User talk:Naypta/2015/July

Archives

Sequelitis

The page Sequelitis is just meant as a redirect which I would've fixed if it wasn't proposed for speedy deletion. The page it redirects to is legit. Psychotic Spartan 123 19:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Will remove tags and set up redirect :) | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TrueJim

Hi Naypta! You keep adding Speedy Deletion tags to the Trump National Golf Club article without looking at the article's talk page. This article is part of a series, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_National_Golf_Club . If you're going to delete this article, you might as well delete all four of the articles, since they're all on the same topic (clubs within the Trump chain). Thank you for being so prompt though! Truejim (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya TrueJim, I hadn't seen what's on the talk page. At the end of the day, I'm not the one who will deal with deletion, a Wikipedia admin who has far more experience than me will come along and take a look. It's up to them :) Thanks for taking the time to let me know though! | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henokiens

Hi there, thanks for patrolling the above article. I think I've addressed all the points you raised and was about to remove the "multiple issues" tag, but figured I might as well run it by you (or at least let you know). Cheers, Leo Fischer (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Leo! I commented on the CSD in support of it not being deleted. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Leo Fischer (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome of course => | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 05:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aliguma Ahabyona Asiimwe

The purpose of the article is to ease information search by organisations in Uganda and abroad to find information about our culture. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliguma Ahabyona Asiimwe (talk • contribs) 07:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello why did u have to delete my new wiki page? I humbly seek your explanation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliguma Ahabyona Asiimwe (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, in it's current form your article The Cross-Cultural Foundation of Uganda appears to have no purpose but to promote the organization, rather than give information on it. Please see WP:NPOV. Thanks! | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 06:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)R[reply]

Nina Bradlin

Please don't be too quick on the draw. I declined your speedy. That doesn't make the subject notable, but there were reliable sources provided in the article, to support the contention that a claim of importance was being made. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Heya, thanks, I'll take that on board for future new page patrols => Sorry if I wasted your time! | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; no time was wasted. Let me tell you something: at some point I discovered it was more fun to improve poor articles than nominate them for deletion... Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: haha! I simply wasn't sure on this one article as it seemed as if there was no news coverage or other biographies on her. Thanks though :) | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 17:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham (TV series) episodes

It's on the main page. It's used there. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiraroshi1976: I certainly don't see it on the main page, but even if it was, the article in question would work better simply as a redirect to Gotham (TV series)#Episodes, no? Just saw you replaced that, I don't see why - I undid your edit there as it has more information than on your page. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to move the episodes to a new page. -Kiraroshi1976 (talk)

I understand that, however such a move is pointless. Especially given that the community has already denied such a request. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

sir what wrong with my page named Mian Waris Mehmood Mohsin Ali131 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsin Ali131: Hey there, you might want to check this guide for new Wikipedia users on creating articles. The article in question had no references, didn't make notability clear, and was for a variety of reasons grammatically incorrect. I searched the name on the internet and didn't find anything. If you can prove that the article's subject is notable, then it's more than welcome on Wikipedia, but there'll need to be some credible sources :) I'll drop some welcome links on your talk page. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have added a reference too Mohsin Ali131 (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsin Ali131: There are no references on the page. Again, I cannot stress enough, Wikipedia is only for notable subjects and content. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete it please. i ll add refernce soon Mohsin Ali131 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsin Ali131: At the end of the day, I'm not the one who will deal with deletion, a Wikipedia admin who has far more experience than me will come along and take a look. It's up to them. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how xan i add a picture? Mohsin Ali131 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsin Ali131: Heya, please check out the help centre for new contributors where there are people who are dedicated to helping you :) You can also easily access frequently asked questions through there. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KESULTANAN PULAU SUMBAWA

You tagged this page under G1. It's actually not nonsense, rather just written in Indonesian. Google Translate isn't making any sense of it though, and even if it was translated I'm not confident it would survive deletion attempts by other means.

→Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 19:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Σ: It is? Wow. I put it through both Google and Microsoft Translator, and neither could work it out. I assumed it was nonsense as such haha! | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 19:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it got deleted as a G1, so clearly it was. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy

all provincial legislators are notable at WP. See WP:POLITICIAN. Before nominating articles for deletion, please check carefully the guidelines at WP:CSD. WP:Deletion Policy and the general and special guidelines at WP:N. I would suggest you gain considerably more experience here before listing articles for deletion--too many of your nominations have been incorrect. It's extremely important for us to continue attracting new editors, and they should not be discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Firstly, to address your point of my "lack of experience enough to nominate CSDs", take a look at one standard page of my contribs. There are 19 CSDs by my count on that page. Out of that 19, 14 have already been deleted, and 3 still have CSDs on them without a response (at the time of writing). Even assuming that all of those three are incorrect, that means I have a successful CSD rate of 73.6842%. If we assume that those three are correctly nominated, it would mean my accuracy rate was 89.4737%. That's a pretty good chance I'm CSDing correctly. To respond to your other point with regard to political notability, can I point out that WP:POLITICIAN bullet point three says in and of itself "Just being an elected local official [...] does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I am assuming that you are referring to Mian Waris Mehmood - the reason that I placed a CSD A7 on that was that a) at the time there were no sources and there was no obvious information on the web with regard to the subject, but b) even now, the source that is listed on that page doesn't even contain the name of the subject, or any combination of it (try searching it yourself). There's no proof that this person even exists, so as I understand it that is absolutely A7 criteria. Unless policy is now to blindly allow anything which is marked as an article about a politician? | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 04:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Heya, looks like the page you were referring to was indeed deleted - as such, it was not notable, patently, as I mentioned in the paragraph above. Please do check the article before making remarks about my patrolling and editing skill. (Whilst I know WP:AAGF, I did read the paragraph you wrote as being fairly attacking.) | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 18:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singular they

Just an unsolicited note because this edit summary touched on one of my pet issues:

As described in the article I linked, the use of "they" to replace singular nouns has a long and highly respectable history, including cameos in Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Austen. In the 1800s, some grammarians (sometimes explicitly motivated by sexism) started telling everyone it was only proper to use it in the plural. For a while, they were quite successful at eradicating singular "they" from formal writing, although it's always been nigh-universally accepted in speech. Nowadays, however, many official style guides endorse its use where appropriate for simplicity and gender-neutrality.

So, unless you want to make that personal choice, there's no reason to think "his/her" is right and "their" is wrong. Some people, including me, even request to be called "they" on WP because they don't want to share their gender online. Really, it's up to you; just don't think the God of Grammar inherently agrees with 19th-century rules. FourViolas (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FourViolas: I thought so haha! I was just a bit "oo-er" over it, and looked it up online, and came across a definition which specifically stated "two or more people". Thanks for the heads up though, glad I haven't been doing it wrong before! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 19:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello Naypta. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), or content (CSD A3), moments after they are created, as you did at RBLXDEV. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touchsuite

At the request of the contributor, I reverted my speedy close and re-opened the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I will suggest you to take back your request from Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer because you have just 152 edits in mainspace and your account is not even 10 days old, so it is less likely that your request will be accepted. Once you get rejected then it will be difficult to get that right for next 3 months. So I will suggest you to delete your request and request it again after 15 days or 1 month, that time it will get accepted surely. I'm not saying that your request will surely get rejected this time but it is most likely. My request is pending there since 2 weeks, no admin is replying me, thats why I have watch on that page and I have read reasons of rejecting other users. I will suggest you that if you are not withdrawing your request then till your request get reply you increase your mainspace edits at least to 200. Cheers.--Human3015 knock knock • 20:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, congrats, its Done. --Human3015 knock knock • 21:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: hehe, I have experience of editing from another account I used to have though, I think it shines through in that most of my edits after being autoconfirmed have been antivandalism :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 04:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Naypta, lastly me too became Pending changes reviewer and also Rollbacker. Cheers. --Human3015 knock knock • 22:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas the Game

Hello Naypta. Thank you for your help with the Lucas the Game page. However, there are major issues. It is in danger of removal, because it is being attacked by members of Steam's Valve Wiki Editing "Task Force", who have a direct conflict of interest. These members are from a powerful video game company (Steam) are trying to have the game title removed from Wikipedia. They went as far as to remove both images that were added. They will not re-upload them even though I managed to get the artist to make a public permission to use statement, which you can review here: http://www.lucasthegame.com/granting-permission-to-use-the-following-artwork-from-lucas-the-game/ They just want it all of it removed from the site. The game is a full-length downloadable PC / Mac game, which includes a full soundtrack which was made by a notable musician for it. Also this game is new, and gaming news reviews are pending. I don't have wiki account confirmation yet to upload the images. Could you review the artist permission statement, and add the images back, as well as revert the proposal to delete the article? I don't know what else to do. It deserves to be documented for what it is. Please stand up for what is right. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotreality (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robotreality: Absolutely! Let me get this sorted out. :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 05:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robotreality: Okay, so after doing some further research, it seems that, unfortunately, they're right. Lucas the Game may not be notable in it's current form. Furthermore, the people involved in the deletion discussion here aren't part of a "Steam Wiki Editing Task Force" - they're just Wikipedians. However, on the other hand, I do agree with you in that the images should not have been deleted, as you have artists' permission, so you should be able to reupload those using the UploadWizard. What I'd recommend is going through the Article Wizard to determine if Lucas the Game is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. If it determines it is, then please start an article in your sandbox using it, and when you're ready submit it to Articles for Creation for review. But please do read all the steps in the wizard carefully and answer them truthfully and honestly. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 06:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Naypta for looking further into it. I appreciate it, but I am really depending on you. It will not allow me to upload the images because I only have a couple confirmed edits. Will you add upload the images, as per the public statement you reviewed? It's the only way, you are needed to right this. It has enough sources to start a page, and I've been told more sources are scheduled. This is a new page, and should have enough to be given time to further become documented. It already has a great amount of merit. Also, your information is incorrect. I ASSURE YOU they are working on behalf of Steam, and have a conflict of interest. The proposal for deletion was initiated by user: The1337gamer and he is number 3 on Steam's known "Task Force" Editors, as you can verify for yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Valve Please take action on and help. Thanks very much Naypta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotreality (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture.AM

hi Naypta, Why are you deleting Culture.AM page? Its not an advertisement, its an informative article about newly created web-portal which is one of its kind so far.... I can see that newspapers and websites have articles in Wiki and I tried to correct mine according to your guidelines but you still removing it. Please let me know how my articles could be structured that are seen ideal for you. Thanks! :)

@Davit1708: Heya, please take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Only subjects (or, in this case, a website) that are considered notable may have articles on Wikipedia. Culture.AM was deleted because it lacks any media coverage or popular usage that would make it notable. Hope this helps => | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 19:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi Naypta, hope this finds you well! I followed your instructions and have read the Wikipedia's guidelines on notability as you suggested. The article was amended again in accordance to these guidelanes and I am about to save it now. Just wanted to inform you about this prior to saving... and also, I am asking you to check whether the context and structure of it is appropriate now and may suffice at this time. Please do not delete, I would just appreciate a lot if you let me know what else need to be done in order this article could find its place in Wikipedia. I am open to any suggestions and ready to change whatever is required... Thanks in advance! :) --Davit1708 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Davit1708[reply]

Hi again Napta, My article was removed again by NawlinWiki without any explanation... Please advice what can I do in this case, I made all needed corrections according to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability as you suggested but alas... So, what is next? --Davit1708 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Davit1708[reply]

@Davit1708: Hi, looks like Nawlin deleted the page under WP:G11 - unambiguous advertising or promotion. What this means is that the article may not have adhered to neutral point of view. Please take a look at WP:NPOV's guidelines. :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 18:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Napta, thanks for your feedback! Is there a way for me to present my remade article straight to you for vewing, as it seems that other administrators will remove the article based on previous comments that you've made thinking its a SPAM... I considered all the points you've mentioned to me earlier, read the regulations and then made another version of it and therefore its not clear to me right now what else could be done for its improvement... I just need to know exactly what need to be changed, added, removed so that my article gets finally approved... Pleaseeee help :) thanks! --Davit1708 (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Davit1708[reply]

Bernard Tilleman

Dear Naypta. Thank you for deleting my article after a mere two minutes of being online, without giving me the proper chance to add any real content. Tilleman is one of the leading legal scholars of Belgium (dean of the law faculty of the best Belgian university), something that certainly merits a wikipedia-page. Hard to believe you went and deleted that page so fast without waiting. Deep sigh.L E X commons (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L E X commons: Hey there, apologies for any offense caused - believe me, it's nothing personal! I couldn't find any reliable sources online that related to this person, and as such tagged it as being a biography of someone who was not notable. User:Anthony Bradbury, an admin round these parts, seemed to agree. Sometimes it's not necessarily about whether they "deserve" recognition, it's about whether they get recognition in other media. Having said this, if you can point me to some reliable sources about him, we can revisit the article. Alternatively, if you wish to go through this process yourself, I can recommend the Article Wizard to help you create and submit an article for review. Thanks for your contributions! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 11:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources are you after exactly? Doesn't his position within the legal world provide enough recognition as it is? There are so many American law professors on Wikipedia who teach at some hardly relevant college in a hardly relevant state who have their own page, that it seems strange and a testimony of Anglocentrism that the dean of the law faculty of a top 100 university would not be relevant enough. Also, I don't require any help making articles. I have authored articles such as Gasser v MISAT so I am well aware of the specific quality prerequisites on Wikipedia. L E X commons (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L E X commons: Please see WP:RELIABLE and WP:N. If there are law professors on Wikipedia, they count as WP:BLPs, and will have sources. I cannot stress this enough - no matter how fantastic someone's achievements are, if there are no external reliable sources on the person, they will not have a Wikipedia article. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 11:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question. What external reliable sources are you after? Just googleing his name produces over 73 000 results, would you like me to make a reference to the offical KU Leuven site or what exactly are you after? L E X commons (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L E X commons: News sites, perhaps? Academic sites that are not connected to the subject? Independent, reliable sources, as is explained at the information I have linked to several times. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 11:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as this or this? L E X commons (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L E X commons: I'm unable to read those, as they are in a language I don't speak (Flemish, I suppose?), however if they are sources which credibly indicate the importance of the subject, they are acceptable. However, if there are no English sources, the article may be more suitable for the Wikipedia of that language (e.g. Flemish Wikipedia). | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in Dutch. Seems rather pointless at this time to further discuss the subject with you, as you have showcased your ignorance already by deleting a page under two minutes. Good luck to you L E X commons (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L E X commons: I'd appreciate it if you didn't make personal attacks. It's OK if you don't want to talk to me - I'm not the only person on Wikipedia! Just do take note of the fact that both me and a Wikipedia admin signed off on the speedy deletion of the page you created, and if you do recreate a page, please ensure that it has appropriate references. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 13:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't consider this as a personal attack, consider this as an encouragement to think more deeply before acting. It is supposed to lead to a constructive result, namely not deleting pages within two minutes if you clearly have very little idea of what the page is about or who created the page. I think that will lead to better results for all! Cheers L E X commons (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of points: note that I am the admin who deleted this article; Naypta only called attention to it. Having said that, I have reviewed the article and there is no question that it qualified, as written, for speedy deletion. Being a law professor and/or a university dean does nor of itself confer encyclopedic notability. If there is anything special about this gentleman, over and above other law professors, the article does not mention it. You suggest that his position within the legal world should confer adequate notability. It does not, particularly as you do not give any detail at all of what this position is, other than the bare fact of his post as professor and dean. Also, as has been pointed out, you give no reliable third-party references, or indeed any references at all. Saying that he can be found on Google is irrelevant; references must be detailed with the article. While there is no absolute rule that they should be in English, this is the English Wikipedia, and assessment of references (if any) is much easier if we can understand them. Furthermore, you complain that the article was flagged and deleted before you had a chance to add detail to it. If it was not ready to be posted you should clearly not have posted it. Until you hit the "save page" button it is not visible to other editors.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly if you had read attentively, you would have noticed that my emphasis was rather on the whole "within two minutes" aspect of the matter. I edit articles in several goes because my internet connection here is unreliable. Before I could even add a category the article was already deleted. Coincedentally, I have also created another article this afternoon, Vatsouras and Koupatantze v ARGE, which has not even been checked, while it has been online for over an hour and a half. If I would have had more than two minutes, I could have added reasons why this guy is noteworthy and why he deserves a wikipedia page. Instead I fell victim to overzealous reviewers thinking they're doing a good job. L E X commons (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L E X commons: Firstly, please stop insulting us volunteers - we're only trying to help. As I said before, saying things like "if you had read attentively" and "you have showcased your ignorance" can be interpreted as personal attacks, whether or not you mean them that way. If you wanted to start an article in progress, you should use your user sandbox BEFORE posting your article in mainspace, or create it using the Article Wizard. Thanks. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself the question: have I really helped in this situation? The answer is no. Wikipedia should be about creating quality encyclopaedical content for everyone, not about enforcing guidelines in such a formal manner that it scares away those willing to actively contribute. But sure, you can use the "personal attack" concept as a way to avoid criticizing yourself and blaming this on me, the foul-mouthed contributor who doesn't even comprehend the basic rules of the game. L E X commons (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L E X commons: If you have an issue with my conduct, please see dispute resolution. If you have an issue with this particular deletion, please see the administrator response above; if you are still not satisfied, see dispute resolution. At this point the conversation has ceased to be productive, and as such it must end. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I was criticizing the overly formal manner in which you handle your task, you give me this reply :-) Irony can be beautiful. Thank you for confirming what I've said. The best of luck to you L E X commons (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: Thank you for the clarification. :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 14:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar

Hi there. It appears that you are deleting my unfinished articles referencing a widely known UK musician. I am acting on behalf of the artist and his management company who also represent many of the djs mentioned within this page.

If there is something wrong with what I am doing, which is no different to the hundreds of thousands of wiki pages relating to artists, please could you point the issues out and i will rectify them with immediate effect.

Hope all is well

Lloyd We are all made of stardust. (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daveyasprey: Dear Lloyd, thank you for your note (and the unexpected barnstar!). However, you are in violation of Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, and also on removing CSD templates. Now, as it is the case that you have added references to the article, the CSD will not be readded. However, in future, please take heed of these issues. You will need to read WP:NPOV carefully, and also WP:COI (and/or WP:PSCOI). Thanks. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: Thank you very much for the quick reply and for helping me understand where I have gone wrong. I will recitfy any and all future posts. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveyasprey (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24th July 2015 (UTC)

@Daveyasprey: Welcome of course :D | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: Hi again. It appears some things have flagged up, but it has not pointed me to exactly what is flagged up or how to rectify them. Just from a quick look, are you able to tell me what needs doing and I will amend post haste! :) and thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveyasprey (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Daveyasprey: Heya, if you click on the links in the issues box on the page it'll explain what the problems are :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: I will take a look tonight. How long do i have before the page gets deleted? As this is all very new to me and I'm finding it a little hard to grasp exactly what is wrong with the article. I have cross referenced it with many of my artists peers and I cannot seem to see where they differ.

@Daveyasprey: The article shouldn't be deleted unless issues persist for such a long time that the article is considered abandoned. There's no rush. :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: it's literally just been deleted...

Hmm. That's odd. Lemme take a look at the circumstances here. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes - ~~~~. :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: ahh ok, will do. and thanks again.

re-done page and tweaked to fit within the guild-lines - i hope. can you please just double check for me as i think that james fella has his guns out We are all made of stardust. (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daveyasprey: Looks good to me! I've flagged a couple of things that could be improved, but it should not be deleted. If it is deleted again, let me know, and I'll see what I can do. :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: edited the links abd lead info. How do i get 'attention from an expert in Musicians', 'additional citations for verification.' and wiki articles i have found 3 on another page, but with the link finder tool it's not showing up.

@Daveyasprey: Well, to get attention from an expert in musicians, you could see WikiProject Musicians. Additional citations is just adding further references to compound notability. And in terms of orphan articles, that's just a case of adding links to the article in other areas of Wikipedia where it's relevant - for instance, List of club DJs perhaps? :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::@Naypta: it appears people just want the page gone without any real reasoning. it's a little bit beyond a joke. Just delete the page please. i just give up.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	help me to verifying article page Shadyvivek (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? I'm not sure I follow. Thanks for the barnstar though! :D | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Tanw Language

Hello Naypta. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tanw Language, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to languages. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

I think you desperately need to better familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy before doing new pages patrol, because your tags are completely inappropriate and it's obvious from your talk page that I'm not the first person to take issue with it.

You just tagged an article on a person who has been dead for fifteen years with a tag about improving sourcing on a biography of a living person, and tagged that same article, which has references for every paragraph, as "original research", which makes no sense at all. I think you in particular need to read Wikipedia:Original research and learn what that actually is.

Doing new pages patrol can be very helpful if you know what you're doing, but it can also be actively detrimental to the project if you're slapping incorrect negative tags on articles because you haven't bothered to read either the text of those tags or the guidelines that tell people when they are appropriate to use. Please either go back and learn the rules about the things you're trying to apply or find a different use of your time on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Woah, woah, woah. Calm down please. Placing a BLP tag on the article was an honest mistake - which, I might remind you, we all learn from, and Wikipedia encourages. However, I stand by the fact that the article IS poorly referenced, whether BLP or not - the article in question has one reference that you've - seeing as we're using crude terms - "slapped onto" every paragraph. The reason I tagged it as original research was because I didn't realise that the same source had been applied to the entire thing - again, pretty poor form in my opinion. I'd really appreciate it if BEFORE you started making comments about me as a person, you'd actually ask me in a neutral fashion what happened. We all get things wrong, especially when sorting through a rather large queue of new pages. Nobody's perfect. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 05:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same source was applied to the whole thing because it's a good in-depth source that covers all the cited content, which is perfectly sensible when you're writing a short article. I know people sometimes get overexcitable on new pages patrol, but this is extremely annoying and discouraging as an editor writing new content, and you need to make sure you get it right even if it means you make ten less fewer tags in a spree. Good content is more important than your edit count. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at the Third Opinion Project page

The disagreement you recently listed at WP:THIRDOPINION has been delisted and declined. A dispute should be thoroughly discussed on the respective talk page before it is listed there. As there has only been one post, the discussion is not eligible for a third opinion at this time. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just replied to this on your talk page haha! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 06:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the absolute worst type of Wikipedian: you didn't bother to read either the article or the sources when you initially tagged it and you didn't read the source I added then either. You had zero interest in the quality or improvement of that article or any other. You just enjoy being able to exert the world's tiniest amount of power over people doing actual work because Wikipedia bureaucracy allows you that much. I hope you feel super-wikistressed while you rethink your life choices. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. See WP:AGF and WP:PA

@The Drover's Wife: WP:PA, WP:AGF. No further discussion will be had with you; at this point you are merely insulting me. If you won't be the bigger person, I will. Continue to harass me and I will report you. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 06:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the talk page where this began, but I'll note it here as well: there is no need for comments like that.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Keira is you

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 Keira is you requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.last.fm/music/Keira+Is+You. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't create this page, I moved it to fix capitalization of the page. The template has since been moved to the correct page. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 11:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]