work for the project but so is improving the content directly and not just pointing out where others should go. Five minutes after you tagged the Khmer Rouge Tribunal you also tagged Dattatreya Laxman Patwardhan, a new article on India’s very first pilot. One article is about history in the making and another is a fairly significant part of the history of aviation. Both tags were disputed and in both cases the articles were kept. How about slowing down and be a little more discriminating with your tagging? Cheers, Paxse 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for a polite, well reasoned and appropriate reply - am I still on Wikipedia? :) I'm sorry if I sounded rude above - I've had a bad couple of weeks with templates and yours was the last example. To reply to your message, I'd be prepared to say that sometimes I actually like seeing new editors remove speedy templates on articles they are writing. I've come across much more inappropriate use of the speedy templates than yours, articles tagged the minute they are started and then re-applied with warning notices etc. I think it's shame that some new contributors are welcomed to WP that way. I also think it's an entirely appropriate application of WP:IAR for them to nuke the template and just get back to writing the article. Paxse 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding reference tags to a one-sentence article stating 2 films a director has made? Mcflytrap 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, unreferenced...the point is that you don't have to have a source for a director's filmography. Any quick search on the internet (including IMDB) will show you the director's filmography. I'm not trying to be rude, I just think it's a bit ridiculous. I added an external link to IMDB if it makes you happy, but you really are more of a hinderance to Wikipedia than a help with a mentality like that. Mcflytrap 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a source for a filmography. YOU ARE WRONG. Looking over your discussion page, it appears that a lot of other people feel the same way. There's no way around it. Have a nice day. Mcflytrap 13:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You truly are a first class idiot. Mcflytrap 14:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever been laid? Mcflytrap 14:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a river. Mcflytrap 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions:

1. . Unless they are official retired, most free agent pages just say "so-and-so is an American football cornerback who is currently a free agent" and I feel that would be most appropriate in this case. I'll add the free agent part to make it clear.
2. . Not that I'm aware of. The Saints tryout in May was the last I heard.

►Chris Nelson 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Virginia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You placed a primarysources template on this article. I have added some sources and hope this satisifies. - Lee Stanley 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. As far as I'm concerned, you can feel free to remove this sort of template when you feel you have addressed the concern. I do thank you for feeling concerned enough about it to leave me a message, though. Erechtheus 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (Your reply was moved from my talk page).[reply]

I'll buy you lunch if you can find me even ONE person that does not belong there. Though references are suggested for lists, they are seldom placed there due to the fact that the references can be found at their corresponding article links. Unless you would like me to make a reference section with 100's of books that will make no sense to the reader, I do not see the point. But I know you can't find one that isn't categorized correctly. I'm just that good. (Mind meal 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]