Jump to content

User talk:TexasToasters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, TexasToasters, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 23)

[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 KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, TexasToasters! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Ron Ward (cricketer)

[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Ron Ward (cricketer), which you proposed for deletion. The subject meets the standard inclusion criteria for cricketers. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're notable, but I think this should probably be tested at AfD rather than via PROD. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROD tagging

[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you proposed several articles (e.g. Teller Cigar Factory and Ron Ward (cricketer)) for deletion without including edit summaries. If you propose an article for deletion per WP:PROD, you are required to say so in the edit summary. The words "proposed deletion" or "PROD" is sufficient. Including an edit summary is good practice in general, but it is mandatory for deletion tagging. I also noticed that PRODed 4 article with identical deletion rationales in the space of 3 seconds. This kind of mass tagging may be considered disruptive. Please reconsider what you are doing. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do thank you for the guidance.TexasToasters (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but my suggestions were legit - User:Phil Bridger DID NOT check the references - which were DEAD before reverting my delete proposal. Most had NO RELEVANT references. Additionally, he should not cause me of vandalism when that is not the case with article with NO chance of getting accepted under the policies today.TexasToasters (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that the subjects were not appropriate for the WP:PROD procedure, which may or may not include the sources already in the article. It is the sources that exist that are important. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood but many of the pages I marked had no valid, live references at all...? Sorry for the confusion but I have seen pages deleted for this reason before so precedence is guiding me at this point. That said, I respect your experience and welcome the debate. TexasToasters (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true. These pages had references, but they were not necessarily freely available online. That does not make them invalid, but just harder to check. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead links are a maintenance issue and a usually surmountable problem. Marking an article for deletion just for broken links is disruptive. As noted above, 2 of the 3 links are live and valid. Deletion is the remedy of last resort. An article being in bad shape is not grounds for deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion policy expressly calls on editors to look for sources themselves and to consider alternatives first. Final note: PROD is an out-of-process deletion strictly for routine and non-controversial deletions. There was no accusation of vandalism. The PROD was disputed as controversial. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off I WAS accused of vandalism...that is a fact. Secondly, and sadly, I have seen too many articles deleted which were WAY more cited, substantial, and notable than any of the ones I marked. The inconsistencies here are palatable and confusing to any newbie. But thanks for your input.TexasToasters (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of New York Film Festival Downtown

[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from New York Film Festival Downtown, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Teller Cigar Factory. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TexasToasters&oldid=1033772529"