Wikipedia

User talk:Roleplayer/Archive13

< User talk:Roleplayer
Latest comment: 14 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Re Sam Caplat

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

This page clearly indicates the importance of the subject. Citing references and stating facts as to his significance. I request that it not be deleted, and any improvements that can be made, are made, rather than removing the page all together. --Samcaplat (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately there is only one single reference on the entire page that has come from a reliable source, and that's the one that shows Wiltshire College Salisbury exists and has nothing else to do with the content of the article! In order for this to be kept you need to:
  1. Demonstrate that you are notable per Wikipedia's guidelines (which I can tell you haven't read, despite them being given to you prior to creating this article)
  2. Evidence this fact using external references from reliable sources that are easily verifiable
Also you need to read the note I left on your talk page about conflicts of interest. You should exercise great caution when writing about yourself on Wikipedia, and preferable, should avoid doing it altogether. -- roleplayer 21:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The page was not created by me, but was edited by me as per a request by the creator. This seemed like the most reliable option. I am unsure as to whether or not my YouTube page is a reliable source or not, as it is the only online proof that I exist. Clearly, as per the video content, I do, but I am yet to be written about in any magazine/online blog. I have read the guidelines, and remain confused about this. I do understand that I should excercise caution when writing about myself, however. --Samcaplat (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See the page history: your account clearly created this article. Youtube is not a reliable source, principally because any content can be uploaded to that website by just about anyone, saying just about anything, and there is no peer review of the information before it is posted. If what you are saying is that this is the only proof to your notability, then I'm afraid you can't have a page on Wikipedia. -- roleplayer 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The page was revived by me, as per the previous deletion. Originally, the page was not created by me, but instead by a friend, Ian. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, YouTube is the only source. If and when a reliable source comes up, are fans of my work permitted to revive the page again? Thanks for your help. --Samcaplat (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, uploading videos to youtube doesn't make you notable, so this should be definitely be deleted. And no if it is it will be salted. Smartse (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, any salted article can be recreated by contacting administrators and presenting reasons. --Samcaplat (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it can. Though as pointed out above posting videos to youtube does not make you notable. Once you've established yourself as a successful film director in another arena, then we might consider it. But only if the evidence presented fits the above criteria. -- roleplayer 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many popular YouTube users who are on Wikipedia, so I don't see why I cannot be on Wikipedia in due time. But yes, I understand what you are saying when it comes to the notability of myself. --Samcaplat (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is now happening with this situation, but in my defence over YouTube; There are hundreds of popular YouTube users on Wikipedia, with and without reliable sources, due to the fact that when and if a user has got a reliable source commenting on his/her YouTube, that is still no proof that he/she exists, it's just proof that the YouTube channel and user exist. And when they don't have a reliable source, the Wiki page has been given an exception based on the fact that they are a largely followed entity on YouTube and clearly have some sort of existence. Just something to ponder over. --Samcaplat (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're meaning to use that as a form of defence, but the essay at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should demonstrate why it's not a valid reason to keep this article. Yes other youtube users do have articles on Wikipedia, but that is normally either because they are notable in other ways, or because there are reliable sources that evidence that they are notable. -- roleplayer 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Richard Trammell

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, when you moved Richard Trammell to Trammellfitness/Richard Trammell were you intending it to go into user space? I wasn't sure, but moved it to User:Trammellfitness/Richard Trammell anyway. -- roleplayer 14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm an idiot *slaps forehead* And right after that I helped someone move their page from username/sandbox to User:username/sandbox! Thanks for fixing it up for me. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Korean swordsmanship

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have repeatedly removed this section of the page Swordsmanship because Korean swordsmanship is non-existant. I have already posted this with more detail on the discussion. I suggest research to be done before restoring it again. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.200.222.22 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see the ongoing discussion on that talk page. -- roleplayer 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please don't describe your edit as an "undo" if it's not

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Re this edit. I don't mind the fact that you knew enough information about the individual concerned to be able to link to an article about her. However please don't describe it as an "undo" in your edit summary if it's not one. It makes me look bad as an editor. -- roleplayer 09:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am truly sorry, I used the "undo" link to retrieve the earlier text to modify it, but forgot in my haste to change the edit summary. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey I'm sorry for "shooting from the hip" like that. There are worse things in the world to worry about! -- roleplayer 09:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I contest removal of the fuck of the month club article

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am afraid that citatios of the article were not added, but they will be added, shortly. Furthermore, the article linkage is concerned with freedom of speech laws and many other amendment rights. I have since sourced some claims of the article. However I believe the article is of notoriety enough to stay, and finally, the article will shortly make reasons for why it's important enough to stay online. Give me another hour, and I will have completely sourced this article.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

When something is nominated for deletion you need to read the reason why rather than assuming. I nominated it because the only information given in the article was about Rotten.com - there was no new information and so it was a poor copy of an already existing article. I didn't even look at whether the information was sourced or not because the first point made that issue totally moot. -- roleplayer 15:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hill Philipp

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Roleplayer,

why deleted you my article I wrote about Hill Philipp?

Best Regards Patrick Jakob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.jakob (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion at articles for deletion. The discussion is here. If you disagree with the arguments posed in the deletion discussion, or would like this decision to be reviewed, then you need to raise it as a request at deletion review. Many thanks. -- roleplayer 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shared stioupid adress

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,
Following to your posts Fæ (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) and player 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This url seems in fact to be a shared adress, as I (u:Kikuyu3) didnot connect on said date. Moreover, when I pay humor on this site, I avoid such subjects, as I am not fluent enough in english.
Anyhow, I apologize in the name of the stioupid colleague whom I don't know the identity, hoooopefully for his stioupid face ! Best regards to all the contributors. Hop ! 85.158.138.21 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (=Kikuyu3) This just to confirm. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. -- roleplayer 12:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Old Borlasian Club

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just thought I'd let you know, the only parts of the above article that are not copied and pasted from the Sir William Borlase's Grammar School article are:

The Old Borlasian's Club, founded 1907, is the Club of former pupils of Sir William Borlase’s Grammar School.
The Old Borlasian Club unites all past members of the school and supports the school in variety of ways. The school magazine is sent to members and an annual dinner and a variety of social and sporting events are held. The club has also established the Sir William Borlase's Grammar School Development Trust to raise money for long-term projects.
For further information, please contact John Barry, Andy Howland or the Old Borasian Club via the school.

The references are all for the school article, not for the club. I have no doubt that an "old boys" club exists as most schools of this age have one. The question is, is it notable? There is absolutely nothing there that says it is. -- roleplayer 00:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, it probably should not be a separate article, but it did not meet the qualifications for speedy A7. the bulk of the article was a list of notable members--which not surprising is the same as the list of notable alumni which makes up about half the article on the school. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Stokenchurch Name & Battles.

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Roleplayer,

I have left a note for you on the Stokenchurch page.

Best regards,

DavidDavid J Johnson (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- roleplayer 14:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

note on my page?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i believe it wasnt spam and i dont want to get banned for something that was an accident. Bennelly2 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the recurrent problem: you appear to be having a lot of "accidents" tonight, from this edit removing content from someone's user talk page, to this edit adding unnecessary warnings to a page already up for speedy deletion and this edit vandalising someone's user page. Think about what you're doing before you press the "save page" button, or you will be blocked from editing. -- roleplayer 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Aylesbury (UK Parliament constituency)

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please note that there should be no link for the change of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild from Liberal Unionist to Conservative in 1912. There was no by-election; the Liberal Unionist and Conservative parties merged in 1912. See the Constitutional Yearbook 1919, or F.W.S. Craig's British Parliamentary Election Results 1885-1918.

I will be reverting your change once I post this. 217.39.4.146 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Would have been nice to have had some explanation along those lines in the edit summary when you first did it, rather than leaving the rest of us to assume why you were making that change. -- roleplayer 23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The files you transferred to Commons

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I noticed that you're adding the date that I transferred a load of photographs to Commons - e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These were all done using Twinkle. Is there a fault with twinkle that these are not being added automatically? -- roleplayer 18:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly had no idea whether you used Twinkle or not. I just saw that a lot of pictures were undated and I decided to add the dates to them. ----DanTD (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if it needs reporting as a bug? -- roleplayer 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

New message

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Roleplayer. You have new messages at Talk:Joe small.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guoguo12--Talk--  21:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, got confused between g11 and g12 in the deletion log. -- roleplayer 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
That's okay. :) Guoguo12--Talk--  21:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear RP:

Can you give me a suggestion or two as to how to make a page "less suitable" for deletion? Perhaps placing it in an historical significance, or grouping it with similar companies via linking?

Thanks, Tarselli (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. You need to provide evidence from reliable sources that demonstrate the organisation's notability. Currently there is nothing there that demonstrates that the organisation has any notability whatsoever. All Wikipedia articles should demonstrate notability. -- roleplayer 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Younggoldie

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User reported as promotional user; admits openly that the articles are about him even beyond the fact that they're copyvio as well. HalfShadow 01:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- roleplayer 01:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Name disambiguation style

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there,

I notice you made a change to the Magnus Magnusson (disambiguation) page; I left part of it in, though I partly reverted your change to the line "The name may also refer to:", as it somewhat moved away from the MOSDAB guidance on names. (I appreciate that my version veers slightly as well, but in that case it's due to the list including a similar but not exact match.) All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK thank you for letting me know. -- roleplayer 11:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are you trying to delete my page? Fat Boy Complex...I said its backed by many things and that this is my first post...I will be uploading links and quotes from books later...

Please dude, take it easy

-M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus MM (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the link I provided for you on the page itself. In case you can't find it, here it is: Original research. Basically, what you've posted is original research with no back-up whatsoever in terms of references, reliable sources or verifiability. -- roleplayer 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Taj Pharmaceuticals india

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for fixing the deletion tag on the above page, I now know how to do that myself! I knew it was posible! -- roleplayer 23:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure 8-) ttonyb (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rachel Roxx

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Roleplayer, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rachel Roxx, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I can't say this would survive AFD, but it does just sneak through A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Courcelles 10:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no problem: I didn't originally tag it, I restored the tag after the user who created the article removed it. -- roleplayer 11:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Roy

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I saw that the user kept removing the prod template from the above article, but I didn't notice that it was a blp prod. So I took it to afd. Sorry about that, I probably should have just reverted back to the blp prod tag. I've removed it now because I've started a discussion at afd, (and that'll probably get it deleted quicker anyway). -- roleplayer 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPprod

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Roleplayer, I hope you don't mind, but I've removed your BLPprod from Thordis Brandt as the article has an IMDB link. During the last RFC I tried unsuccessfully to get the sticky prod process broadened from unsourced to ignore Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIN and Utube "sources", and IMDB is usually reckoned better than those, at least for screen credits. If the article had been unsourced when you tagged it then an IMDB link would not have been enough to justify removal of the tag, but as it was there when you tagged it then it doesn't qualify for a BLPprod. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC),

Well now I know! I had been led to understand that IMDb is fairly unreliable. Thank you for letting me know. -- roleplayer 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Fairly unreliable is the sort of description I've seen of it. Hence it wouldn't be enough to remove a tag if it was added after a BLPprod was applied, but it is enough to prevent a tag being applied in the first place. I think in IMDB's case the screen credit info or parts of it are reliably sourced but some of the biographic info is no more reliable than we are. ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

minchumoon

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hello sir please correction my article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minchumoon (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roleplayer/Archive13&oldid=1140190629"