User talk:Enelani

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Whpq (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Paul Edney


The article Paul Edney has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Actor who fails WP:BIO, has not had a major role, just a list of minor appearances in varied shows.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Toon 21:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Toon has failed to check facts before making wild accusations. Paul Edney has had speaking roles. He is listed on IMDB, even has his own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelani (talk • contribs)

The proposal for deletion contains false and incorrect statements. Paul Edney has done principal roles. He has also gained prominence in the politics of the actors' union SAG-AFTRA by running for union president in 2013. Paul Edney is mentioned in numerous articles in entertainment media such as the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline Hollywood, Backstage etc. He also has a high ranking on the IMDB website. Another critic said he only did bit parts which shows their ignorance of actors roles in the USA. There is no such thing as a bit part in the USA. You are either a background actor or a principal actor. Principal actors include those with speaking roles, voice over and stunts. Also, your guidelines specifically say that an actor does not have to be famous to be included. Therefore the grounds for deletion are without merit and the page should be re-instated.Enelani (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Paul Edney
I have nominated Paul Edney, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Paul Edney. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – Toon 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter is that Toon has failed to check the facts. Therefore the article should stay. I suggest Toon find something better to do with his time than knocking actors without checking the facts first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelani (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Edney
A tag has been placed on Paul Edney, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There really isn't an anti-actor conspiracy here; this article has been deleted twice before, but the problem is not that he is an actor, but that he is not a notable one as defined in the notability guideline. Note that this is not a criticism of him, or you - for all I know he may be a fantastic actor but we need independent sources that cover his work - reviews from newspapers etc.  pablo hablo. 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a conspiracy of censorship. There are many actors on Wikipedia with far fewer credentials than Paul Edney. Toon05 is the prodder and I firmly believe he is an elitist snob and anti-actor. The reason that there isn't more sources is that I have extreme difficulty in understanding this baffling code that is used here. I keep trying to master it, but I don't seem to get anywhere. Why can't you just write in html - so much easier. This code is like an English speaker trying to learn to write Arabic.

Why can't you guys just leave Paul Edney's webpage alone and move on with something more serious like copyright violations elsewhere on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelani (talk • contribs)


 * Write in html if you want. But the problem remains - this is not 'Paul Edney's webpage', it's Wikipedia's webpage, and there's no evidence that Paul Edney weets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  pablo hablo. 11:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense! You obviously have not checked the external links. Besides which there are plenty of actors on Wikipedia who have far less credentials. I could name a few, but you elitist snobs would probably delete them also I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelani (talk • contribs)

You misinterpreted the words "Paul Edney's webpage". These words meant the webpage (or article) about Paul Edney. They did not imply that Paul Edney owned the webpage as you wrongly suggest. Stop twisting my words.Enelani (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)enelani
 * I wasn't twisting your words. My point is that it was a Wikipedia page and as such was measured against Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  pablo hablo. 13:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Edney


A tag has been placed on Paul Edney requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Gilo  &ouml;  09:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replied to your inquiry at Talk:Paul Edney. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing my comment from Talk:Paul Edney. Cunard (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing the webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelani (talk • contribs)

November 2009
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Edney, you will be blocked from editing. – Toon 12:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if simply stating a point of view is considered "disruptive" in your elitist world. Don't you have anything better to do with your life than to put people down?
 * Look, blanking the now closed deletion discussion is not "stating a point of view", and it won't enable you to recreate the article, but continued disruption will get you blocked. The notability guidelines for actors states that, in order to be eligible for an article, they must be shown to:


 * Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
 * Have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
 * Have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.


 * Or to pass the general notability guideline by having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You have not shown that the subject passes either of these, and nobody who took part in the deletion discussion could find evidence that the subject meets these guidelines either.


 * If you can prove that the subject meets the guidelines for inclusion, you can appeal the result of the deletion discussion at Deletion review - but unless you have some new, independent sources to back up your claim, the case has no hope of succeeding.


 * None of this should be taken personally, it is merely how the community decides what we do and don't cover; there are plenty of sites like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter which allow anyone to write what they want about themselves, and it is similarly easy to create your own website. You may not agree with it, but Wikipedia is a privately-owned website run by a community which chooses what it does and does not publish. You wouldn't accuse Encyclopaedia Britannica or Microsoft Encarta of "censorship" simply because they won't host an article on you. Regards, – Toon 12:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with your elitist view is that there are plenty of actors on Wikipedia with far less credentials than Paul Edney. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about "knowledge". Whatever your personal view of Paul Edney, the article on him should not be censored. Instead you should allow the article to exist and the make a comment if you are inclined to do so. The Wikipedia guidelines on "notability" are very subjective and very open to interpretation. I had no idea that Wikipedia was a "Police State" until the article was banned, censored or whatever you want to call it. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelani (talk • contribs)
 * I agree that the guidelines are somewhat open to interpretation, which is why the deletion process involves a week-long discussion in which editors discuss whether the the article meets the guidelines or not; as you can see by reading the relevant debate, six different editors agreed with my argument that the subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines. The problem with comparing the article to others that do exist on Wikipedia is that there is no screening process for articles; anyone can create them and unless someone comes along and believes that they do not meet our guidelines, they can stay there for years. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a discussion of why this very argument holds little weight here. – Toon 12:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon further search of Wikipedia, I found the following:

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is a WikiProject dedicated to building comprehensive and detailed articles for actors and other filmmakers. Working to provide a greater focus on people in the film industry, the project is an integral part of both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Films.

Scope

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers covers biographical material of individuals involved in the process of making motion pictures, including people in the film industry such as the actors, directors, crew, and others who may be listed in the motion picture credits of a film.

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers does not cover individuals by reason of their participation in episodic programs such as those covered by WikiProject Television.

Goals •	To standardize Wikipedia articles on film actors, film directors, film producers, screenwriters, cinematographers, film editors, and score composers.

•	To improve Wikipedia coverage of film biographical material by adding, expanding and improving film biographical related articles

•	To serve as a central point of discussion for issues related to Wikipedia film character articles, including those that may be under scrutiny

•	To maintain standards for articles about people in world cinema, as well as for categories, templates, and other Wikipedia items that may support those articles

•	To encourage and provide a structure for enhancing the writing of high quality articles on all manner of different people involved in cinema.

•	To ensure that every article biography related to film uses Template:Infobox actor and an image if possible. Please try to place the infobox in all film bio articles.

FYI, Paul Edney fits the guidelines provided by the "WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers" (above).

So, what's your excuse now for banning an article on this actor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enelani (talk • contribs)


 * Reply - the article isn't "banned". Paul Edney simply does not the inclusion criteria for articles as already explained to you.  The existence of a group of editors that are interested in focusing their efforts on editting articles related to lineman in no way changes that. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Wikiproject states that all actors meet our notability guidelines. You should note that even if it did (which it wouldn't), Wikiprojects are merely groups of editors who work on film-related articles. They have no control over the inclusion guidelines, which supercede anything that the WikiProject comes up with. The notability guidelines have been compiled after lengthy discussion by the whole community. Anything which has the "guideline" or "policy" boxes at the top are pages which have gained consensus through discussion by the community, see Policies and guidelines for more information. Everything on Wikipedia is decided through consensus; consensus was reached through the deletion discussion that the article doesn't meet our guidelines and should be deleted. It is not me who has "banned" or "censored" anything; had those who took part in the deletion discussion decided that I was wrong and the article does merit inclusion, it would have been kept. As it was, there was no doubt whatsoever that the subject did not meet our guidelines. Even though, as you stated, the criteria are open to interpretation, this case was still clear-cut. Even if I now decided that I wanted the article to exist, I would not be permitted to recreate it without clearly showing that the subject meets the inclusion criteria. It seems that further discussion here is a waste of time, as you do not wish to understand why the article was deleted. – Toon 13:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes the article "Paul Edney" is banned because you have stopped the ability to create it. If you haven't banned it then I would be able to create the article, wouldn't I?

So the "WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers" is lying when they say they are "dedicated to building comprehensive and detailed articles for actors and other filmmakers"?

Let's get down to the interpretation of an actor's notability. I presume an actor who has won an Oscar would meet your elitist standards, but a background actor would not? How about an actor with a speaking role who is listed in the credits. Is that good enough for you or do you need more? Newspaper clippings maybe? Scandalous stories? Porno movies? How far do you want to go? Maybe the guidelines need revision, instead of "notability", how about an actor with a speaking role in a major studio Film or TV series. That would seem to make more sense. Notability is too loose a term and open to subjectivity. How does one go about suggesting a guidelines revision or can only the elitist administrators do that? Enelani (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)enelani
 * You should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and drop a note at Village pump (policy) pointing people there. You may want to tone down the name-calling, as some of the other elitist anti-actor Nazi admins don't like being reminded of it; you might get blocked by someone a little more bothered by such things than myself. – Toon 14:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:REICHSTAG
While your passion certainly seems evident at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), your rhetoric is both over-the-top and unhelpful. Notability is about filtering out that which no one really cares about, not censorship. Try and engage collegially and understand why others are advocating positions that differ from yours before engaging in name-calling. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Denying someone to put up a perfectly legitimate article which is truthful and hurts no-one is censorship, pure and simple. What are you guys afraid of? That some actor will attain more notability through Wikipedia? I doubt it. Maybe you are preserving bandwidth. Is Wikipedia suffering from lack of funding? I think it's more about being elitist. I think you guys get your jollies by putting people down by deleting articles and then stopping their re-creation. Call it intellectual bullying, or a power trip if you like. Paul Edney - notable actor - banned by intellectual snobs at Wikipedia.98.150.244.35 (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Enelani

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Edney (actor)
A tag has been placed on Paul Edney (actor), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Edney


A tag has been placed on Paul Edney requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Quinrm (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
As explained to you multiple times, Cameroon and Rwanda are member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. The British Overseas Territories are not. DrKay (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of Commonwealth visits made by Elizabeth II, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Commonwealth visits made by Elizabeth II. You have been told several times both at this page and by edit summary and at the talk pages of the IPs you've used that Cameroon and Rwanda are member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and this is easily verifiable by simple looking at any reliable source. DrKay (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ascension, Falkland Islands, St. Helena, South Georgia and Tristan da Cunha are not member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. Again, this is easily verifiable. They are British Overseas Territories. DrKay (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Rwanda was not a French colony. This is a simple fact. Your edits are clearly unsupportable and unverifiable. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)