User talk:QuantockWarrior

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &mdash; Rod talk 09:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

File source problem with File:Formosa smaller.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Formosa smaller.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NW ( Talk ) 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Mark Formosa mugshot.JPG
How were you able to get the photo of Mark Formosa in File:Mark Formosa mugshot.JPG? Did he invite you to his office to take the picture? —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Mark Formosa
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Kingpin13 (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Formosa.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Formosa.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Saalstin (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Mark Formosa mugshot.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mark Formosa mugshot.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Saalstin (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Formosa (PPC)
A tag has been placed on Mark Formosa (PPC), 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. Saalstin (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some reading that might help
Hi QuantockWarrior,

I appreciate that you're unhappy about the decision reached, but please try to understand that WP has policies to figure out who gets articles and who doesn't - otherwise, the article space would be flooded with minor entries. You might like to have a look at some of these - a multi-national, cross party list of deleted candidates. Alex Burrola, Gemma Townsend, James Ronson, Glenn Tingle, Kay Barnard, Annunziata Rees-Mogg. All of them would have had coverage in their local newspapers, but there was consensus that they were not-notable, in spite of this. From the passion you're displaying (and I'm guessing from the fact that you had the access to take a photo of Formosa), it appears you may have a personal stake in this, and I would advise you to step back and try to consider it in a more detached fashion. If you'd like any help with WP, please do leave me a message. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * QW, I got your note on my talk page, and I have to say I endorse the deletion of Mark Formosa (PPC). It looks the same as the article that was deleted by process at WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Formosa. While I (weakly) supported keeping the article during the discussion, I do see the merits of the arguments to delete the article, and I think that Black Kite's decision to delete the article was based on fair consideration of the discussion.
 * The two options to proceed (other than the option of doing nothing and allowing the articles to be/remain deleted) are:
 * If you think that Black Kite's decision was inappropriate, you can start a deletion review of the decision. (As noted above, though, I would endorse the deletion.)
 * You can read the pointers given by Saalstin above and begin crafting a new article at User:QuantockWarrion/Mark Formosa that would meet WP:POLITICIAN and address the issues raised in the Formosa AfD as well as the other AfDs mentioned above. Once you've done that, contact me again and, if the article is sufficiently improved, I'll move it back to mainspace.
 * That said, be advised what the current status quo is: discussion was held on the Mark Formosa article, and consensus was to delete. That version of the article shall stay deleted (barring overturning of the decision via deletion review for a procedural error). —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * QW,


 * What I meant by your having a 'personal stake' is that you may - as you seem to agree - be close to the subject matter. Whilst that may mean you're well informed and well placed to write about a topic, it can also mean that it's harder to see your own biases - these aren't bad, we all have them, but it's important to try to be aware of them, and to come together to make neutral articles.  You also might like be aware of our policy WP:OWN, as you seem to be slightly possessive over it.


 * Deletion discussions are about determining consensus, based on policy - a hundred people in a discussion about an article saying "keep it, i like it" would be outweighed by a single person citing WP policy on why that article should be deleted, because our decisions are based on weight of argument, not loudness with which they're made. In this case, we have policy and established consensus that merely being a candidate is not in itself enough for an article - the press coverage Formosa has is because he is a candidate, and is what would be expected for any candidate.  If he wins, he will of course be immediately entitled to an article, but until that point, unless you can demonstrate his notability beyond simply being a candidate, it is unlikely that the community will change its views on his inclusion.


 * Regarding the other PPCs, I think you misunderstood - I wasn't comparing one to another, I was pointing you in the direction of similar discussions. Other candidates have been kept, when it has been found that they did indeed matter for other reasons - notability for reasons beyond simply being a candidate.  The discussions I gave you were simply a taster of the community's views on the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, not an effort to suggest any one of those discussions could be transplanted straight onto the Formosa article.


 * It's clear that you're disputing it, I was merely trying to explain why it had happened in the first place, and why it is unlikely to change (glancing at the DR, you may have noticed heavy endorsement of the decision as made). If you want help understanding policies, then any editor is available to help you.  All the best --Saalstin (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * QW,


 * I never said your biases were a reason for deletion, I was trying to help you see why you don't agree with our decision. Excluding myself and the closing admin, Black Kite's decision has so far been endorsed by 5 formerly completely disinterested editors and C.Fred who initially weakly argued to keep the article, but feels Black Kite correctly interpreted the discussion.


 * You seem to be having some difficulty understanding the way WP works. In addition to the deletion debates I already gave you, you may find WP:PRACTICAL helpful in learning about how we reach consensus.  As I said before, it is based on weight of argument, not loudness with which people shout.  We don't require unanimity, nor do we count 'votes' - indeed, we don't have votes, we have discussions.  Try thinking of it as similar to weighted voting, where demonstration of how a policy is met or not increases the power of a statement.  They're not simply counting a show of hands, but determining a consensus around policy.  The 'herd mentality' is precisely what we seek to avoid (although if you wanted to contribute, I'm sure the crowd at Global warming would welcome your insight).  You can think your argument is as powerful as you like and your article as worthy for inclusion as you like, but I'm afraid the deletion discussion did not agree, and nor has the review of that discussion.


 * There is a settled consensus that merely being a candidate is not intrinsically notable, and repeated candidates have previously been deleted, even when they have stood for election several times and acquired local coverage based on this. This may give you some idea of how the community feels about the notability of candidates.  If you feel that they should be included, you could try persuading people for a change of policy at the notability (people) talk page, and you may also find useful discussions at the WikiProject Politics talk page.  You may also discover that it's easier to persuade editors to agree with you if you stop using terms like 'a herd parotting unsupported prejudice'.  All the best --Saalstin (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)