User talk:Stu199

Speedy deletion nomination of Atmozfears
Hello Stu199,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Atmozfears for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —Swpbtalk 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atmozfears


The article Atmozfears has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Laun chba  ller  22:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

National legislators
It seems that you didn't know that members of national legislatures are notable by definition. See WP:POLITICIAN. Lekoren (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really bad speedy deletion tagging
Please stop tagging articles for A7 speedy deletion (no significance/importance) until you more completely understand the relevant policies and guidelines. Toivo Halonen plainly asserted notability (not merely significance). Iké Udé asserted significance, and the claims were not on their face without credibility; even a cursory check would have confirmed their accuracy. You are tagging articles far too quickly after their creation, in this case 6 minutes afeter creation; in the previous case only one minute after the creator began working on the article. While such tagging is not prohibited, it is certainly not good practice, especially when you are apparently doing nothing to check that the subject isn't particularly notable. Give article creators a reasonable time to complete work on their articles. I believe you need more experience before you continue placing such speedy nominations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)