User talk:DanHamilton1998

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bill Hillmann (November 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bill Hillmann and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bill Hillmann has been accepted
 Bill Hillmann, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DanHamilton1998. Thank you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 02:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia
You seem to be new to Wikipedia, so welcome! I thought I'd take the time to explain how things work around here. First, a little bit about how the deletion process works. The first step is someone discovering an article that they don't think belongs in the encyclopedia, for a multitude of reasons. In this case, it is the notability guideline for people. Sometimes the article falls under the speedy deletion criteria, which, as the name suggests, allow pages to be deleted quickly. Bill Hillmann didn't fall under those criteria, so I won't discuss them here. Next in line is the proposed deletion, where an editor says, "This doesn't belong" and the article gets deleted if no one disagrees. proposed Bill Hillmann for deletion under that process, but you disagreed, so that process was ended. SwisterTwister still thought that the article did not belong in Wikipedia, so he brought it to Articles for Deletion, where any member of the community can weigh in on the article. As you have been told before, you should talk about content, when discussing deletion. The Articles for Deletion process works to gather consensus about what should be done, which is what the community at large thinks about the article. Determining consensus is not just tallying the numerical count of Supports and Opposes, or Keeps and Deletes. It also includes weighing each side's arguments against each other and against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I should note that you shouldn't "!vote" on the same discussion more than once, but you are welcome to add more information to your existing comment. The discussion is usually held for one week, but can be relisted if consensus is not clear. At the end of the discussion, an administrator or other experienced editor will formally close the discussion.

As for some of the other issues you brought up in your Articles for Deletion comments, Wikipedia is built by a diverse group of editors working to build an encyclopedia. There is no group of editors trying to harm the encyclopedia or get revenge against you. If you really feel like there is a legitimate conduct issue, you should talk to the people involved at their talk pages. In most cases, this isn't necessary as conduct issues often get solved when the underlying content issues are taken care of.

If you have any questions, you can always ask me at my talk page or at the Teahouse if I'm not around. Happy editing! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance templates
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Bill Hillmann. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bill Hillmann, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your reference is incorrectly formatted and does NOT support the content, you need a source that expressly says he has run more 300 times. Theroadislong (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The reference is incorrectly formatted as an external link, the source is a primary source written by Hillmann himself, you need a reliable secondary source to back up this puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * TheRoadIsLong you sure know how to make a road long. I have cited Hillmann's personal blog where he makes the statement over 300. It is coo-berated by the Chicago Tribune RedEye blog which published the over 200 runs in one summer post. It's puffy but it's proven. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect Theroadislong. The article is from a legitimate article. The Chicago Tribune RedEye is a major news outlet. Don't end up like other editors being scolded by higher ranking editors.


 * Hi DanHamilton1998. I saw this disucsison on my watchlist and have to say I tend to agree with on this. The RedEye may be a major news outlet, but the article is still written by Hillmann himself and therefore basically subject to WP:BLPSELFPUB. It would be much better to have this kind of claim supported by a independent secondary source with no connection to Hillmann. Perhaps you are aware of another source which can be used to supplement the one from the RedEye?
 * Finally, just for reference there are no higher ranking editors on Wikipedia. Some editors, such as administrators, have been granted special user rights by the community to allow them to act on the community's behalf in certain cases, but for the most part we are all the same rank. Theroadislong is, however, a very experienced editor who has made lots of positive contributions to Wikipedia over the years. That does not mean have has any special rights over you, but it might mean there is some basis to his concerns about the source that should not be written off so quickly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this I have three sources which can be used as evidence. Published on his blog is a photo of the cover of the regional newspaper in Pamplona called Diario de Navarra, for some reason it didn't not go up online. that is a major 250,000 circulation daily newspaper in Spain. This is a news outlet in Spain who did a story on Hillmann earlier in the summer before he hit 200 runs: this is a similar article done around the same time he surpassed 100 runs before he got to 200 for the summer:


 * Is this enough evidence? The other problem with all of this is that guinness book of world records wasn't there to record this so all of these articles are just taking Hillmann's word for it. Thank you and this is my first article. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again. DanHamilton1998. A few general suggestions to better help you edit articles and post on talk pages.
 * Please don't embed external links into the article content per WP:CS and WP:EL. Adding a link like this to the article is not acceptable for various reasons. If your intent is to add a citation, then please add it as an inline citation; if you're intent is to add it as an external link, then please follow the instructions WP:ELCITE. However, the embedded link style is fine for talk pages, etc. since using ref tags actually makes thing more complicated because all references ending up showing up at the very bottom of the page by default which makes them sometimes hard to find. On a talk page with many posts, it actual link your citing can end up in completely different spot than where you're discussing it.
 * Please try to avoid adding bare urls as citations. Follow the instructions in WP:CITEHOW and WP:REFB for examples on how to properly format citations. Bare urls are problematic because of link rot and should be avoided.
 * It's OK for you to use non-English sources per WP:NOENG. In such cases, it's helpful to provide a translation of the relevant content you're citing to help others verify the source meets WP:RSCONTEXT and is reliable.
 * When posting on talk pages, try to follow WP:TPG. It's not such a big deal on your user talk page, but can make a difference on an article talk page or a noticeboard where multiple editors are posting.
 * Try not to be an WP:SPA. It's OK to focus on a single article or genre of articles, but you'll learn so much more about Wikipedia and how it works by exploring other articles and trying to improve them as well. Sometimes the best way to learn is to see how many different editors edit.
 * As for these particular sources, let's ping and see what he has to say. Theroadislong is more experienced at editing than me, so he probably can provide some valuable input. -- 03:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok where should I put the translation from Spanish? I can translate the lines here if you'd like. Here is the text at the top of the article: "The American Bill Hillmann, regular visitor of the San Fermin Festival (AKA The Running of the Bulls in Pamplona), has surpassed the two hundreds Bull Run spectacles in a trip across the country and he will write a memoir about it." Here is the Big Text Headline. "The Man of the 200 Bull Runs." This is clear evidence. The other ones can be easily copy and pasted into google translate. I am trying to work through this article once it is safe and secure I plan to start writing articles about other notable bull runners American British Spanish and French. This is an under represented culture on Wikipedia and one that gets world wide attention. I am trying my best with the cites but it is very difficult for me. I will continue to do my best. But I know I have to watch this article closely because several editors are trying to delete it for unjust reasons. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're using citation templates, then there is a  parameter which can be added to most templates. See Template:Cite news and Template:Cite news for more details. The parameter should work with any of the citation templates. If you're not using citation templates, then you'll have to manually add the quote material in between the ref tags. Here are examples of both methods:
 * with Citation template:  which will look like as follows in the references section:


 * with no template:  which will look like as follows in the references section:
 * with no template:  which will look like as follows in the references section:


 * Schmoe, Joe (2016-11-22). "Example". Newspaper name (in Spanish). Retrieved 2016-11-22. "Original text (tr. Translation)"
 * Practice in your sandbox until you get it the way you like it and then just copy-and-paste it into the relevant location within the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Just found out theroadislong is trashing my article talk page with nasty language and attitude is that your prerogative too Marchjuly? Be careful because I will drag everybody into this and make every-bodies life miserable until the right thing happens. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * . It is not your article or you article talk page. You do not have any ownership rights to any content you add to Wikipedia as explained in WP:OWN. If you try to assert ownership rights over a particular article, an administrator will intervene and will likely block your account from editing. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which editors a expected to work together in a civil manner to try and improve articles. Sometimes content-related discussions can get heated, but if you lose your cool and start commenting on contributors instead of content and try to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, you will end up at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents which will likely also result in your account being blocked. If you have problems with another editor, try to resolve them per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or simply just move on to something else. The choice is yours to make, so hopefully you choose to be a productive editor and help contribute to building the encyclopedia and not be an angry mastodon. Wikipedia is not about winning and those that you try to do so often find themselves on the outside looking in. I am not trying to be snarky, just trying to let you know that the Wikipedia community is willing to assume good faith, but has very little tolerance for this type of approach to editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha so you are threatening me now and calling me an "angry mastodon!" So under your logic you should be blocked immediately! You and your friend will lose this one. All I meant by calling it my article is that I am the one who introduced the article. So wiki editors please use Marchjuly's logic and block him. And look at what Theroadislong posted on the article talk page, under Marchjuly's logic he should be blocked too. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, is everything going okay in here? I noticed that you're telling someone that their logic should get them blocked immediately, but you're antagonizing this editor by saying, "You and your friend will lose this one". Why are you responding to other editors in this manner?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah you saw what I just went through with a 14 day attempt to block my first article. The incredible amount of evidence to prove notability was acknowledged by every unbiased editor. Did you not read Marchjuly's threats? Them calling me an angry mastodon? Are you picking sides here? They brought up some good points in their first edits but I came back with plenty of factual proof and clearly proved them wrong. Now I am finding them making nasty comments on the article page. Then marchjuly actually called me a name! please look at this professionally I noticed you take sides immediately with the earlier problem with swistatwista who was eventually proven wrong and scolded, so please be professional here this time around. I'm the only one who's been threatened in this thread and called a name. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Calm down, dude. Where are these threats and nasty comments you're talking about? Can you provide me with diffs, please?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick note as you're a new contributor: "Diff" is shorthand for the page that shows the difference between two edits. To get to this page, go to any page's history and click the "prev" link next to an edit. More instructions are at Help:Diff -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Meters (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough already. You were given a level 3 warning about attacking editors earlier. You were taken to ANI and when it closed less than 24 hours ago you were "advised to keep cool and calm". And yet here you are again. Calling another editor a liar is a personal attack. Misrepresenting the facts when you do so is even worse. When User:Theroadislong made that talk page comment  the only source in the article about the number of times he had run with the bulls was indeed a personal statement that he had run with the bulls 35 times. Calling an editor a liar is completely unacceptable. I agree that the sources were very weak at the time.Meters (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi DanHamilton1998: I'd seen the section about you and the article at AN/I and then someone asked me to offer you help if I could, and I wound up polishing up the article a bit, because that's what I mainly do on Wikipedia :-) My assessment at this point, for what it's worth, is that we have a nicely referenced article on the various things he's done, that he's undeniably notable and the article is thus safe from deletion (that was also the decision at the AfD discussion), but that it's a pity there's almost no biographical information in the article, and the one detail I see (in a source title) I am very reluctant to include; I've made a post on the article talk page in the hope that other editors, including you, can help improve the article in this respect, but if tehre's nothing published, that's the way it is. I haven't looked at the earlier history of the article, but looking at the talk page, this page, and the AfD, I see a lot of editors trying to help you and trying to help with the article, and I believe, as I say, that we've wound up with something good as a result. I'd say you can now go ahead and start another bull runner's article with confidence, providing there are several sources about the person.

I found a lot of useful sources in the Further Reading section, and I saw someone else had commented on that, too. I see someone saying you at one point had in-line links and bare links, and I see someone above laying out for you how to do a reference including a quotation. I think you've been flummoxed by the task of making footnotes here, and I hope you now have a handle on it. It can be a lot to digest in a short time, and I personally find the citation templates add more complication; a lot of the people who prefer them are using an automated tool to generate them from a URL, and don't realize how fiddly they can be to type out (I've been here long enough that I've pretty much memorized the template parameters). Keep in mind a few general guidelines. First, in-line links are to be avoided because the reader can't see what they are without clicking on them. Second, having sources is far more important than formatting them beautifully; sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and support the specifics in the article, and they allow a reader to go and look for more information. If you just slop the bare URL in a footnote and leave it that way, eventually some "wiki-gnome" will come along and fix it up, although they may grumble at you, especially if you continue doing it that way after you've been here a while ( like some I could name ). But third, the reasons for fully identifying the reference are, in order of importance: (a) so the reader knows what it is, and when it was published, without having to click on it; (b) for ease of recovery if the link gets moved or taken down ("link-rot"); (c) because Wikipedia is publication, but we do it all ourselves here; there is no staff to format the text so it looks professional. One obvious hint: use the preview button. Another that is more personal: I notice you have been using the visual editor. I don't recommend that. It's better than it was, but it is still a terrible piece of software, and it makes adding references more complicated, not less, and is also nasty to use when adding or editing templates of any kind (and our articles use more and more templates, not just for citations, because if you can master them, they make it a lot easier to make the output professional in appearance; for example, I added the 5 km within a metric-imperial conversion template). The examples you were given above about how to include quotes, for example, assumed you were using the text editor.

To bring this massive unsolicited screed to an end: I don't see many people attacking you, but I think I see where you get the idea you're being attacked. The "mastadons" thing is a link to a page about how certain kinds of behavior are problematic in a massive crowd-sourced project; but the link-name was probably off-putting, and that comment included so many links to policy and advice pages that that may in itself have been daunting. Please realize that that editor was trying to help you by giving the context for what they said. And that similarly in the AfD and on the article talk page, people have (for the most part—someone did nominate the article for deletion) been trying to discuss why it looked less notable than it actually is, and how to improve it. It may help if I point out that some Wikipedia editors commonly note a problem (e.g.: many useful sources are in Further Reading rather than footnotes), while others will commonly just dive into the article and start editing it to fix anything they see (e.g.: me, and I hope you don't terribly mind). Both are trying to help, and indeed the way this place works surprisingly well is that we work together and it gets done better than if one or two people had worked on the article alone. I'm sorry the article got PROD'ded and then AfD'ed, and I'm sorry you have felt attacked, but ... here we are with a fine article, I believe. Feel free to ask me any questions, or ask again at the Teahouse, where as I think you've seen, they have especially nice editors who are especially good at explaining things. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yngvadottir, I can now see that I over reacted to things and misunderstood the mastodon comment. I also like the new edits to the article they are accurate for the most part. I am only tweaking them for clarity and accuracy. I can see that there are many editors working diligently on the article now and the work is good. Thanks. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Drafts
Hi DanHamilton1998. I see you're working on another draft article for Wikipedia on your userpage. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but it's possible that someone might mistake it for a user page which looks like an article. Did you know that every registered account user has a user sandbox where they can practice their edits and work on things such as drafts? There's link to yours at the very top of this page.

It's also possible to create a specific page called a userspace draft for article drafts as well. You can also add the Template:Userspace draft to the top of any drafts you're working on so that people can see that your work is not really an article just quite yet. You can also create drafts in the draft namespace. The main difference between a userspace draft and a draftspace draft seems to be that many editors will refrain from editing your userpages as a courtesy unless there is a serious policy based reason for doing so, but stuff in the draft space is generally considered something for community to edit and improve upon and guide the draft to article status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly, I am trying to put this article out there would love help improving it. I am really confused about how to propose the article for publication on Wikipedia. When I clickon my sandbox line at the top of my home page it has a Bill Hillmann redirect on it. I basically can't find my sandbox. Now in what I think is my sandbox is the new article about Ed Brown and I'm not sure how to get it to the proposal stage. I am lost in a maze of links. Thanks DanHamilton1998 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there are a couple of things you can do.
 * You can WP:MOVE the draft to the article namespace yourself. There's no "rule" which says that an article has to come from a draft, and quite a lot of articles skip the draft stage altogether. Before doing this, however, I think you should take a peek at Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Notability (people) if you're not familiar with those pages. Anything on Wikipedia can basically be edited by anyone else in the world and anytime for good or bad, but most experienced editors will leave user pages alone as a courtesy unless specifically asked to help out. These editors will, on the other hand, freely edit (sometimes in a major way) anything added to article namespace if they feel they can improve it to be in accordance with relevant polices and guidelines. Many will try to fix the article themselves, or tag it with maintenance templates to bring it to the attention of others. Some may feel that it the problems are so great that they cannot be fixed and decide to tag/nominate the article for deletion. If any of those things happen, just try to assume good faith, engage in civil discussion and follow proper process.
 * You can leave your draft at User:DanHamilton1998/sandbox and simply add Template:User sandbox to the top of the page. There will be a button which says "Submit your draft for review?" so all you need to do is click that when you're ready to go and your draft will be reviewed by a new article reviewer. If the reviewer feels the subject is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone to be written, they will move the article to the article namespace and handle all the necessary clean up. If not, they will decline the submission and offer suggestions on possible ways the draft can be improved. The big difference here is that the reviewer checks the draft for problems before it's added to the article namespace which may make its eventual entry a little smoother and give it a little more staying power.
 * Option 1 is typically what editors who are very experienced in creating articles choose because the have a fairly solid history of creating articles which are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. The community tends to trust their judgment and assumes they won't make any serious mistakes. Option 2 is often recommended for new editors who are less familiar with how Wikipedia works and might be adding content that really shouldn't be added at all. The community is willing to give these editors the benefit of the doubt, but will also watch their contributions a little more closely and step in if necessary. Regardless, neither option is a 100% guarantee against an article being flag for problems or tag/nominated for deletion, but at least with option 2 reviewers do offer advice on how sub-standard drafts can be improved and thus give them a better chance for avoiding deletion if they are ever upgraded to article status. If you're sort of caught in between 1 and 2, it might be best to play it safe and submit the draft for review. You can also ask for some more specific feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing. Editors in WikiProjects tend to be a little more familiar with articles that fall under their project's scope and may be able to provided more concrete suggestions on improvements.
 * Finally, regarding the redirect to Bill Hilmann, that was added the draft for the Hillman article was moved to the draft namespace. I don't think it's relevant any more so you can probably just remove it without worry. If you want to be 100% sure, just post something at User talk:Robert McClenon since he is the editor who created the redirect. Good luck -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 16)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:DanHamilton1998/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ed Brown (boxer) has been accepted
 Ed Brown (boxer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Knock it off
I'm willing to assume good faith as much as the next person, but if you continue to harass ST you will be blocked. Knock it off, leave them alone, and if you really want your boxing article back go to WP:DRV and request it be undeleted and returned to the draft space. We can only stick up for you so long before it becomes clear you're only here to pick fights. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Primefac - Did you mean to go back to deletion review or to Requests for Undeletion, or did you really mean the dispute resolution noticeboard? I assume that there was a typo, because you probably know that DRN is not for the re-hashing of deletion.  User:DanHamilton1998 - Go to Requests for Undeletion and get your article restored to user space.  User:DanHamilton1998 - Also, stop harassing User:SwisterTwister, and deliberately misspelling their user name doesn't help.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I meant DRV, thanks (I've fixed my statement above). WP:REFUND is only really for PRODs and other uncontested deletions. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As written, it is true that REFUND is for uncontested deletions; that is true. In my opinion, and I may address this, it should also be the place to request that deleted articles be made available for viewing by AFC reviewers or by fixing in draft space, or maybe the instructions for DRV need to clarify that that is also a valid purpose of DRV.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha! I picked this fight?! Do you not see the history between SwisterTwister and I I did not initiate this! DanHamilton1998 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said you picked the fight, but you're in it now and how you behave sets the tone for everything. The best way to "win" is to step back. The only thing you'll get by throwing mud is getting dirty, and most likely end up with a block from editing. As I said before, please just calm down; if ST has done something improper then it will be sorted out. Shouting from the rooftops won't change that (and may even pull the focus off of them). Primefac (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok fair enough but I can't find the Ed Brown (boxer) article now it's been erased from my sandbox and no link I post bring me to it. Thank you for your help. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an older copy at, but if you ask (nicely!) for to undelete the page and return it to your sandbox, it might actually happen. The other option is to contest the deletion at WP:DRV, but I think you should ask Jo-Jo first. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! DanHamilton1998 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ed Brown (boxer) (December 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ed Brown (boxer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Onel 5969  TT me 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ed Brown (boxer) (December 30)
I've declined the draft (for now) but I've gathered up some more sources and once they get integrated into the draft I think it might be acceptable. I'm not going to reverse the decline because at this exact point in time it's not acceptable (but I've removed the big nasty note in favour of something more positive). More on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think what makes Ed Brown notable is the combination of his excellence in boxing and his experiences with violence, finally his cause of death made him quite notable. Participating in a professional sporting event that is televised internationally a strong vote toward notability also. In boxing especially because there are only two athletes in the match. It's very different from say football where there are 100 players competing or even baseball or basketball. The TV station selected two boxers to compete on TV and one was Ed Brown. He was on TV for about 20 minutes and interviewed post fight after winning. But ok I'll keep digging up cites. I'd love to see what an experienced boxing editor would think of this subject. I know there are a lot of boxing editors on wikipedia who might see reason to make exception for Ed Brown not meeting notability guidelines due to his 20 record as a pro and his 370-20 record as an amateur. Thanks. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm an inclusionist, so take what I say with a grain of salt. However, I wish you'd had the opportunity to make the arguments about his being selected for tv coverage at the AfD. Unfortunately, not only did you not have that opportunity, participation in things like AfD is down generally on Wikipedia and although the deletion discussion was listed at the Boxing WikiProject, it looks as if no one from there turned up. (The holidays may also have been a factor.) But as has said, the general notability guideline is Wikipedia's basic notability rule and trumps specific guidelines like WP:NBOX. Personally—and remember to discount for my being an inclusionist—I'm impressed by all the journalism coverage he got, and I disagree with the argument that won the day at AfD, that it all stemmed from his death. I don't know squat about boxing and boxing media, and I found it easy to find additional sources to add to the article. But. Please sit down and read this summary guide and note that Wikipedia defines "notability" in a rather different way from what most of us usually mean, which is "interesting". Basically, we use other people's coverage of the topic to decide: if a person or thing has been written about at some length in newspapers, books, or magazines, or has had films or TV coverage devoted to it or them, then that's what's decisive. Unless it's an officially recognized populated place or a Nobel Prize Winner: those are automatically notable. I think he's notable by that standard. But I recognize I have a bias toward keeping articles, which is why I don't judge AfC submissions. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ed Brown
Spotted your draft. It's shaping up well. Have you thought of asking for expert help at WT:BOXING? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Dweller thank you. I know if a wiki boxing editor get's a hold of this he will want to keep it. How do I reach out to one? Thanks so much for your help. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow the link that Dweller posted, it will take you to the talk page of the Boxing WikiProject. Start a new section and ask for assistance. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't post things like the article has been repeatedly harrassed by non boxing people like you did here WT:BOXING. Those are the kinds of comments that have caused problems in the past and are exactly why  posted User talk:DanHamilton1998 above. A number of "non-boxing people" have been trying to help you with this draft, but as I tried to explain above and on Jo-Jo Eumerus's talk page, you don't have to be a boxing expert to edit an article about boxing. You've already been to ANI a couple of times for a variety of reasons, some of which I will say are not entirely your own fault, but comments such as the above are not really in good faith. Most experienced editors are here for Wikipedia, not you or me, and it's much easier to edit collaboratively with others if you keep that in mind. Constantly trying to rehash old disputes is not really a good thing to do, and such a thing may actually cause some other editors to be less inclined to help you out. It's best to simply stick to discussing article the draft and explaining why you feel the article it satisfies WP:GNG than commenting on other editors to try and make your some kind of point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC); {Post edited by Marchjuly to rephrase a bit -- 06:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)]

Sorry! DanHamilton1998 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies to you as well DanHamilton1998. I didn't mean to hit you like a ton of bricks. Anyway, there are lots of WikiProjects like WP:BOXING and you are free to join any and as many as you like. A WikiProject is just a friendly group where people with similar interests can discuss ways to improve certain things on Wikipedia and you don't need to be an expert in something to join. For reference, there's also WP:CHICAGO where editors interested in Wikipedia articles related to Chicago can discuss things. One thing to remember about WikiProjects though is that although the Wikipedia community may occasionally look to them for guidance about particular things and the project itself may develop its own guidelines for articles that fall within its scope, anything decided at the project level cannot override anything decided at the community level per WP:CONLEVEL. Many projects have indeed established notability guidelines specific to their project, but these guidelines are almost always based upon WP:N. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ed Brown (boxer) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ed Brown (boxer). Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)