User talk:TrevorPearce

Clayton Counts
I have added a "" template to the article Clayton Counts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. RedRollerskate 07:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw the message you posted for me about Clayton Counts. I should clarify a few things.  One, I added a proposed deletion tag, which ideally should stay in place for five days, allowing you time to contest the deletion. Two, I did not add the redirect.  If you look at the article's history (go to Clayton Counts and click the history tab at the top), you'll see that Demiurge is the one who redirected it and the one who added it to Articles for deletion.  Demiurge only waited a day before adding the redirect, and I apologize about that; s/he should have at least given you enough time to see that the tag was added.  Since the page has been added to Articles for Deletion, I suggest you go over to the article's entry at AFD and explain why you think Counts merits an article.  An AFD stays open for five days, at which point if there's a consensus to delete, the article is deleted.  Otherwise, it stays.


 * BTW, I did revert the edits by April Winchell; simply removing the text of an article and saying "this page shouldn't be here" is not the right way to propose deletion.  That is, in fact, vandalism.  April has already received a few warnings for vandalism, and if she does it again, she'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  RedRollerskate 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention this earlier, but if you do catch April Winchell vandalizing again, go to WP:AIV and report her. Administrators check that page often and will see to it that she's blocked.  Also, I haven't seen the djBC page so I can't comment on it specifically, but if you really do feel it doesn't belong here, it's OK for you to tag it for deletion.  Any Wikipedia user can do that.  RedRollerskate 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See the top notices on WP:AN for where to report different forms of abuse by users. Also Notability (music), Notability (people), Afd Wikiquette and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I suggest you include the press mentions in the article text, with reasonable quotes (i.e. not too long) and referenced. See Anna Svidersky and Mark Bellinghaus for examples.Tyrenius 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Signing
Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Tyrenius 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

mash up
I'll keep a look out. It defiantly deserves to be there. JohnRussell 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Update
Just an update on User:April Winchell. I caught him/her vandalizing again today, and reported her to WP:AIV. S/he's been blocked indefinitely. RedRollerskate 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Trevor - Please read the page on reliable sources Reliable_sources - it is pretty clear on the fact that a personal website or blog is not a reliable source. I didn't make up this rule - but as an editor, I feel it is my responsibility to enforece it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absenter (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trevor - thank you for the note. I do feel strongly about this. It seems that we are odds about this, I would rather not go back and forth in a edit war and think it would be best settled by an arbitrator. The article reads as a biographical entry, I believe it should be sourced as such. If Clayton Counts is a stage name - like Slash Slash_(musician), or is merely an alter-ego Chris_Gaines - it should be sourced similar to those articles - especially when discussing death. Absenter (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trevor - I am not attempting to be biased in any way. Any report of death from an unreliable source should be considered a rumor as I see it. If you feel I am being biased, that might be best for the arbitrator(s) to decide. Absenter (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)