User talk:Ngabirano Emmanuel

Welcome
The article Ngabirano Emmanuel has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for this specific type of article, you may want to check out our criterion for biographies.

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Ngabirano Emmanuel. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ngabirano Emmanuel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ngabirano Emmanuel 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/Ngabirano Emmanuel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Emmanuel Ngabirano. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Emmanuel Ngabirano


A tag has been placed on Emmanuel Ngabirano, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Osarius - Want a chat? 11:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article
Hello, Ngabirano Emmanuel. I am writing to try to clarify for you a number of points about how Wikipedia works, since you seem to have misunderstood various points. I hope my comments will be helpful to you.

As you know, the article Emmanuel Ngabirano, previously titled Ngabirano Emmanuel, was the subject of a deletion discussion. You were invited to take part in that discussion, but chose not to. Instead, you removed the "articles for deletion" notice from the article. Sometimes, when an inexperienced editor does that, it seems plausible that he or she did not bother to read the instructions about not removing the notice, and so did not realise that removing it was not acceptable. However, you edited the article 44 times over the course of 4 days from the time that the "articles for deletion" notice was placed there to the time when you removed it. That being so, it would seem surprising if you had failed to notice the note in that notice saying "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed", the message saying "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" when you edited the article to remove the notice, and the notice which is still visible on this page, saying "do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article". It therefore looks as though you were likely to have been aware of the instructions. Perhaps you thought that removing the notice would somehow prevent the deletion discussion from continuing, and therefore prevent the article from being deleted. However, this is not so. The only effect of removing the deletion notice from the article is to prevent people who see the article from knowing about the discussion. Usually, the only result of that is that people who might have chosen to take part in the discussion are unable to do so. On this occasion, however, it had another result. Seeing the article, which clearly did not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards, I deleted it under the provisions of Wikipedia's policy on speedy deletion. Had I known there was a discussion under way, I would have left the article, so the discussion could continue. Consequently, your decision to hide the fact that the discussion was taking place had the result of leading to deletion more quickly than would otherwise have happened. However, the discussion was clearly heading towards deleting the article anyway, so the difference was only a matter of time.

Once a deletion discussion has taken part and there has been consensus to delete the page discussed, it is unacceptable to then attempt to unilaterally overturn that consensus by ignoring it and recreating the page. (In fact, editors who repeatedly do so are likely to be blocked from editing to prevent them from disrupting Wikipedia.) I have therefore deleted the article again. Please do not create it again.

If you had not chosen to remove the articles for deletion notice, the article would now still exist, the discussion would now still have two days to run, and you would still have a chance to take part in the discussion if you chose to. If you wish, I can restore the deleted article and reopen the deletion discussion, so that you have a chance to take part. I think it only fair, though, to point out a few facts which may influence your decision whether to take up that option. Firstly, I think doing so would almost certainly be a waste of your time, as the article would be deleted anyway. Nothing, either in the article or anywhere else, seems to suggest that you have the sort of notability required for the subject of a Wikiepdia article. You should also be aware that any article is likely to be edited by others, and that you would not have control over its content. In the unlikely event that it is kept, it is possible that information which you do not wish to call attention to might be added to the article. The article may also be labelled with a notice saying that it is an autobiography, and calling attention to the fact that it may not be written from a neutral point of view.

If you do want me to reopen the discussion, please let me know on my talk page as soon as possible. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Emmanuel Ngabirano, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to help you by explaining the issues which you did not seem to have understood. You seem not to have taken any notice of my efforts. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing - repeatedly re-creating an autobiographical article despite explanations and warnings. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

An indefinite block need not be permanent, but in order to be unblocked you will have to convince an administrator that you understand why you were blocked and will not repeat that conduct. In particular: JohnCD (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * that you have read Wikipedia is not about YOU and Autobiography, and understand that Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves;
 * that you have read WP:Edit warring and WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and understand that if your edits are reverted you should not simply repeat them.

Sock puppetry
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Ngabirano Emmanuel. Thank you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)