User talk:AlexaxelA



Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

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
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

You might also find these policies and guidelines useful:
 * What do we mean if we say that you might have a Conflict of Interest?
 * What do we mean by Neutral Point of View?
 * What sources are counted as reliable?
 * What makes the subject of an article notable?
 * Why was my page deleted?
 * An essay containging a List of bad article ideas

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Getting the articles just right can be tricky - but there are lots of people to ask!

If you have any questions, just click on the Contact Me link after my signature at the end of this section. Alternatively, check out Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question.

By the way, when you are writing on a discussion page (or someone's talk page), it is considered good manners to sign your comment... to do this, just add  at the end of your comment. That will put your user name and the date/time at the end (or you can click on the  icon when you are editing. Never sign on an article page - only on a discussion page.

I am now going to sign this message with my signature, by adding  here:  --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent AfD comments
I apologise if I seem to have been having a go at you. However, although I understand the point you made about an obscure baseball player who only played professionally for one game, the fact remains that this baseball player will almost certainly have received some coverage from newspapers etc, which would be more substantial than just "abc played in xyz position in the game last night between team-1 and team-2".

Shane Dawson does not have significant coverage in newspapers and the like. I found 3 (I think) mentions at The Independent and elsewhere which basically said "Shane Dawson was the xth most viewed video last week" - and that was it! This is not significant coverage of him. If that's all there is, then in 5 years time, he'll be as obscure as the baseball player you used as a hypothetical example.

There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia about obscure people who hardly anyone else has heard of. If they do not have significant coverage in reliable sources, I am quite happy for them to be deleted (this includes a couple of articles which I originally created where there is perhaps one or two very small mentions in sources). If I come across them, I will quite happily nominate them myself!

However, before I nominate any article for deletion, the first thing I do is to look for sources myself. I start with Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books, as these tend to return hits at reliable sources (although not all these sources are what Wikipedia counts as reliable). If I can't find any, then I look at Google Web Search, because some reliable sources of information can be found there.

If you look at my history, you will see several articles which I have added sources to, preventing them being unsourced, and hence lessening the risk of them being deleted. I am anot a deletionist - I believe that if reliable sources of information can be found, the article should be kept, no matter how obscure the subject!

Just because someone gets a lot of YouTube hits or Google hits, this does not make them ipso facto notable as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Google hits obviously help - but only if the hits are from reliable sources!

As I said, I am sorry if you felt that I was having a go at you - I just wanted to explain my take on it (and the invitation to open a request for comments about the notability guidelines was not being sarcastic, but explaining how you could go about changing the guidelines!)

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hadley v. Baxendale
Hey...I appreciate your attempt to improve the article but I disagree with what you did with the facts section. What you put in the facts section is not easy to read and does not appear to be written in normal, modern English. (It looks like you just quoted directly out of the judicial opinion which, as you know, was from the 1800's.) I also don't think that the level of detail of the facts (e.g. that the clerk was involved, who the trial judge was, where the original trial was conducted, etc.) is necessary. It just complicates it. I'm going to put it back to the way it was. Lawyer2b (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)