User talk:WPia013

May 2013
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Petty Joy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So, tell me, what is the "big" problem? The article got well votes in the past as well written and with all information you need to know at the moment about this person. It is not written from fanview! Which information are you missing?

Kind regards!

Hey Epeefleche! Are you kidding me? What's wrong with the "Life"-Text of this article/artist?? It's a normal information about the life before starting the career and I found a lot of other artists/articles with a text like this! That's really weird, that you deleted the "Life" - text oO ?!?!?

Kind regards!

June 2013
Hello, I'm Epeefleche. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I already addressed your later comment on my page, earlier -- above. Please read it.  It explains why we don't add information that violates wp:v--Epeefleche (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC).

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Petty Joy. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Petty Joy


A tag has been placed on Petty Joy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Longer explanation as to deletion of uncited material
Hi. I apologize in advance for the repetitiveness of this. But while I've communicated much of it above, I gather it is not entirely clear to you.

First, it is not appropriate for you to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Petty Joy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for your removal in your edit summary.

Second, you should read wp:burden ("Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.") and wp:v to understand the importance of references to reliable sources (RSs). The fact that you "know" something is not sufficient. This is especially the cases with bios of living people, such as the one in question. See wp:blp to better understand that. Also, see wp:NOR to better understand why your personal knowledge is not sufficient here, where we have material in a bio of a living person, that has been challenged, and is entirely unreferenced.

The nature of the information is fine. That is not the problem. It is the lack of references to RSs. Where information in this BLP bio is challenged and removed because you didn't provide a reliable source, if you'd like to include a citation to an RS and re-add it. Please understand that the problem is that you keep adding unsourced content to Petty Joy. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

thank you for your longer explanation.

The thing is, I asked the artist herself for all these information, so I have the artist as source. On the official webpage is not the whole great information, I have for wikipedia, so where should I reference it to? I don't think, that it should be deleted, because the information and text and source is absolutely correct and great. But where should I reference it to?

Kind regards,

WPia013


 * Sorry to repeat myself yet again, but please read wp:NOR, as well as the other pages I directed you to which have the answers to your question. You can do that by clicking through the links.  You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that directly support the material being presented. You having a personal relationship with the subject of the article, and adding information that you personally know because the subject of the article told you the information, is not acceptable.  I've indicated this to you a number of times already.  It is not sufficient that something is "true" -- and you know it to be true, because of your personal relationship with the subject of the article that you are editing.  Even if you are in fact the subject of the article, that is not enough.  No matter how great you think the information is.Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I checked out the article of "David Guetta" for example and there are no references about the life and career to any other page. So, why is his article good? In my opinion, wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, so, there should be a lot of information about persons and other things. I have the information about this person, so why not share the information to the community, like others... I think also, that not all admins are really thinking the same. That should not be a personal attack to you, Epeefleche, but other admins think, that the text is ok, the only thing is the reference, which should be not the big problem, we should solve this problem together to build a good article for the community. I have no problems to work on the text, absolutely not. I really want a good article and not a war between users and I thank you, that you sent me more helpful information now. On the official webpage is a page with information about the biography and career in one, what if I reference to this page? Kind regards, WPia013


 * As to your question with regard to another article, that you indicate lacks refs, 1) please feel free to challenge the text, if you feel it is appropriate, and/or tag it and/or delete it and/or open up discussion on the issue on his talk page; and 2) please read wp:otherstuffexists.


 * I understand that you know the subject of this article personally. And I understand that you would like to add information that the subject of the article told you.  But as to that, please see my above comments.


 * I understand that in your opinion, wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. However, it does in fact of policies and guidelines.  Those reflect consensus of the editors.  The opinion of such editors, as reflected in such guidelines and policies, is what keeps you from saying "I know it to be true even though it is not published in any reliable source, so I will add it to his bio."


 * As I have also said above, if you do have appropriate RS references directly supporting those facts, simply provide them in inline citations and re-add the facts. If, however, as you have indicated, that is not the case -- it is considered "original research".  Wikipedia rules in this regard are as I indicated above.  I pointed to guidelines and policies -- not to the view of any one editor or any one admin.

Some editors are uncomfortable using official webpage information as to contentious facts, and such information may be deleted if that is the only place that such information is resident, but as to non-contentious facts an official webpage is usually accepted as fine (though an article may be templated if it relies primarily or solely on primary sources such as an official webpage).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)