User talk:Finealt/Archive 1

December 2013
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sam and Cat at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hi Finealt. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Arroup Secondary school, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. A7 does not apply  to  schools.  If  you  still  believe this article should be deleted, please re-tag using an appropriate criterion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Humayun Khan Mandokhel
I declined your deletion tag here,. He's a member of a national senate, which is not only an indication of importance, but of actual notability.

Considering this and other nominations above, I think it would be better if you did not nominate articles for speedy deletion until you have read and understood WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy.  DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

New Page Patrol
Hi. With only  90 edits to  mainspace and a registered user only  for a couple of weeks, i  do  think  your  should take 's advice. Perhaps even find something easier to  do  rather than WP:NPP  until you  have more experience such as counter vandalism which may  be a softer start  if you  don't  have any  ideas for expanding  content  or creating  new articles.

Act 1707
That is a new piece of legislation that is being discussed currently. Are you venting?

I have asked for ArbCom. Let's take your arguments.

--DDT Fair Trade (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Dubnium(V) chloride, Finealt.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"This scientific article is completely unsourced. It should be tagged and the author notified."

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

The conversation of the speedy deletion of Hantu Laut
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... responding that this article's subject is not actually made up. "Hantu Laut" is part of a series on "Malay ghost myths." If you think the issue is I added a little sentence on the owner of that article, the article's subject exists on the web. Also many of my cousins know the actual myth of "Hantu Laut." If you search more about a speedy deletion of my article, go to my talk to reply.

Puma sajuk (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar. I appreciate it very much. Happy holidays, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

advice
I think DGG is right. I think also it would be better to search for article sourcing for a while before tagging anymore articles for deletion. Hantu Laut made it clear that we are dealing with Malay mythology. WP:CSD applies to something made up by the creator or an acquaintance, not a whole ethnic group. A simple Google search would have lead immediately back to Malay ghost myths and other sources that show it to b a legitimate encyclopedia subject. You tagged the article 3 minutes after it's creation. The creator had hardly enough time to get the article on its feet. It would have been better to spend a few moments conducting a Google search. One must always remember that deletion should be undertaken only as a last resort, when other options have been exhausted. The first thing one must do is search for ways to improve an article via sourcing and sourced content. Once you have more experience sourcing and improving articles, you might be ready to tag them for deletion. Thanks, Dloh  cierekim  13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul Province
See talk page of the article please. --Mttll (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies
Was it really necessary to slap a speedy deletion tag onto Prakash Narkhede on account of it being empty within three minutes of it being created by a new editor? Quite possibly it was a new user making a good faith attempt to create a new article on a notable topic, but we may never know now if they've been driven away by having someone try to delete their draft. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC).
 * I reiterate my wish for you to build and improve articles instead of tagging them for deletion. Dloh cierekim  02:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Super Awesome Katy
Hello Finealt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Super Awesome Katy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Profkls:creative labor
Hello Finealt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Profkls:creative labor, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Userspace draft. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit(s) to Mind Over Maddie
Some or all of the content appears to be copy pasted.


 * Your addition:
 * Source: I see some of it at http://www.musicvideoshare.com/videofeed/r6MNTVz750E and at IMDB and at YouTube. I can't check YouTube because it's blocked where I am.

Perhaps you or others could let me know if this is a copyvio or not. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Just a reminder for you to address this matter. I see you are editing elsewhere without responding here. Please do tell if you wrote the edits in question yourself, or copy pasted them from a copyrighted site. Please respond to this as a priority as it is regarding a possibly WP:COPYVIO, something Wikipedia takes rather seriously. Many thanks in advance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

More likely copyright violations
Okay. You did not respond and kept editing. And now you seem to have done it again:


 * Your addition to Wikipedia:
 * Source: and

If you copy paste again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And now more
In this edit, it appears that you copy pasted content from http://www.seemovies4free.com/episode/63463 and other pages. As I said right above, "...If you copy paste again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice....". You never responded. You just kept on doing it. I just don't know why. Copy pasted content has less than zero value to Wikipedia. It is a liability. You seem to care about expanding the encyclopedia, so why didn't you just write in your own words? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sam & Cat
Hey, thanks for converting the Broadcast section to prose. That's a thankless job and an unsatisfying one. I've done a bunch, me-self. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam & Cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page YTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Finealt: Please talk to me. I want you to continue to edit, but you have to speak up about these copyright violations. Tell me I've made a mistake. Tell me you understand the problem. Please, say something. You're a Canadian. So am I. Let's talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the source of the last copyright violations you've been adding was not originally from some website, but from the list of episodes articles. That is also a violation of Copying within Wikipedia. It is essentially a copyright violation. You must attribute.

The other issue is that the individual episode lists duplicate the content in the main list of episodes. That was explained in the edit summaries of each of the individual episode list articles, yet you just restored the content in with these four edits. In any case, please speak up. This needs to be sorted out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is also an issue because this user nominated The Day of the Doctor for good article status. The potential reviewer is left in the lurch. If there's another editor that will take on Finealt's responsibilities, that would solve the problem.  I don't know if the nomination can be withdrawn under these circumstances.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If no-one has yet picked up the nomination for review and no-one jumps forward to pick up where the nominator left off, the GAN template can just be removed from the talk page of the article - this will remove the article from the GAN queue. If there is a reviewer already, or if there is someone else interested in taking over the nomination, a note can be added to the GAN listing by using the "note=" field in the GAN template on the article talk page. Hope this helps, Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Mike powelson declined
I've redirected Mike powelson to its correct target and removed the speedy deletion tag, as the criterion for A10 speedy deletion says "If the title of the page is a plausible redirect to an existing page, consider redirecting instead". I'm going to echo the advice of some of the other editors who have visited your talk page to slow down a bit, especially with the CSD criteria you may not be so familiar with. Article deletion is only one side of Wikipedia: article creation and writing content can be far more rewarding and engaging in the long run. Cheers, Altamel (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally. I would have deleted it, as it seems a pretty pointless redirect. However, now that it has been made into a redirect it does no harm, so I'm leaving it as it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Haunted Hathaways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page YTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)