User talk:Ckenn18

Nomination of Arlene Zelina for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arlene Zelina is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Arlene Zelina until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Satellizer talk  contribs 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reversions
I noticed that you reverted back to your version. I'd really like to ask that you not do this again because right now it's doing more harm than good. The page comes across as incredibly promotional, to the point where it'd probably have been able to have been speedied as such. I outlined the sources on the deletion page as to why each one is unusable, so I recommend reading over the list. I also recommend that you look over WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:TRIVIAL to see the reasoning behind a lot of the edits. A long article with a lot of links does not actually help make the article seem more notable. It also doesn't matter if she's performed in places that other artists have performed, as notability is not inherited by her performing or being otherwise associated with notable persons. (WP:NOTINHERITED) She could be called "the next Justin Bieber", but that doesn't really mean anything unless there are a lot of in-depth articles by multiple reliable sources to back all of that up. So far there aren't, as most of the sources are either trivial or all repeat the same things. It's really not helping the article to clog it up with sources that have already been removed as unreliable or otherwise unusable. It's only going to backfire on the article, as many users will see it and be less likely to want to keep it because they think it's an advertisement for the singer.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again
Hi Ckenn18

I can see you're interested in the Wikipedia page (or "article") about Arlene Zelina. You can continue to make changes (or "edit") the article, but there are some rules you should follow. The Herald Sun is an example of a reliable source about living people, for example. Can you find any more newspaper articles about her?
 * Wikipedia has very strict rules about "articles" about living people
 * Wikipedia articles have to use information from sources of information that are reliable
 * Wikipedia is not a place to promote a person

I also notice that you removed the text in this article's discussion about whether it should be included in Wikipedia. While it may have not been your intention, that's not going to make it go away.

Let me know if you have any questions at all. Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

About Arlene Zelina again
Hi Ckenn18.

The problem with the article is that she just hasn't received the coverage in reliable sources yet.

I'll give you an example. I'm not sure whether you are familiar with Melbourne, but right next to Hoppers Crossing - where Arlene is from - is the suburb of Werribee. A young man from Werribee about Arlene's age is an Australian Rules Football player called Majak Daw. He hasn't even played a senior game yet, but he has significant media coverage. (I saw him on the front cover of the Herald Sun three times in 2012. That isn't mentioned in the article, because I haven't got a source for it.)

To meet the "notability" requirements for a person, they don't need to have appeared on the front page of a newspaper at all. As a guide they have to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That just hasn't happened, yet.

--Shirt58 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop
Hi. I notice you have been reviewing drafts in the articles for creation queue, but many of your reviews are too hasty and not appropriate for the individual drafts. Please stop doing that, and gain a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines before reviewing more articles. In addition, please note that reviewing drafts en-masse will not make your article reviewed more quickly, so it's just unhelpful in general. wctaiwan (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * I'm seconding all these stop requests. You're just not doing it right, and you're doing it way to fast at some points. If you go over 1 decline every 5 minutes, stop and take a look at what you're doing.


 * I'm also here to make an informal request that you refrain from making any AfC judgement without posting on the talkpage of one of the more experienced AfCers or coming to our IRC help channel and asking first. If you do not voluntarily heed this request, you may be subject to a community placed topic ban from reviewing any AfC.  gwickwire  talk editing 17:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And i'll third the above comments. I've been going through your AfC reviews, and apart from alot of them being off-mark, by copy/pasting a pre-written template into each page, you are removing specific coding from the template which allows us to track submissions.
 * Please, please, please stop reviewing articles until you have seeked assistance from more experienced editors because at present, your creating more work. - Happysailor  (Talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I will make that a fourth. You rejected an article about Dr. Olive R Di Pietro that had eight citations in the first paragraph to such reliable sources as The New York Times, The Today Show, CNN, and the South Florida Sun Sentinel, a newspaper with a circulation of 230,000 daily. Meanwhile I see extensive entries on living people in Miami, like Erni Vales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erni_Vales with the only sources a Facebook page and his own web site. Whoever approved that didn't look at the rules. You didn't look at the entry on Dr. Di Pietro, who has thousands of Google mentions.

Beauhanks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Arlene Zelina
Since this article was deleted after Articles for deletion/Arlene Zelina you cannot just re-create it - it will be speedy-deleted under WP:CSD repost of deleted material. If you want to pursue it, first read the AfD carefully, and consider whether you can find references that overcome the problems raised there. More references of the same type will not help. Check out WP:MUSICBIO and WP:42. If you think you can, make a draft in your user space - go to Help:Userspace draft and fill in your title. When it is ready, approach user, the admin who closed the AfD, and ask her for permission to post the article. If she does not agree, you can go to WP:Deletion review, giving a link to your draft. But think hard about notability first, because just posting the same stuff again will simply waste time. JohnCD (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

about your block
In case you didn't see it, the administrator who blocked you wrote "indefinite - until editor recognises the reasons he/she was blocked and agrees to refrain from such action in the future and stay away from AFC" so if you want to be unblocked, you'll probably have to agree to that. Cheers! — rybec   23:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)