User talk:Clubwiki
Welcome from GeorgeLouis[edit]
|
September 2011[edit]
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence List of American gentlemen's clubs . While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Your message shows that you are biased towards keeping the name of the article, which makes it canvassing. Please be more careful in the future. Valfontis (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you![edit]
|
Lets do it properly! Some good work so far; you have a lot of potential to make good articles here in Wikipedia. We need people like you and I hope you will make this community thrive by making high-quality contributions in the future. Mootros (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks for that, Mootros. But I know plenty about editing Wikipedia (including all the relevant policies), which I've been doing since 2004 - just usually without signing in, and I object to being babied. Your unilateral, massive removal of sourced content in the gentlemen's club articles goes completely against established standards, especially since there was consensus otherwise in the past (though you refuse to acknowledge that) and now other editors besides myself have disagreed with you. Your notion that "anything that doesn't have a wikipedia article isn't notable" in a list doesn't follow WP:N; at most the entries should be tagged. The existing tags to the articles sufficed without necessitating removal of content, and I now have placed more specific tags. Every single club mentioned is notable, as any residents of any of those cities could tell you, but I agree more sources should be included - and ideally each of the clubs should have its own Wikipedia article. Please stop your edit war, especially since I am NOT the only editor who has objected to your tactics, and thus your content removal is unilateral, violating WP:CONSENSUS. Otherwise, I will refer this matter to an administrator.Clubwiki (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. A wikipedia article is usually a good indicator for notability, not having a wikipedia article does not mean its not notable. Having no sources or only a link to the club website is an alarming indication for not being notable. Please respect the established WP:CONSENSUS for WP:N and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As said on talk, we give it a couple of days to get these sources in then remove any insufficiently sourced material from this list. Your cooperation will be much appreciated on this matter. Mootros (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, you are missing the point. Three editors now have objected to your tactics. You are disrespecting WP:CONSENSUS. All of those clubs are notable; they just don't yet have sufficient links, which the new tags (like the existing page tag) now point out. Your cooperation in respecting the consensus that there's no WP:NOTDIR violation, as established in the move and AFD discussions, as well as now by everyone else besides you who has responded to your issues with the article, will be much appreciated. If you do not respect this consensus, your unilateral reversions against consensus will be referred to an administrator.Clubwiki (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- "All of those clubs are notable"? On the basis of what? Read here: WP:N and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As said, there will be some time to clean it up. 05:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- On the basis that any resident of any of these cities could tell you so; the existing tags suffice. Enough of this. The consensus - previously including the AFD and "move" dicussions and now including everyone to respond to your criticism - is that there is no WP:N or WP:NOTDIR violation. "There will be some time to clean it up." Well, unfortunately for you it's not you who gets to make that decision. Your continuing edit war now blatantly contravenes the established consensus, and under WP:CONSENSUS it's not your place to decide otherwise anymore.Clubwiki (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- "All of those clubs are notable"? On the basis of what? Read here: WP:N and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As said, there will be some time to clean it up. 05:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, you are missing the point. Three editors now have objected to your tactics. You are disrespecting WP:CONSENSUS. All of those clubs are notable; they just don't yet have sufficient links, which the new tags (like the existing page tag) now point out. Your cooperation in respecting the consensus that there's no WP:NOTDIR violation, as established in the move and AFD discussions, as well as now by everyone else besides you who has responded to your issues with the article, will be much appreciated. If you do not respect this consensus, your unilateral reversions against consensus will be referred to an administrator.Clubwiki (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. A wikipedia article is usually a good indicator for notability, not having a wikipedia article does not mean its not notable. Having no sources or only a link to the club website is an alarming indication for not being notable. Please respect the established WP:CONSENSUS for WP:N and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As said on talk, we give it a couple of days to get these sources in then remove any insufficiently sourced material from this list. Your cooperation will be much appreciated on this matter. Mootros (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Milwaukee Athletic Club for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Milwaukee Athletic Club 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/Milwaukee Athletic Club 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 template from the top of the article. Mootros (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milwaukee Athletic Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletic club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)