User talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2013/August

Category:Current members of the Cabinet of Puerto Rico
Category:Current members of the Cabinet of Puerto Rico, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. (Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Les Pendleton scared away a new editor.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Removing content without reference at List of Governors of Puerto Rico
I highly encourage you to cease removing content from Wikipedia simply because no references have been provided to back it up. You see, you removed the content that specified the political affiliation of the Governors of Puerto Rico simply because it was unreferenced when such content could have been verified easily by a simple Google search. You need to understand that while WP:BLP and WP:V are policies, they don't have to be followed at all times. Your behavior can be considered disruptive as this is not the first time that you do such a thing and there are several options to avoid this, such as: adding the cn template like you did, posting on the corresponding talk page, contacting the editor that added such content, or using common sense. Just because something is not referenced it doesn't mean that it's not truth, as the case mentioned previously has proven. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahnoneemoos, while I understand your concern, I disagree with your categorization that my behaviour is disruptive. I am willing to work with you if you are willing to respect my boundaries. From the other end, let me just say that I 've been around long enough to know that WP:IAR can be played with to satisfy anyone's self interests but it is generally not very conductive to consensus, even less so to compromise. (Hopefully you care about those two.) That said, I stand by each of my edits. BTW, I admire your capable knowledge of Wikipedia and also admire your contributions, particularly your expertise in the Puerto Rican political arena, and would like to use this opportunity to thank you for those contributions. That said, if you think I have violated any policies, you are always free to follow the additional Wikipedia channels available to you: perhaps you can garnish enough support to change my view, but for now I see no reason to modify my practices. As for you statement "Just because something is not referenced it doesn't mean that it's not truth", according to policy (and I quote verbatim and all emphasis is Wikipedia's) "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it....This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth." Regards.  My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Mercy, please read again the policy: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." That does NOT translate to: "editors must provide a citation when adding content to Wikipedia". It means that, "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Nowhere does it say in the policy that all content added must be referenced. There is a huge difference between something being "verifiable through a reliable source" and referenced. Per WP:V, readers may have different ways to verify whether such information is verifiable: verifiability does not have to be provided directly by Wikipedia. Per WP:V again, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The policy does NOT state that content that is not referenced must be removed—only content that is not verifiable must be removed. Do you understand the difference now? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me give you an example so that you can understand it better: is stating that Luis Fortuño is Republican verifiable? Yes, because you can do a simple search on Google, or visit Fortuño's biography on Wikipedia, to verify such claim. Now, if I state that Fortuño is Martian, there is no way to verify that. If I do a search in Google I can't come up with anything, if I look into bibliographies I can't either. Once again, you are confusing the term, "referenced" with "verifiable". &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If what you are saying was correct, there wouldn't be a need for a template and there wouldn't be a need for the millions of citations that today exist throughout Wikipedia articles. But to give a boost to your side, here is one example of content added but which does not need to be referenced (i.e., an uncited statement I would agree with you does not need a citation yet still complies with WP:V): "The sky is blue."  This is one statement that even though it is verifiable, it does not need a reliable source for inclusion.  In any event, thanks for providing the references to the US party affiliation of ELA governors for, among other things, I have myself learned something I did not know and I owe that to you. Regards, My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Brackets on 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=568244705 your edit] to 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * | Sonia Pacheco

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jason Roberts concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jason Roberts, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

San Patricio Plaza AfD
If the article is kept, great. But I have to take issue with your assertion that lack of RS does not merit deletion. If RS cannot be established (and thanks to your work, it appears they have in this case), then GNG is not satisfied, and yes, i believe that means the article should be deleted. I've been nominating a lot of articles for deletion, and may have made some mistakes. There is a lot of cleanup work to do here because people with promotional agendas (either self- or otherwise) make a lot of crap articles that have no place in an encyclopedia. Sometimes AfD is the only thing that gets attention, and I can also cite a number of instances where an article was markedly improved because someone more proficient than myself was spurred to do some research and add to the article. In my view, there is a substantial bit of upside and a relatively small downside to nominating an article that seems like it might skirt GNG to be deleted. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully understand your tactic but I believe it would be much much better if you simply notify the WikiProject working on the article first before nominating it for deletion. In this case, would you have notified WikiProject Puerto Rico we would have simply provided the reliable sources and improved the article. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (Not convinced that any of those are RS now, after looking at their "about" pages.)
 * why would that be better? many wikiprojects are inactive. I have posted on numerous wikiproject pages in the past, with little to show for it. Why should i delay the potential deletion of a potentially non-notable article by who knows how many days in order to ping a wikiproject that is, in my experience, likely to be inactive anyway? you get notified regardless. sending it to AfD means less time is wasted. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 08:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Err, all those RS are reliable in the same way that CNN, BBC News, Fox News, and many others are. For example, El Nuevo Día and El Vocero are members of the Associated Press, Reuters, and EFE. In the case of WikiProject Puerto Rico, that project is quite active and it's the reason why we are participating in the AfD because we got notified through our article alerts. The problem with your tactic is that it is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE which can lead to a permanent block or ban; evenmoreso after you have publicly admitted so. There are other options, Wikipedia is not perfect and there is no rush to delete an article simply because it lacks reliable sources or because it is written like an ad. My advise to you would be to use the unreferenced and the advert templates first and leave them up for at least six months. If nothing changes then contact a WikiProject. If none of that works then you can invoke a WP:PROD. If that fails then use the WP:AFD mechanism. But jumping directly to an AfD is disruptive behavior and you are not the first person to use such tactic, nor might be the first person to be banned permanently for using it. I'm trying to give you good advise since you are doing all this in good faith, but if you continue down that path you will end up pissing off a lot of people which will ultimately lead to a public request to ban you off Wikipedia. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of News Is My Business


A tag has been placed on News Is My Business requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Fiddle  Faddle  15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)