User talk:Lavd

Welcome!

Hello, Lavd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rklawton (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Nikita Denisenkov. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. AllyD (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Denisenkov and Wikipedia notability criteria[edit]

All Wikipedia biographies require to be verifiable against independent 3rd party references. The specific notability criteria for a biography of an artist are here. As things stand, this biography doesn't meet these. AllyD (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nikita Denisenkov[edit]

The article Nikita Denisenkov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Biographical article lacking independent 3rd party references to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines for artists.

While all 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. AllyD (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nikita Denisenkov for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nikita Denisenkov 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/Nikita Denisenkov 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 good 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. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Nikita Denisenkov. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. AllyD (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Nikita Denisenkov, you may be blocked from editing. AllyD (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cant propose it for deletion. Please stop doing it. Open deletion discussion if you want. And ask for community to evaluate your proposals. Lavd (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lavd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Don't see a reason for disruptive editing. I decided to spend some time on articles in AfD. I went through them and analyzed those with familiar subjects discovering evidence and information on the Internet and shortly expressing my view where I see the subject worth it. What went wrong?

Decline reason:

As below; obvious WP:POINT. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Obvious violations of WP:POINT that constitute disruptive editing. You've got a chip because your article was put up for deletion, so you've posted virtually identical "keep" rationale for over a dozen other articles. This isn't the place for tantrums. If you'd like to participate constructively, edit, learn from your mistakes, and improve your skills. You can ask for help, too, we're only to happy to lend a hand. But we won't stand for an editor bent on disruptive our processes. Learn - or leave. It's your choice. Rklawton (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lavd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, I found this discussions through my article get there itself. I was just curious how bad were articles there comparing to my. Delete flag articles don't need another delete statement - so I supported interesting articles. Keeps are slightly different, I just don't have much to say but opinion. I spent time on each article not just copy-pasting. The way I get there don't mean I am wrong in my posting. I need posting privileges to counter my own article deletion. Can you please unblock only my discussion and article for me. (Lavd (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

Obviously you have only a limited command of the English language. But your unblock request does not abswer the basic reason for your block. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You've already posted your objections. Experience has show that the more vociferously an editor defends an article they've created on the AfD page, the less likely it is to survive. If you really want to keep the article you started, go find sources indicating the article is notable. You can post that information here below and other editors can add it for you - assuming they meet our standards. Rklawton (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete on present showing. If there were some references complying with WP:RS, to show significance or notability, things might well be different. Note that I am not criticising the art - for me it is good and ought to be notable if it it currently isn't. But one doesn't need to be an art specialist to assess coverage. And it is coverage that wins the day on Wikipedia. A group might be brilliant, but if no-one has heard of them, they don't get an article. A writer of self-published books is unlikely to get an article, but if people read them they might find them good. Van Gogh probably wouldn't have had an article until he was dead and famous. This is an encyclopaedia - we record what is regarded as notable. Our rules and criteria might not be the best - but they are in force until something better is brought in. (Disclaimer: I am not an art expert, and haven't painted for some time, but I do have works hanging in a few private houses. Not notable, I'm afraid...) Peridon (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"

Thank you Peridon for fool and clear point. Now I got it. I thought that wikipedia is just an easy place for interesting things as I never been here before. I just mess up with complicated notability things. I also deleted few admin tags by mistake and so on.

May 2012[edit]

Judgng from this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikita_Denisenkov, you would probably be best to contact User:Beeblebrox and take him up on his offer to copy the article to your user space. AllyD (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]