User talk:679699sof

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adriana Sanford (January 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adriana Sanford and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 679699sof, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adriana Sanford has been accepted[edit]

Adriana Sanford, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I suggest that you ask for help with images at the Teahouse. I am not an expert on images. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert--can you help me with this new issue? It is similar to the last one you fixed for me. 679699sof (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[Ticket#: 2016012110022039][reply]

Embedding external links into articles[edit]

Hi 679699. Please refer to WP:CS#Avoid embedded links for an explanation why embedding external links into article is not considered appropriate. Links to third-party websites should not be added to articles like you did in ‎this edit. Links to webpages, etc. may be added as part of a footnoted inline citation if the source is considered to be reliable and relevant to what is being discussed, or they may be added to the "External links" section if they satisfy WP:ELYES, but they should not be added directly to articles using the markup [www.example.com Example] (which looks like Example in the article). You can embed links into talk page, etc. when they are the subject of discussion or for reference, but not directly into articles. If you're not too sure about how to add references, you can post a message at Talk:Adriana Sanford or the Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask for help. There is also some general information at Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 679699sof (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC+9)

Please do not embedded links into articles like you did again here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons questions[edit]

Hi 679699sof. Just wanted to let you know that I posted an answer to your question at c:User talk:679699sof#File tagging File:Beyond The Curve Show.jpg. Also, I added the section heading "Question about my uploads" to your c:COM:VP/C#Question about my uploads question just to make in easier for others to follow and reply to. You should always try to add something to the "Subject/headline" whenever you begin a new thread on a talk page or noticeboard because it helps keep unrelated posts from blending together and makes it easier to follow and link to. Finally, you mentioned on you Commons user talk that your children took the photos you're trying to upload. As I mentioned in my in my reply, I am not sure if this means that either you or your children are connected to Adriana Sanford in a professional or personal way. If you are, then I suggest reading Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide because there are certain expectations made of editors who have a conflict of interest with the subjects of articles they edit. Even an apparent COI can sometimes lead to "problems" with other editors, so please take the time to read the PSCOI guide and make sure none of it applies to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Hi again 679699sof. I live noticed that a number of your recent edits to Adriana Sanford have been marked as minor edits. I think you should be careful when you do this because what you may consider to be minor and what Wikipedia considers to be minor might be totally different. I suggest you carefully read through WP:MINOR and make sure your edits are really "minor". Incorrectly labeling edits as minor might be seem by some as inappropriate and could lead to problems, so it might be a good idea to not do so unless you're absolutely sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. I was labeling them as minor because the approval for the images had already been given and permissions-commons had already provided their ticket number. I had already disclosed this same information on several sites. How should this be labeled? "Upload of approved image and then the ticket #"?

Please advise.

Thank you 679699sof (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia considers a minor edit to basically anything that is unlikely to be challenged by another editor. For example, correcting a simple spelling error or simple syntax error where it is obvious to any (experienced) editor that such a correction was needed. However, any adding/removing of content (including images and cited sources) or any significant change to the style or format of the article, such as switching from British to American English, etc. is not really considered to be a minor edit and, thus, should not labeled as such. Even moving an image from left to right, etc. might be seen as some as a significant change, so it also probably should not be labeled as minor. Please read through Help:Minor edit for more specific examples, but I would suggest avoiding minor edits whenever your not sure. As you become more experienced at editing, the difference between major and minor (as Wikipedia defines them) will become a little more clear.

Finally, please try to get into the habit of using appropriate indentation in your talk page posts. It helps maintain the flow of the discussion and is considered good "talk page practice". As you become more experienced at editing and become more involved in discussions on talk pages and noticeboards, you may find that other editors will start to see you as less of a "newbie" expect your post to be formatted more in line with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It takes a little time for everyone to get used to it because it tends to be different from how it's done on other online forums. It's something, however, you should work on improving because it will make communication via Wikipedia pages much easier. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you do Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you recommended that I branch out and learn more about Wikipedia, I attempted to use the "sandbox" yesterday as I am a newbie. I was disturbed with crude language that suddenly appeared. It was not clear who was writing the messages. Where does one report inappropriate behavior? Is there a button or a location to report lewd texts? Please advise. Thank you 679699sof (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 679699sof. Sorry for not replying sooner. If you can be more specific about the "crude language" posts by providing a page or a link, then it would be easier to answer. Try and remember Wikipedia's five pillars and that in general it is not censored, so sometimes text and images which we may personally find offensive is still allowed if it is considered encyclopedic and reflects what reliable sources say, especially when others feel it is relevant to what is being discussed. Having said that "offensive content" with no encyclopedic purpose which is simply meant to insult others is generally not allowed per Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Using expletives in talk page discussions is a matter of opinion and way of expression to some editors, so not much you can do about that except to keep trying to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Offensive speech#Dealing with offensive speech. If you find anything in an article that does not seem to be relevant and may be considered vandalism, the feel free to be be bold and remove it. Just make sure to explain why in your edit sum or on the article's talk page. If it's re-added, then try and use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve and try to avoid edit warring because that could lead to you eing blocked even if you really believe you are right. Sandboxes are considered to be "practice" areas, so sometimes a bit of leeway is given regarding them. Other editors should not really be editing your personal sandbox without a very good reason (e.g., removing a copyright violation or a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy violation, etc.) and the same applies to you with respect to other editor's sandboxes. If you're not sure about something, you can always ask about it at Wikipedia:Teahouse for some friendly advice or at one of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboards to make a more formal complaint. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comments had nothing to do with the article. The person deleted ALL my work and then a proceeded with lewd comments relating to a date on the beach. I would like to make a formal compliant. It felt like I was hacked, while writing in the sandbox. Person came back again and then asked if I liked Hilter and started with more aggressive comments. Is there a way to track this type of behavior? I just proceeded to delete the vulgar language from the sandbox, which is why I asked how is this generally handled.679699sof (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you had to experience something such as that. First, let me make some general comments and then some more specific ones relating to this type of thing.

We don't really own our user pages, user talk pages, user sandboxes, etc., and they can be pretty much edited by anyone in much the same way that any article can be edited by anyone. In general, editors are encourage to avoid editing another's talk page posts or user pages/user subpages unless there is a very good policy-based reason for doing so, which does not seem to be the case here. When another editor is behaving in a way which is not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, there are a few things you can do.

The first is to simply ignore them because they might be trying to bait you into further interaction. Sometimes these people are just trolling and looking to create drama, and move on to someone else when they are denied any of that.
You may also post a user warning or message on their talk page, politely asking them to stop their behavior or redact their comment. There are various types and levels of user warnings for a variety of different situations. Sometimes this approach works, and sometimes it only serve to escalate the situation, so you've got to be careful if you decide to do this.
The final option is to bring up the matter for discussion at one of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboards (I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) would apply in this case) for other editors and administrators to evaluate and assess. This is considered to be the last step, so it's best to try one of the previous two first and only go to ANI when all other options have been exhausted. Based upon the ANI discussion, it is possible that the other editor will be warned, blocked or banned, but you need to be aware of Wikipedia:Boomerang because they will be assessing your behavior too. Moreover, since ANI is a formal process, proper procedure must be followed and proper evidence needs to be provided using diffs. There is a record of every edit made on Wikipedia and diffs are important because they show exactly what was written, who wrote it, where it was posted and when it was posted. Administrators will look at the diffs you provide and determine whether anything appropriate was done, and what to do if there was.

Now for specifics. I checked your user contributions and found this which I'm almost positive is the specific editing you are referring to. The page is the main Wikipedia: Sandbox, not your personal User:679699sof/sandbox, which means that anyone may freely edit it. Even so, such an edit is not appropriate at all so I have I warned the other editor here. I think we should just wait and see what they do next. This person appears to be here for reasons other than constructive editing, so the probability that they do something similar again is high. However, if you do wish to pursue this further right now, then here is the diff, {{diff|Wikipedia:Sandbox|prev|702486879}}, and the user is [[:User:Scott2357]]. Just copy those into the relevant parts of the ANI thread and make sure you notify them by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to their user talk page. Personally, ANI results often aren't as satisfying as you might expect in cases like these because the other editor very rarely responds and doesn't really seem to care whether they are blocked or banned. As for the offending content of the edit, it's possible that Wikipedia:Oversight may decide to suppress it so that nobody can see it, except for those with special access. You can email them and ask by clicking on the "Email the oversight team" at the top of the oversight page, but they only do such a thing in certain limited and specific situations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Great. I appreciate all the information and your suggestions.679699sof (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single person account[edit]

Hi 679699sof. Another thing I suggest you take a look at is Wikipedia:Single purpose account. It seems that almost all of your edits have been made to Adriana Sanford. There is nothing essentially wrong sticking to a single article or a single genre of articles, and editors do that all the time. It may, however, lead some editors to think that you are somehow connected to Sanford and create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Appearances are important on Wikipedia just like they are everywhere else, and editors can only assess whether another editor is really here to help build an encyclopedia by looking through their editing history. When you become so involved with a single article, it's natural to want things to remain a certain (your) way and it can be hard sometimes to step back and neutrally assess the edits of others. Pretty much anyone can edit any Wikipedia article at anytime, and an article is not owned by it's subject, it's creator, or it's primary editors. I'm not saying this is happening with you, but I've seen it happen before with others who seem to be too focused on a single article. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be perfect and there really are no deadlines per se. As a matter of fact, it can be a good thing to leave something alone for a bit just to see what edits others may make.

So, it might be a good idea for you to branch out and try you hand at editing other topics that interest you. This is a good way to see how other editors edit and apply Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines as well as learn how to use images, templates and other formatting tricks, etc. that can be used to improve articles. Broadening your editing repertoire, even a little bit, can really help you gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works and what's expected of its editors. There are also various Wikipedia:WikiProjects you can join, where you can exchange ideas and discuss specifics with editors who have similar interests as yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Luz Eugenia Fuenzalida-Vadillo[edit]

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 Luz Eugenia Fuenzalida-Vadillo 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 679699sof, I've removed several tracts of text and images that you've tacked-on to articles, like this [1]. Wikipedia biographies are not intended to include information on all the descendants in a family, unless they're also notable. If there's some sort of conflict of interest involved, WP:COI, please divulge it. Encyclopedic articles aren't intended to function as family trees. Thanks for your good contributions, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the lineage so that the Overstolz family could be tracked. If it should be deleted, please delete. If it needs to go through COI, please let me know. I am related to this family, which is why I have so much information and interest in the German Wikipedia site. I don't speak German--so I am not able to translate all. thanks.679699sof (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining--I kind of figured something like that. I've removed some content that probably doesn't belong. On balance you've added much good information, but do be aware of the difficulty in navigating conflict of interest, and forego the temptation to add content about subjects who haven't met WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, but who happen to be related to people who do. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2C58:C358:9E84:6E5 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I will take a look at this site and be more careful with information being added. Thanks679699sof (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you added this again [2]. Neither the subject, the artist nor the painting are notable. Removed again. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

Hello, 679699sof. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And copyright violations...[edit]

I've removed several passages you apparently copied from other sources, and other passages that are unacceptably promotional in tone. I suspect more such content will be found. As a formality, I'm adding a warning regarding copyright violation below. The part about being blocked is serious. Thank you.

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adriana Sanford for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adriana Sanford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Sanford until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrés de Fuensalida[edit]

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 Andrés de Fuensalida 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 credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lucile Alice von Overstoltz[edit]

The article Lucile Alice von Overstoltz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The sources listed discuss her family, but none appear to directly address her, so WP:BIO is not met.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Henry Van Noye Lucas[edit]

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 Henry Van Noye Lucas 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 credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of William Capet Clopton for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Capet Clopton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Capet Clopton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andrés de Fuensalida for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrés de Fuensalida is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrés de Fuensalida until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Cologne patricians[edit]

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Cologne patricians. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Overstolz. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Overstolz – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Louis Espenschied for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louis Espenschied is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Espenschied until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Overstolz family has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Overstolz family, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Espenschied family has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Espenschied family, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in English Wikipedia[edit]

Hi 679699sof. I understand you are translating and bringing into English Wikipedia a bunch of articles about your ancestors. Each project has somewhat different policies and guidelines, as you know, and in English Wikipedia we have a strong guideline about conflict of interest. Directly creating, and directly editing, articles about your family is not ok here - it is a conflict of interest. Would you please acknowledge that? Once you do, I can tell you what we ask editors to do, who want to work on content where they have a COI. But one thing at a time. I look forward to hearing from you. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Adriana Sanford[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Adriana Sanford, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.adrianasanford.com, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Adriana Sanford and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Adriana Sanford, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Adriana Sanford. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Adriana Sanford with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Adriana Sanford saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Brianhe (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Philippina Espenshied[edit]

The article Philippina Espenshied has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability--most of the content involves the family tree, apparently written by a living relative (see COI report [3]). Only substantive claim here is a biographical mention in a Who's Who of the period. Otherwise this is fame by association, per WP:NOTINHERITED.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lucile Alice von Overstoltz for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucile Alice von Overstoltz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucile Alice von Overstoltz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cologne patricians for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cologne patricians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cologne patricians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]