Nuke them all

Wait til they glow

Go skating on the glass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Bullpen_catchers Alex (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.... uh why? I do AfD work, no reason to think I'd be interested. Nha Trang 19:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NukeThePukes. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson (2nd nomination).
Message added 07:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Montserrat page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredian Holdings Group Inc. your vote implied that absense of reliable sources in an article, regardless of whether they exist, is grounds for deletion. Just wanted to let you know that articles don't need to contain the sources then and there; as long as they can be shown to exist, the article shouldn't necessarily be deleted. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk)

• No, my vote stated pretty darn explicitly that those sources must be shown to exist, and that merely alleging that they might exist doesn't cut it. I really rather folks read what I wrote than what they want me to be saying. Nha Trang ^Allons! 23:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I misread your comment, I see what you meant now. Sam Walton (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, no problem. It's all good. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The words "if reliable sources don't discuss a subject, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it" advanced as an argument for deletion do appear to be an assertion that reliable sources do not in fact discuss the subject that you argued should be deleted (which is what "unverifiable" means on Wikipedia). Our policies do not say that it is up to editors who want to save an article to produce sources. In fact WP:NRVE clearly states that notability depends only on the existence of sources and does not depend on their be cited or otherwise produced. Editors are, in particular, not required to provide a webliography of sources easily findable with a search engine in order to prove notability. In fact, NRVE goes even further than that and says that it is sufficient to assert that adequate sources are likely to exist because of the nature of the topic. I imagine that the policy that you mean to invoke in this respect is WP:BURDEN. That policy, however, clearly states that it applies to content in articles, and not to the notability of article topics. (This has been extensively discussed on the talk page of that policy and the idea that BURDEN applies to proof of notability was roundly rejected by clear consensus). In any event, a reliable source verifying the existence of the journal, and sufficient to justify a redirect (which is all I argued for), had already been produced by User:Phillosopher. "This reliable source verfies the existence of the journal" is a perfectly valid argument for a redirect (which is all I argued for). Making such an argument does not indicate that I need to brush up on GNG because ... wait for it ... redirects don't need to satisfy GNG! And they don't need to be notable either. Nor can I see why you think I need to brush up on WP:V. James500 (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And to quote you, your whole argument top to bottom is nonsense. Maybe you've mistaken AfD for RfD, but at AfD, articles have to satisfy the article standard, which is the GNG. Funny that you're citing NRVE, which says explicitly, "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." I kinda hope you don't mind too much if I don't feel like taking your word or anyone else's that sources "might" exist: WP:V and WP:BURDEN both require you to demonstrate them, however much a claque of inclusionists on the talk page might have tried to claim consensus otherwise. But thank you for playing. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you nominated my article for it's second round of deletion votes. And then you chopped up the entire article "claiming" none of my sources were good enough. This article has been edited several times by others, and I am baffled that you are the only person who cut it down to nothing. Anyway... is it possible, since you nominated it, that I can undo your changes so anyone who votes on it can see it in it's original form? I'd like a few other opinions considering this article was written MONTHS ago and you are the first person to do this. Team 77 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Team 77[reply]

• It's not that I "claimed" a thing. It's that the sources I chopped didn't mention the subject at all, and you making claims in that article such as "This year, The Celebrity Source recruited ten celebrities to serve on the Celebrity Advocacy Cabinet of the Charleston Animal Society’s “No Kill Charleston 2015” campaign" when The Celebrity Source wasn't mentioned in the citation you presented is just not allowed. The other editors who made fixes to the article handled gnome work like adding pertinent categories or tags, and I figure they didn't check the sources--- not baffling at all. Tell you what: go take a look at WP:GNG, which discusses what an article has to do to sustain notability, and WP:IRS, which discusses what goes into a valid source: that ought to help.

  In the meantime, if you want to write an article on Rita Tateel using those sources which mention her, be my guest (although none of them discussed her in any detail at all, let alone the "significant coverage" the GNG requires), but you can't turn an article that's purportedly about something else into an article about her. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NukeThePukes, Once an AFDs closed you can't comment otherwise it would lead to one massive discussion and then we'd both get reverted, I'm happy to discuss it here but we can't comment on closed AFDs unfortunately,
Thanks and Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 16:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, plainly it DIDN'T lead to one massive discussion. You asked a question, and I answered it. If you're pulling my comment, then perhaps you can pull yours. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No but it would've done, No need to remove mine as I made it when the AFD was open, I asked a question and you answered it AFTER the AFD had been closed, Like the other editor I pinged- you could've answered on my talkpage ?, To be fair most editors who don't have a chance to respond usually leave a response on that editors talkpage which is better than warring really. –Davey2010^Talk 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here you edited one of my comments- I deliberately use they instead of he/she throughout Wikipedia, and it is perfectly grammatically correct to do so. Anyway, you shouldn't be editing other's talk comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's NOT grammatically correct to call someone who's plainly a man "they," however much that sloppy usage has gotten popular. Genderless pronouns make sense only when we don't know the gender of the subject. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] says it's fine, and anyway you shouldn't be editing my comments anyway, regardless of whether they're grammatically correct or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude, you really ought to be linking to sources that say what you claim they do. "They" is fine when you don't know the freaking gender of the subject, and that source doesn't say anything different, never mind that it's okay to use a plural pronoun when you know the gender of the subject. Do we need to worry whether you're that sloppy with your fact-checking at AfD? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If even by the horribly loose standards of VG/RS there aren't any qualifying sources ...
— Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gon' E-Choo! (video game)

What is horribly loose about WP:VG/RS's standards? What would you do differently? – czar 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. You have SEVENTY-SIX active "reliable sources" listed, an absurd amount for an industry watchlist -- I doubt there's any other industry or field where WP guidelines considers half that many industry-dedicated sources "reliable." Exactly what makes each and every one of them -- as WP:IRS requires -- a reliable source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" How many editors were in on these decisions?

That's what I'd do -- trim that list dramatically. Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions are archived on the talk page. If you dispute the reliability of any of the 66 you mention, that would be the place to start. I don't see why the number of vetted sites should have a quota. – czar 16:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see how a single field of entertainment could possibly have approaching a HUNDRED insider sites that are all reliable, all have a public reputation for fact checking, and all have a public reputation for accuracy. Anyway, I didn't come to you with this -- you asked me to explain myself. I have. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just to inform you that I removed the userbox where you say you're opposed to REPUBLICAN SCUM. I also do not support the party, but there are civility and neutrality guidelines on Wikipedia.

Just as a note for next time, we strive to be civil and neutral on Wikipedia, and that includes user pages. You could do it in a more neutral and respectful manner, like ((User:Eternal dragon/Userboxes/AntiLeader|Republican Party (United States)((!))Republicans)), which produces This user opposes the policies and views of Republicans, which is allowed on here. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]