User talk:Roleplayer/Archive13
Welcome!
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Re Sam Caplat
This page clearly indicates the importance of the subject. Citing references and stating facts as to his significance. I request that it not be deleted, and any improvements that can be made, are made, rather than removing the page all together. --Samcaplat (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. Unfortunately there is only one single reference on the entire page that has come from a reliable source, and that's the one that shows Wiltshire College Salisbury exists and has nothing else to do with the content of the article! In order for this to be kept you need to:
- Demonstrate that you are notable per Wikipedia's guidelines (which I can tell you haven't read, despite them being given to you prior to creating this article)
- Evidence this fact using external references from reliable sources that are easily verifiable
- Also you need to read the note I left on your talk page about conflicts of interest. You should exercise great caution when writing about yourself on Wikipedia, and preferable, should avoid doing it altogether. -- roleplayer 21:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The page was not created by me, but was edited by me as per a request by the creator. This seemed like the most reliable option. I am unsure as to whether or not my YouTube page is a reliable source or not, as it is the only online proof that I exist. Clearly, as per the video content, I do, but I am yet to be written about in any magazine/online blog. I have read the guidelines, and remain confused about this. I do understand that I should excercise caution when writing about myself, however. --Samcaplat (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- See the page history: your account clearly created this article. Youtube is not a reliable source, principally because any content can be uploaded to that website by just about anyone, saying just about anything, and there is no peer review of the information before it is posted. If what you are saying is that this is the only proof to your notability, then I'm afraid you can't have a page on Wikipedia. -- roleplayer 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The page was revived by me, as per the previous deletion. Originally, the page was not created by me, but instead by a friend, Ian. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, YouTube is the only source. If and when a reliable source comes up, are fans of my work permitted to revive the page again? Thanks for your help. --Samcaplat (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- More importantly, uploading videos to youtube doesn't make you notable, so this should be definitely be deleted. And no if it is it will be salted. Smartse (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, any salted article can be recreated by contacting administrators and presenting reasons. --Samcaplat (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it can. Though as pointed out above posting videos to youtube does not make you notable. Once you've established yourself as a successful film director in another arena, then we might consider it. But only if the evidence presented fits the above criteria. -- roleplayer 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
There are many popular YouTube users who are on Wikipedia, so I don't see why I cannot be on Wikipedia in due time. But yes, I understand what you are saying when it comes to the notability of myself. --Samcaplat (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what is now happening with this situation, but in my defence over YouTube; There are hundreds of popular YouTube users on Wikipedia, with and without reliable sources, due to the fact that when and if a user has got a reliable source commenting on his/her YouTube, that is still no proof that he/she exists, it's just proof that the YouTube channel and user exist. And when they don't have a reliable source, the Wiki page has been given an exception based on the fact that they are a largely followed entity on YouTube and clearly have some sort of existence. Just something to ponder over. --Samcaplat (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're meaning to use that as a form of defence, but the essay at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should demonstrate why it's not a valid reason to keep this article. Yes other youtube users do have articles on Wikipedia, but that is normally either because they are notable in other ways, or because there are reliable sources that evidence that they are notable. -- roleplayer 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 September 2010
- News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
- WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Richard Trammell
Hi, when you moved Richard Trammell to Trammellfitness/Richard Trammell were you intending it to go into user space? I wasn't sure, but moved it to User:Trammellfitness/Richard Trammell anyway. -- roleplayer 14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm an idiot *slaps forehead* And right after that I helped someone move their page from username/sandbox to User:username/sandbox! Thanks for fixing it up for me. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Korean swordsmanship
I have repeatedly removed this section of the page Swordsmanship because Korean swordsmanship is non-existant. I have already posted this with more detail on the discussion. I suggest research to be done before restoring it again. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.200.222.22 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 October 2010
- WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes
- Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news
Please don't describe your edit as an "undo" if it's not
Re this edit. I don't mind the fact that you knew enough information about the individual concerned to be able to link to an article about her. However please don't describe it as an "undo" in your edit summary if it's not one. It makes me look bad as an editor. -- roleplayer 09:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am truly sorry, I used the "undo" link to retrieve the earlier text to modify it, but forgot in my haste to change the edit summary. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey I'm sorry for "shooting from the hip" like that. There are worse things in the world to worry about! -- roleplayer 09:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Why I contest removal of the fuck of the month club article
I am afraid that citatios of the article were not added, but they will be added, shortly. Furthermore, the article linkage is concerned with freedom of speech laws and many other amendment rights. I have since sourced some claims of the article. However I believe the article is of notoriety enough to stay, and finally, the article will shortly make reasons for why it's important enough to stay online. Give me another hour, and I will have completely sourced this article.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- When something is nominated for deletion you need to read the reason why rather than assuming. I nominated it because the only information given in the article was about Rotten.com - there was no new information and so it was a poor copy of an already existing article. I didn't even look at whether the information was sourced or not because the first point made that issue totally moot. -- roleplayer 15:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)