User talk:BabbaQ

Welcome

Hello, BabbaQ! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jaguar (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Alexandra Zazzi

Hello! Your submission of Alexandra Zazzi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

John and Sarah Jane Makin

Hi again I have just started to read about a very interesting and notable crime case from Australia in the 1890 its about Sarah and John Makin who murdered infants that they had been paid to look after from young women who couldnt take care of them. According to the text it was because of this case that legislations about childcare was changed in Australia so it has had an effect on the country politically and socially. So I was wondering if you would like to make atleast a stub about the case in question, if you have the time. Some sites about the case is found here and here. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I started a workpage stub here. If you can help me expand it to at least 1,500 characters of prose (it is presently at 522), I will transfer it into a new article space and split the credit with you for the DYK nomination. KimChee (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have done some changes. Feel free to change anything that you dont find fitting. As you have so mutch more experience than me. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. The amount of additions to the workpage looks like a decent start. However, upon copyediting and checking against the sources, I recommend that you should work on rephrasing information from your sources more thoroughly (see WP:PARAPHRASE). This is something that a reviewing editor will likely catch during GA review and is also known to happen during DYK reviews. KimChee (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up and submitted the article to DYK. Please keep the comments (above) about sources and paraphrasing in mind for other articles you may be working on. KimChee (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On a more positive note is that our John and Sarah Makin article seems to have been included to DYK for tomorrow or the day after.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I am also checking on the copyright status of the mug shots against Australian law to see if they are eligible for inclusion in a DYK listing. KimChee (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Jorge Rafael Videla

--C628 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

New articles

If you have any time please check out a crime article I found to be quite interesting Beau Maestas, that could definitly need your help I guess. Thanks. Happy holidays!!--BabbaQ (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I regret to be the bearer of bad news, but the majority of the article appears to be a word-for-word copy and paste of an ABC News article and will likely be deleted by an administrator. As the revision history indicates that this problem occurred before your involvement in the article, I recommend that you start a new article from scratch later to be clear of any copyright issues. I think you could also claim DYK credit for restarting the article. KimChee (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Thanks. Anyway I have now deleted a majority of the information about Beau only keeping the start of the article. I will expand it later. If you dont like it please undo but I thought it was a good decision, atleast for now. Thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that articles under review for copyright violations should not be edited until an administrator removes the tag and decides whether to delete the article or trim it back to a stub. KimChee (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

An administrator has cleared the problem article, so you are free to restart it. Let me know if you need any help. KimChee (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I also started a stub on Disappearance of Joanna Yeates today if it might interest you.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that this article is facing a WP:NOTABILITY challenge from another editor; I hope you are not taking any of this personally. As the deletion proposal appears to give you a seven day window, you should exercise patience for a few days and see if the media coverage unfolds to provide material to further establish notability before attempting to delete the proposal as it would likely go straight to an WP:AFD vote. For future articles of similar subject matter, I recommend you check against WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:ONEEVENT as criteria that will help you establish notability. KimChee (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As Yeates may have been found, the article's title may soon need to be updated. A developing connection to the unfolding case of Melanie Hall may also help you in your notability quest. KimChee (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John and Sarah Makin

Orlady (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Disappearance of Joanna Yeates for deletion

The article Disappearance of Joanna Yeates is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Joanna Yeates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  ƒox  21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is too bad I was unable to advise the other editor that removing the deletion proposal tag prematurely would force an early AfD vote. However, it looks like you have more supporters this time. I will wait until the official post-mortem report is issued before joining the discussion. KimChee (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It feels quite safe to say that there is support for this article to stay on Wikipedia for now. And I have a feeling that the post-mortem results will provide further insights into the case and provide enough information for definite "keep statu." --BabbaQ (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind my frankness, but I am still at a weak keep because of the early stage of the investigation, so I will continue to help clean up the article while waiting to see if my opinion strengthens through additional news reports. However, my instinct tells me that this will likely be a higher profile case than the others. KimChee (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are totally entitled to your opinion ofcourse. And as you point out it will probably end up as you predict with a high profile case. Keep up the very good work. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand you could put on a Weak keep on the Afd for now and change it if you feel different at another time. Or make a small comment that you think the case is going to last etc.. But thats up to you.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I did finally comment, though I do not think you need my vote anymore. :) As a note of observation, there will always be editors biased towards inclusionism and deletionism, so you should relax and take the AfD process less personally. By focusing on the content of the article (as the supportive editors appear to have done in this case) rather than the argument itself, the others in AfD may take you more seriously. KimChee (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see your points. Even though I personally find it that I only reacted back in the same manor as those who wrote to me in the first place. Even though I know I should be above that and so on and on... You know how it is sometime. anyway,on a more positive note im satisfied that the Keep consensus has been basically reached by now. Cheers mate.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

FA/PR suggestion

Im not saying I will , but If I was to nominate the Oba Chandler article for FA do you think it stands a reasonable chance of being Supported for it?. I personally find that the overall prose,length and sourcing are up to FA standards and when looking trough the arguments for not promoting it in an earlier FA nomination, the problems raised that time has been taken care of since. But I dont know maybe im bias because I personally find the article very good.Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is decent, but I am 99% certain that the editors there will give you a hard time during FA Review; the bar for FA has been raised noticeably higher in the past few years. I recommend you read some of the reviews to see what they subject the nominators to. I think a good idea would be to submit the article to Peer Review; you will be assigned an experienced editor who will provide feedback to help prepare the article. I have done this regularly to prepare candidates for GA and FA review. KimChee (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I will think it trough both ones and twice more before doing it. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike "The Godfather" Clemente

Just by way of an FYI ... you may have felt LibStar's comment to you to be insulting, but LibStar has a point - your vote on the Clemente AfD shows a startling lack of knowledge on how the AfD process works, and some of your votes in other AfDs more of the same. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the standard notability and inclusion criteria, as well as deletion policy and the accompanying guide to deletion, before participating in further AfDs. One consequence of not doing so is likely what you're finding in LibStar's comment: that people will discount your opinion as uninformed, and your arguments will carry little or no weight in future AfDs.  RGTraynor  14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

totally agree, well said RGTraynor. BabbaQ many of your !votes say keep as per sources or minimum requirements met, in a very short sentence. Any keep voter must explain how notability is met abd which criterion, and you never explain. Secondly in the case of little or no sources, good "keep" voters actually search for sources, it's fine to always !vote keep but please make a serious effort instead of just popping up and saying keep and a vague statement. Your pattern of voting suggests you don't even try to search for sources. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is as I have already stated that I have had the "right opinion" in a number of Afds. Where I for example said Keep and Libstar (as you are referring to that user) said Delete and the final result was Keep. That can only point to the fact that I am quite familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines afer all. Also I have to say that I have not had a problem with anyone else but Libstar who time after time claims that I am wrong. I am starting to believe that its more of a "you are of the wrong opinion" kind of remarks, even though I am hoping its not. But ofcourse people can always improve knowledge about the Wikipedia. But I like that you remain civil Libstar, credit you you my friend. Peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

One suggestion from my point of view to you and Libstar would be to not just refer to for example WP:ONEEVENT and not go any further in your reasonings. That will in 9 cases of 10 lead to a discussion about how that guideline refers to the subject in hand and I have noticed that it often leads to a hollowing of the guideline as for both Keep and Delete.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

this comment doesn't address the other AfDs which are not about news events. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I also am questioning why someone deleted these messages that I had posted...hmm maybe it was a mistake?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a mistake as I was posting at the same time. Sorry.LibStar (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

it's not about wrong opinion it's about the way you !vote. Tell us why did you say "keep per courcelles" when all courcelles did was relist the debate? LibStar (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I will answer that question when you answer to why you only keep referring to guidelines like WP:ONEEVENT and to why you posting WP:JUSTAVOTE to anyone that says different than you my friend?.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way its obvious that i ment Schmidts comment but by mistake wrote wrong. Are you assmuming bad faith? hmm.. I am starting to assume bad faith from your side even though I hope im wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I will not respond to this discussion any further, I have recieved your point of view and you have recieved mine. I am also smelling a meta-discussion coming up that I have no interest in being a part of. I have taken your suggestions to heart and hopefully you have taken mine too. Anyway, peace out.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

is it because you don't want to admit the truth? that you just visit AfDs put a vague statement like "notability met" and always want to vote !keep regardless. And that "keep per courcelles" showed that you often don't even read the AfD and the article up for deletion? I mean it doesn't make sense why someone would say keep per the admin who relisted the debate and expressed no opinion for keep or delete? Let's be honest here. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C

Would you mind in the future having a link to source discussing the story? It helps alot The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

aah ok.cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD vote

It was a serious vote. I seriously suggest someone checks Peter Tobin's cell to make sure the right guy is still in there. 86.174.133.79 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)