User talk:Trencacloscas

LZ wikilink
I have no objection to adding a wikilink that meets Wikipedia bio criteria. In this case, the article you created about yourself meets Wikipedia's "Speedy Delete" criteria and is about to get turfed. Back on the LZ article that will translate into a null, empty, dead or in other words..Red link. Which don't last too long on Wikipedia unless there is valid reason/expetation that an article is about to be created to fill the gap. BTW, I'm not the one who added the "speedy delete" tag to your article. So you will have to go through the proper channels if you want to plead your case to the Wikipedia Admins. As for now, unless you can flesh it out...it won't last too long. All I was doing was eliminating the "red link" before it actually turned red. I will leave it for now. Once it officially goes red I will clean it out. There's lots of Admins around if you need any help with Wikipedia policies. see [Category:Wikipedia administrators]. Anger22 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello, please be careful to avoid characterising other users' work as "vandalism" when it is clearly not. This is what I'm referring to. Accurate edit summaries are important and install a sense of confidence with other editors in the work that you're doing on the encyclopedia. Thanks. -/- Warren 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wkipedia's 3RR Policy
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Anger22 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid deletion...
Hi Trencacloscas

I've noted the comment you've made on the AfD discussion and the talk page of Michael White & The White and thought I would explain how Wikipedia works.

First, speedy deletions. Wikipedia gets hundreds - I mean hundreds - of articles everyday from people telling us about their teachers, sisters, college bands, next door neighbours, bus driver yesterday etc etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not MySpace.com - and, more than that, we are advertising-free, not-for-profit and funded by charity donations.

This means we need certain standards. One of these standards is called notability. We require our articles to, at the very least, assert some notability for their subject. Something. Anything. If they don't, we use established procedures to dump the articles (the criteria for speedy deletion). We have to do this quickly and move on - there are, as I say, hundreds of these everyday and they must go quickly or we would be swamped.

That's what happened to your article. It meets our criterion for speedy deletion A7 - a person, group of people, club or band where the article fails to assert notability.


 * So, job number one for you: go to Michael White & The White, dig up some verifiable important facts about them and put them in the article. You'll need to find a source for what you're saying and to link to it. That will kill off that criterion. If you don't do this, the criterion still exists and people on the AfD discussion will start calling for the article to be speedy deleted.

Now there's a second hurdle: we have a slow-delete criterion, WP:BAND. Articles about bands must fit one or more of the criteria listed on that page. And the article must say so.


 * So, job number two for you: check which criteria are met at WP:BAND and a add those details to the article. You'll need to find a source for what you're saying and to link to it.

Now, here's something important: you've been very vocal on the talk page of the article and on the AfD discussion and have expressed pleasure at the article not being deleted. But the process has just begun. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion: I will not just count heads there, I will listen to reasoned arguments. But, more than that: if, at the end of the process, nothing has been done to assert notability in the article and to confirm in the article that the band meets WP:CORP, it will be deleted.

I'm telling you this straight so you know now and are not shocked later. I know it sounds harsh, but Wikipedia's rules are designed to bend (as when I undeleted the article) but not break. You must put the time you've put into arguing for the article to stay on AfD and its talk page into the article itself. You need to get to work on it and make it fit Wikipedia - Wikipedia will not change to fit you, I'm afraid.

And the argument "but X group has an article so this one should" doesn't work - we don't listen to argument by exception!

I hope you don't mind this detailed and long explaination of Wikipedia policy and methods - and especially the instructions for things you have to do that it contains. I just wanted to help here, but you need to do the hard work! Cheers ➨  ЯEDVERS  10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Trencacloscas again!


 * 1 - WP:BAND is a criterion for inclusion. WP:CSD are criteria for exclusion. The two don't match because there's grey area in the middle that WP:PROD and WP:AfD look after.


 * 2 - Yes, the band's webpage is fine, but the article shouldn't be a copy of the band's webpage. Other sources - mentions in articles in newspapers, on music websites, etc - are better.


 * 3 - WP:CORP was a typo. For CORP, read BAND.


 * Hope this helps ➨  ЯEDVERS  13:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Backmasking
Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Backmasking, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Also, make sure to use an informative edit summary for such edits. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. What I was referring to as "controversial" was your unexplained reversion, not the information itself. However, I do think the Pokemon info is a waste of space. I originally removed it after an anon pointed out that "This is one example of overactive imaginations with too much free time." I went to Jeff's page, listened to the samples, and found myself entirely in agreement, so I removed the message.


 * I feel like there are far too many instances of real backmasking to be wasting time documenting these ridiculous alleged messages.


 * Thanks for replying.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus
Hi, Trencacloscas. I noticed you've twice tried to add a comment into Historical Jesus stating that he didn't exist, and it's been reverted both times - once by me. I've explained that I don't think what you've done is NPOV or relevant On the talk page. I would like to ask you to read there and comment if you think I'm wrong.TheologyJohn 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Various deletions
I've noticed that you've recently deleted a few statements that you find questionable on the pages that we both edit when they lack references. I suggest you consult the wikipedia guideline at Cite_sources - it suggests that in cases where you doubt somethings accuracy, but it's not patently wrong (as none of the things that I've seen recently have been), you add a citation rather than deleting them. Thanks. TheologyJohn 14:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Fashion
hi, i want to address how you handled deleting the link you called "pointless." many editors on the article have worked for several months fighting commercial spammers, and to pare down links to essentials. as it turns out, you did right by deleting the "thirty goth models" link, as it seems the photographer has changed the content on that page, and so the original images that were selected by consensus as excellent image references, are gone. you did pretty badly, however, by not describing clearly what your reason was -- that the link did not match content. it looked like you were just exerting arbitrary personal judgement. also, it's not courteous to not move over to the Talk page when requested. you continue to do as you like, but behaviour like that is going to make editors mistake you for a vandal who edits out of POV reasons. there's a lot of good info on Talk pages that should be scanned before being bold. -- Denstat 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Iron Maiden
I have made what I hope will be the last required comment by me on the talk page (The Elfoid 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Your edits to Boudica
From Manual of Style (dates and numbers):


 * Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.
 * Uncalibrated (bce) radiocarbon dates: Do not give uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (represented by the lower-case bce unit, occasionally bc or b.c. in some sources), except in directly quoted material, and even then include a footnote, a &#91;square-bracketed editor's note&#93;, or other indication to the reader what the calibrated date is, or at least that the date is uncalibrated. Calibrated and uncalibrated dates can diverge surprisingly widely, and the average reader does not recognize the distinction between bce and BCE / BC.

Please don't arbitrarily change date notation. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)