User talk:ColtsPop

Speedy deletion nomination of Heaven's Half Acre (archaeological site)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Heaven's Half Acre (archaeological site) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Smjg (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alabama Archaeological Society


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Alabama Archaeological Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 15:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alabama Archaeological Society


A tag has been placed on Alabama Archaeological Society, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. MereTechnicality (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alabama Archaeological Society


A tag has been placed on Alabama Archaeological Society, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. RA 0808 talkcontribs 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  19:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing and adding references to your own work
Hello, Mjtcole. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Quad Site (archaeological site), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Quad Site (archaeological site), you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have performed research and published on this subject before. However, I am not associated with it in any way and am not being paid. Should I remove references to my work?

I apologize for the disruptive editing. I am learning. Regarding COI, would you mind sharing a little more specific concerns? Should I remove references to my work?

Thanks for your comments. I have performed research and published on this subject before. However, I am not associated with it in any way, was not paid for my research or publication (scientific journal) and am not being paid. Should I remove references to my work? Would you please provide a suggested approach?````


 * Hi ColtsPop, I'm not sure what happened but I don't have any notifications of you "pinging" me here - I was notified when another editor pinged me at the teahouse. I'm not sure if that is because you changed your username? {Ah, and now I see that Jim has explained why below, thanks !) Anyway, I have removed the COI notice from the page given that you have explained your connection to the topic. (Note, even though you have done that and have changed your username, you should still avoid linking to your own work - if you think something you have written is a useful reference, it is better to suggest it on the talk page to avoid the perception of COI).
 * The "essay like" maintenance tag I think should remain because of the style in which the article is written - there is a bit of work to be done to make it more "encyclopaedic" for want of a better word. My suggestion would be to find some "good articles" on similar topics and see how they are written and formatted to get some ideas of expectations here. Also, don't see the maintenance tag necessarily as a huge negative - it is hoped that it might attract other editors who work on particular issues to come and help out. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * thank you Melcous, you and Jim are teaching me a lot!ColtsPop (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

About that COI notice
I didn't add the COI notice, did. You should not remove wp:Template messages/Cleanup tags/wp:templates unless the issue has been resolved. I would think that someone who might have a COI shouldn't remove a COI tag. As how to disclose, one generally adds such a notice to your user page and to the talk page of the article(s) you would be editing that you have a COI with. Here is how to WP:DISCLOSE.

I don't know if you would be a COI unless you are attempting to promote your own writing. But given that someone thinks you are a COI, you might want to disclose. See wp:user pages as to what is allowed and disallowed. There is a fair amount of gray area in between. You can add stuff about your background, links to and/or names of articles and papers. You might also be able to add wp:images if someone doesn't find them objectionable for various reasons. You must own the copyright or be able to obtain a release per CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

Please remember, that the article should be written for the layperson. Any uncommon words should be linked to or defined. See wp:linking and wp:external links for how-to.
 * One link to US Fish and Game is a wp:redlink. Should it link to United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
 * fluted points and channel flakes- are these some Clovis artifact? Perhaps a link to Clovis culture?

If you have questions about editing, I would recommend asking at the wp:teahouse Hope this helps! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This does help. Thank you very much. Will not delete until things are settled. Can I get semi-protection it the meantime? I don't think I have a COI, but have asked for the administrator to clarify why they thought so. Thanks for the links to Clovis and United States Fish and Wildlife Service - I am surprised you knew Clovis and fluted points coalesced!
 * Well, they were in the same paragraph. But I do have a bit of fascination with the Clovis culture.
 * I would recommend adding a bit to your user page: user:Mjtcole and indicate your interest in the area. See wp:user pages. You are known as a wp:single purpose account (SPA) which typically raises red flags.
 * What do you mean by protection? wp:RfPP is typically reserved for wp:edit warring or vandalized pages. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stuff
See wp:talk page guidelines, Help:Using talk pages, and wp:user pages. To notify or wp:ping someone, just adding an "@" before their username does not notify them. The main trick is to add a link, user:Jim1138 or ping {{yo|Jim1138} or , an optional message and sign your name with four tildes "~" such as: Stay off my talk page! ~ You need to save the ping and four tildes at the same time with one "Save change" or it probably won't work. I hope I won't see that example message! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of David L. DeJarnette for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David L. DeJarnette 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/David L. DeJarnette 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 notice from the top of the article. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New article
Hi again ColtsPop, I just had a quick look at the article you created - David L. DeJarnette, well done. I added some sections to the article which makes it easier to read (see WP:SECT) but have a couple of questions for you. The second and third paragraphs that are currently under "early life and education" obviously don't fit there, but it is not immediately clear to me how these fit into a biography of DeJarnette - are you able to edit to make this clearer? Also, I added a "citation needed" tag to the statement that DeJarnette's work "became legendary" - this is a point of view statement and as such it would need to be referenced to someone who said it, otherwise it should probably be removed. I hope that is helpful - I'm glad your early experience of having a few articles not accepted and getting some notices about COI editing hasn't put you off from contributing to the project and hope you will continue to add articles that are missing in your field of interest/expertise. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your comments on David L. DeJarnette. DeJarnette became legendary for being a raging asshole...but I didn't want to say that in the article. I have a reference I can add that if the reader checks, will give them enough information to bring them to that conclusion ;-). Also, thank for your comments on the other articles.  I learned very quickly that it is best to have everything ready to go and copy it into a template rather than try to recreate the wheel.  Otherwise, the article gets nominated for deletion before I can complete it.  Live and learn!  I love writing, so I'll just keep plugging along, one or two per week as I have time.````
 * Hey, thanks for making those changes - you'll see I've just made a minor edit to the headings - only the first word (and any proper nouns) should be capitalised according to the Manual of style. However, my point about the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs under Early life and career is that they don't mention DeJarnette, and to a reader not familiar with the topic (like me!) it is not clear what they have to do with him! The article is a biography of him, so it needs to be made clear why that information is being included in it or again, if it belongs in that article at all. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ColtsPop, I got your message. To reassure you, the wiki article has definitely been published and is live and find-able (and linked from numbers of other articles - many of which I see you have done). The issue you are referring to is apparently with the search engine. I'm certainly no expert in this area, but there are two things I am aware of in play (and possibly many more that I'm not aware of!) One is that google results are based on their algorithm PageRank which tends to favour older pages - so it may be that it will take some time for it to show up earlier in google searches. The other is that often google searches are cached rather than done repeatedly (see here - not the same issue but includes a good explanation of caching). Whether there is anything you can do about that is something I really know nothing about. I would personally suggest waiting a couple of weeks and seeing if things change, as they may well do. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)