User talk:User F203/Archive 1

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! Computerwiz908 | Talk 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Talkback
Computerwiz908 | Talk 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Wikipedian's, especially administrators, will try and tell you that bureaucracy does not exist on the website, but I think anyone with any modicum of intelligence knows how false that is. Try and edit positively, and just ignore the bureaucrats - if you don't do anything wrong, they can't do anything to you. Enjoy yourself, Alan 16  talk  19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Ged UK  07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Murders and murderers
I'm responding here because the post at AN didn't really request administrative action. Yes, it's generally held that if a murder victim or muder suspect is otherwise non-notable, then it's the murder that is notable and not the person. Thus, the article should be titled appropriately. However, a person may be notable for other reasons that achieve the attention of the media after the murder takes place, or the media coverage itself can be a cause for notability if it discusses the person outside the context of murder, and is incredible in volume (speaking from experience at AFD, here). Also, if a suspect would have been independently notable for many crimes, it may still be appropriate to have an article on them, or an article on the body of crimes if they are linked somehow. But since I'm not sure which article you're referring to, I can't give a specific recommendation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability discussion of Philip Markoff
Hi, I wanted to take the discussion off that page and over here. I replied and cited the wikipedia policies and guidelines and argued that Philip Markoff is notable. I left two comments on that page and will not leave any more than that, but I am still eager to resolve our miscommunication. Could you read my post and give me an explanation of how you came to a different conclusion from reading the same guidelines? I specifially conclude that the subject meets all of the following If you wish to keep this a private matter, then delete this from your talk page and I have activated my email feature for you to reply there if you wish. If I misunderstand wikipedia policy, I kindly ask you to point out my mistakes. Thanks in advance, JameKelly (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial
 * if that person is unlikely to remain low profile
 * The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.


 * Good point. I think the policies need to be updated to be more congruent with each other.  The Amanda Knox issue was quite a shocker as well, although she was a little bit on the trashy side and involved in a sex game it appears.  I don't think she is notable at all.  I guess I'm more struck by the sharp contrast between the image of Philip Markoff, and the attacks that took place.  In the Knox case, it's a statistically possible story resulting from moral deviancy.  This Markoff guy is straight out of the movie American Psycho. JameKelly (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Maude
I'm not sure - honestly, as it stands, I think we follow that rule without its being codified, and I don't see any need to change that. I'm not a big fan of extra bureaucracy. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moving forward (slogan)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Moving forward (slogan), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Neologism, at best dictionary def

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Passportguy (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is not a doctor
I know that wikipedia is not a doctor. But Having warnings helps keep people on there gaurd. If we let are guard down, we could become lunch for some virus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Durham (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hi
Thank you for your message, but I must confess I am confused by it. Which "obscure article" are you referring to? Plus, may I venture that millions having the swine flu were are seeing will probably not happen. Outbreaks rarely reach such levels. Cordovao (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Not a doctor
Well, I think that posting a warning that tells people to wash there hands is common sense.--Ken Durham (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Akureyri
Akureyri has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not currently meet the Good Article criteria, so I've listed it for reassessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I notified WikiProject Iceland and WikiProject Cities. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people think of reassessment as aggressive action. I don't care much. Perhaps you should withdraw your action and help me improve it. I've been working on it for a few weeks. Be helpful! User F203 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to help you, but the article still doesn't meet the GA criteria, and frankly, it needs a lot of work to do so. Unfortunately, Icelandic cities are not my expertise. If you could find better sources and expand the article, I would help with copy-editing and formatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Worsley is an example of a good article for a city. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's a notable city. We just need more info. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Citations, how?
When you have the edit window open, in the little group of icons at the top of the edit box (where the bold and italic buttons are), at the right side of that is a little button that says "cite". Click on that and another series of buttons will come down. If you're citing a news article, click "news", if you're citing a journal article, click "journal", if you're citing a website, click "web". Several blanks will then appear and you can fill in the blanks, submit it, and the appropriate citation template will be filled in for you.

For more information on using citations, go to WP:CITE. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Only warning
If you ever place material like this on Wikipedia again, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not put anything objectionable. Another user did it. I just wrote under it. User F203 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied to both my talk page and my editor review, as you have posted to both. NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User F 203/sandbox/Liz
A tag has been placed on User F 203/sandbox/Liz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:F203/sandbox/Liz
A tag has been placed on User:F203/sandbox/Liz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My Apologies
OH, my apologies I didn't realize that was what you were trying to accomplish.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)