User talk:Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral

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 (if it hasn't already).

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 your user 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! Amalthea 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC) -- Amalthea  05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

6 star rank
Hi I noticed your article 6 star rank, but also saw that a very similar article was recently deleted following the discussion at Articles for deletion/6 star rank. Do you know of any discussion of this concept in reliable sources that can verify the content of the article? Otherwise it will probably be deleted again very soon. Cheers, Amalthea  05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I felt that the article shouldnt have been deleted. It deserves to be it's own article, not just sections in other articles. Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Theverymmodelofamodernmajorgeneral


 * Did you write the previous article, too? That one was deleted because there weren't any reliable sources that could be used to verify the content of the article. Typically, the way Wikipedia judges whether a topic "deserves" an article depends on whether it has recieved coverage in reliable sources. Based on the article I think that there must be something out there. It would be very helpful if you could add to the article where you found the information you used. I'm guessing a book? It might share the fate of its predecessor if no references can be found. Cheers, Amalthea  22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I wrote the previous article. The claim that there were no reliable sources is suspect... the material in the article I wrote came from other Wikipedia articles, which were linked to, and I think it's interesting that none of them were subsequently deleted or even edited to remove this supposedly unsourced material, which is in fact perfectly verifiable.


 * But you're right, we may have the same problem again. It could in theory be speedily deleted as a recreation of a deleted page, in which case we'd need to go to deletion review. Hopefully not. Andrewa (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "substantially identical" so it would get at least a discussion. But of course, the more references you can add the easier it is to show notability, and to disprove claims of original research. But you know that, I guess. :) Cheers, Amalthea  20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 6 star rank
A tag has been placed on 6 star rank, 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. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both note that the speedy delete request has been declined by an uninvolved admin. This is the normal process if an uninvolved admin decides the request is not valid. So while you couldn't remove the tag (not being an admin) and I couldn't either (being involved) they can.


 * I think the speedy deletion request was inevitable, but we have survived it. There are ways of recovering even if an article is deleted in this way, but it's far easier this way. Whew!


 * It's still possible that it will be taken to WP:AfD. Please don't take it personally if this happens. See the article talk page for more on this.


 * And keep on being bold. Sorry if you've had a rather rough intro to Wikipedia. So did I! I survived too... Andrewa (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine - BTW, would anyone have a problem with me copy/pasting both this thread and the one above about "6 star rank" to Talk:6 star rank? While Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral account appears to be someone's sockpuppet only set up to manufacture "6 star rank" I don't think it's necessary to use its talk page to discuss the article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't, but I'm not sure it's necessary. There isn't much of consequence here. And Andrew, FWIW, any editor but the creator can remove a SD tag if he thinks it's incorrect, no matter if involved or non-admin. -- Amalthea 23:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your point, and that's exactly what Deletion policy says, but I don't think the tag should have been by me (or Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral of course). We should rather have used a tag, and I was about to. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly suggest (again) that you either apologise to Theverymodelofamodernmajorgeneral for this baseless sockpuppet allegation or ask for a WP:CHECKUSER if you think the allegation has some basis... I fear they may laugh at you, but I could be wrong.


 * The basis of this allegation seems to be that it's the first article this user has created. I'd have thought that was a reason to be particularly careful about WP:FAITH, in terms of WP:BITE. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
--Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)