User talk:Journotracker

Hello, Journotracker, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. We're so glad you're here! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Glenys Roberts[edit]

Hello Journotracker,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Glenys Roberts for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lauren Razavi[edit]

Hello Journotracker,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Lauren Razavi for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Danielle Batist[edit]

Hello, Journotracker,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Danielle Batist should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Batist .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, TheMagikCow (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution[edit]

Your recent edit to Jon Bounds removed information to reliable sources; and a recording of the subjects voice I have accordingly reverted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment here on my Talk page. I didn't mean to offend you by not replying before (I saw a bit of an upset post on the Talk page of the entry we're discussing); I'm new to Wikipedia so am still getting my head around how things work. I went through all the sources on the Jon Bounds page thoroughly and removed all unsourced or poorly sourced information, as per Wikipedia's guidelines on living persons. However, I made the mistake of not looking at the archived Internet (newbie error I guess), so you're right, some of the sources should have stayed in but needed new links to fall in with the guidelines. However, the page is still a mess with lots of unverified information appearing at the moment. I think it needs work to meet Wikipedia's ideal standards. Perhaps we could work on it together, since I now see you've contributed to it significantly before.--Journotracker (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2015 (GMT)

Tags[edit]

You asked a general question about tagging. I try an answer here because it doesn't improve the specific article. I am on Wikipedia from 2009 and have not tagged, ever. I have removed many tags, orphan tags by establishing a link, "citation needed" by supplying one. For me, the key word in "citation needed" is "needed". I don't believe that a citation is needed for a date of birth, or a school. There is no danger if such a thing is wrong, + a citation might be wrong. (I have watched an argument about a date of death, relatives vs. newspaper, - painful for the relatives who may know better than the "citation".) My key to Wikipedia is "assume good faith". There are so many articles missing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - I appreciate it. I'm a journalist and researcher by trade, so accuracy and verification are key tenets in my opinion. I believe that potentially inaccurate information should be removed unless it can be verified, and I was under the impression from guidance I've read that this is indeed the way things are done on Wikipedia. Obviously, however, if the Wikipedia community holds different factors in higher esteem, I need to either adjust my approach or choose not to contribute. Is your dedication to good faith over verified fact quite a widely-held view in the Wikipedia community? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. --Journotracker (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2015 (GMT)

Nice to meet you, and thanks for the reply, but now you get too general ;) - Let's talk about one kind of fact: date of birth or death. I believe that the person, relatives and friends may know better than other sources of information what may be correct, and I believe that a few days (or even years) difference don't ruin human history. The case mentioned was Anna Reynolds, btw. I trust that a person and their friends know what school was attended, without a citation. A university degree is a different story, - I would like to see a reliable source for that. Do you see the difference? - I don't care too much if my views are widely held, I am known for strange views such as that this version of an article was good for our readers, better than the current one. - Please feel free to check a BLP I expanded but please don't tag it today, - it's her birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context, I improved Stuttgart Ballet and felt I could remove the two tags, - do you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Andrew Chow[edit]

The article Andrew Chow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be non-notable individual. The awards were mostly won by a firm he was involved in. The ones he won appear to be trivial in nature.

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. reddogsix (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andrew Chow for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Chow 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/Andrew Chow 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. reddogsix (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Catherine Goulet

added links pointing to ABC and Amazon

Tag Goulet

added links pointing to ABC and Amazon

Khamshajiny Gunaratnam

added a link pointing to Guardian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lauren Razavi for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lauren Razavi 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/Lauren Razavi (2nd nomination) 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. reddogsix (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jon Henley[edit]

The article Jon Henley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only claim to notability is an article from his employer about his job.

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. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rose Thomas (blogger)[edit]

The article Rose Thomas (blogger) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Biography of living person that does not have any independent sources. The one reliable source does not actually mention the subject.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Wgullyn (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]