User talk:Visqueen

Outlook club
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Outlook club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Finngall  talk  15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Copied from the article's talk page)
 * I'm not doubting the club's existence or disputing its place in the history of the Stones, but it's just that as an encyclopedia, the information in the article needs to be verifiable from multiple references to reliable sources. As it stands, I just didn't think that the article as written demonstrated that the club meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  I honestly don't know where the advertisement would fit into this, but it would help if you could find news or magazine articles about the club (they don't need to be online as long as they are cited properly).


 * I've removed the PROD tag from the article, under which the article was eligible for immediate deletion, as it had been in place for five days. I have instead sent the article to the more formal Articles for Deletion process, which will allow it to be evaluated by a wider spectrum of administrators and experienced editors.  The discussion page for this article can be found here at Articles for deletion/Outlook club, and you are absolutely free to provide your input there.  Discussions normally last for five days, though they can be longer or shorter based on the strength of consensus or lack thereof, or on other factors.  Please note that this is not a vote, but an attempt to reach a consensus on whether to keep the article, delete it, or a variety of other options.


 * Please follow the links I've provided above to learn more about Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and feel free to come to me if you have further questions. Thank you for your time, and take care. -- Finngall   talk  21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

References added to The Outlook Club. Can the Outlook Club entry now be reinstated? Visqueen (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Visqueen


 * Looks good! I've noted the improvements over at Articles for deletion/Outlook club, so I can get some new input from other editors (especially those that were in favor of deletion before) on the article as it now stands.  If the response is positive, I will withdraw the nomination.  Thank you very much for your efforts.  I know it seems like there's a lot of rules around here, but they're there for a reason--to make this the best encyclopedia it can be.  I look forward to your contributions to come, and if you have more questions in the future, let me know and I'll do my best to answer them.  Take care. -- Finngall   talk  14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. . . I have tried ! Visqueen (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This article on a music performance venue is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. . . . . What does this mean? Visqueen (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It just means it's a pretty short article. Placing this tag puts it on a list of other articles of similar length on the same subject (see Category:Music venue stubs).  This will make it easier to find by other editors who have an interest in the topic.  See WP:STUB for more information.  It's also more effective for solicitng assistance than simply placing "This article is under construction" in the body of the article.  It's not intended as a criticism, so don't panic.


 * Nobody's come along to comment on the article in its current form, and the original five-day discussion period is about up, so I've recommended that the discussion stay open a while longer so that proper input can be generated. Have a good weekend. -- Finngall   talk  20:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as soon as I get more information I will expand the entry. . . away on holiday until 26 May. Visqueen (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it got deleted anyway. I see you've added some relevant material to the Rolling Stones article, which is what I would have suggested next.


 * Speaking as someone who frequently patrols the list of new pages, I see lots and lots of attempted vandalism, spam, vanity articles and other crap that rightly gets speedily deleted. I also see plenty of good-faith contributions by first-time editors with varying levels of quality.  Some are good, some are bad, many are okay but need to be called to the attention of other editors for improvement, and some just don't meet Wikipedia's standards, which was the case for the Outlook Club article.  I hope that this isn't discouraging, and that you continue to contribute.  If you find more and better sources on the club, maybe the article can be recreated again, though I'd run those sources by other people for evaluation at, say, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Rolling Stones or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music before doing anything else.


 * I'll be taking this page off my watchlist, but if you have any questions, you're always welcome to contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. Take care, and happy editing. -- Finngall   talk  16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed the item has been deleted. . . . even though I included references. Quite honestly I see no reason for this action as I was actually in the process of collecting more information for it. Visqueen (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kate Adie
That is odd, however I would say leave the date as it is, as there are a number of references which say that her birthday is 19 September 1945 including the University of St Andrews, IMDb and a couple of newspapers. Considering the sources for the current date of birth, unless you can find something that gives a different one, I'd say leave it as it is. TubularWorld (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Hi, Thanks for a quick reply. Sometimes the problem is that once somebody puts a reference on the internet it is simply copied by everyone! I'm going to look into this further! Only recently I corrected the entry for Susan Maughan. All internet references give her birth year as 1942, she was actually born in 1938 - this information comes from a person who was at school with her also from UK General Register Office records. (Visqueen (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)