User talk:Alexstro

Speedy deletion nomination of Van Hipp, Jr.


A tag has been placed on Van Hipp, Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. 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 belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see 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 that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pichpich (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

New articles
Hi Alexstro and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions on chairmen of the SC GOP. However I would advise you to slow down a little bit and take a little more time on each article. My main concern is that these articles are all lacking references. This is a serious issue for any article (since all content on Wikipedia must be attributed to a reliable source) but it's absolutely critical for biographies of living people. Biographies of living people that do not have references can be (and routinely are) deleted 10 days after the problem has been identified. Note also that referencing does not mean copying and copyright violations (such as the one above) are deleted on sight. Let me know if I can be of any help. I did try to add relevant categories for these articles but I lack expertise on the subject. Best, Pichpich (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George G. Graham


The article George G. Graham has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Chad Connelly
I've warned and will keep a watch on the article in the near future. What he's doing is clearly wrong but there's also something wrong with the article. To be blunt, it's a puff piece and it's pretty far from the neutral tone that it should have. To a certain extent, this invites the sort of vandalism it currently faces. A phrase like "is an organization committed to educating Americans about their true history, and inspiring them to get involved and make a difference" is not acceptable and isn't much more acceptable "is an organization that spends money but in the end doesn't do much". A related issue is that the article is poorly referenced and content in biographies of living people which is not supported by reliable, third-party sources can and in many cases should be removed. Referencing an article is policy but it has other benefits: it forces out the puffery and it makes it harder for vandals to distort the content. In summary, let me take care of Knarfxii, but please do some work on the Chad Connelly article. Pichpich (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that the above paragraph might seem unnecessarily curt and give the impression that a puffed-up article is as bad as a defamatory article. Obviously, that's not what I meant. You noted that some of the personal stuff might be harder to source and I agree but I think it's a sign that this information has no place on Wikipedia. Chad Connelly has a website and if people want to know the names of his grandkids or want to read a rosier version of his life story or get a sense of his personality, that's where they should go. That's not what we do here and if we stick to presenting cold facts supported by objective third-parties, we'll get closer to the ideal Wikipedia article for a local politician. If you want to work on this, I'll be happy to help in various ways and in particular with formatting of references which can be a bit complicated at first. Best, Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and trimmed down the article. Much of it was useless anyway since it was a copyright violation of his autobiography. Completely innocuous things like the name of his wife, his religious beliefs and his city of residence can safely be referenced to his autobiography. The rest should be referenced to third party sources and I'm afraid those are not easy to find. Again, let me know if I can be of assistance. Pichpich (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)