User talk:Newmanoconnor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hello, Newmanoconnor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Prod of Oldenburg Baby

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Oldenburg Baby, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen

As Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gianna_Jessen explains, that discussion is archived and should not be edited. I have started a second nomination here for you: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gianna_Jessen_(2nd_nomination). You may like to start usingWP:TWINKLE if you are interested in nominating articles for deletion. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen and policy

Re our discussion at the AfD, it's great that you've read our policies and guidelines - it's more than most newcomers manage to do. But I'd say that you need to think a bit more about how to apply them to real cases. Their precise application can be difficult (and subject to disagreement, of course) - and you haven't picked one of the simplest cases to start with!

Now it isn't outside the realms of possibility that my understanding of the relevant policies is wrong in this case. I'd say unlikely, but not impossible since I haven't had many recent dealings with BLP cases - most of my writing is about long-dead people. So, since you're obviously not able to accept my interpretation, and you didn't take up my suggestion to ask for another opinion, I've raised the issue on the BLP Noticeboard for our mutual benefit. I trust that you'll accept whatever interpretation comes out of any discussion there, as will I.

I think that any further discussion on this should take place on the article's talk page, to avoid cluttering up the AfD further. —SMALLJIM  13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed,just FYI I don't have any hard feelings, it's just a difference of opinion. I think you are doing what you think is correct in good faith, as am I. I added some comments to the BLP notice board for you guys, I'd appreciate feedback to my specific points.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that barnstar. If there was one for promising newcomers I'd award it to you. However, I won't be making any more substantive edits to the Jessen page; as I said, it's not within my field of interest. I'll leave it on my watchlist for a while, though, just to keep an eye on it.

Good luck, and remember that one of our most important principles is consensus. While it's fine to have robust opinions here, those opinions are only useful to test against everyone else's. If consensus is against you, the only way you can hope to change it is by careful reasoned argument - without going as far as flogging dead horses, of course! Best, —SMALLJIM  11:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC 142 afD

Don't mark me WP:SPA. I have edited more articles than the two afDs, and I've been an editor here longer than you. Just because I take an interest in seeing MMA-related knowledge remain accessible on Wikipedia does not mean that is my only area of interest or that I created this account for the sole purpose of defending from these spurious and unnecessary afDs.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why your account is not yet a month old and only has contribs related to UFC/MMA? If you've been an editor for so long are you using this username as a sockpuppet? Can you explain why you result to name calling if you are so knowledgeable of WP's including WP:CIVIL? Or why you don't sign your posts?Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You have not looked at my editing history since you erroneously believe I've only contributed to UFC/MMA articles. I have only contributed to afD's related to UFC/MMA, true. I have edited prior to the creation of this account anonymously, until I discovered that simply left my IP address open for everyone to see. I am no sockpuppet, this is the only account I have access to. Every post I have made is signed, with the exception of this one on your talk page. Whoops. As far as being civil, I try my best to be. But to me, labeling one a WP:Troll is the same as labeling one a sockpuppet without proof in terms of civility.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously man, your behavior would lead anyone to believe you might be a sock or a meatpuppet. You have basically one other edit, some nowhere town in KY. Your account was created at the same time as the first UFC AfD came up and it is basically your only contribs. If you didn't go around making votes that are STRONG DELETE' So and so is a WP:TROll" and no other rationale then I wouldn't think you are a sock or recruited voter. I sincerely mean it when I say, provide some proof that this was a notable MMA event, and I will change my vote and go to bat for all of you. Right now it seems like a bunch of fanboys, using meats and socks as in other prior mma discussions to prevent a deletion. Seriously, make a point that shows this is notable, have a source other than an MMA blog and I will totally and completely back you. Also, I won't mark you as SPA again and I won't start a sock investigation since you are taking the time to at leas sort of discuss this, I'm going to AGF. Please go back and change your name calling votes to some rationale, and rationale, copy and paste from a like minded voter. Just do something that shows you care about Wikipedia more than MMA or UFC.If you don't care more about wikipedia then you shouldn't be editing MMA it's COI. It's the same reason I don't edit the Manchester United stuff for Football in general, I'm not a stats nerd about football, I am a diehard MU fan.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're judging my entire Wiki account based on one reply you read. If you go back over my past contribs in the other UFC afD, you'd see I cited all kinds of Wiki essays and guidelines to make my case. They were immediately discounted and ignored by those two editors who are on a crusade to have UFC/MMA articles deleted. But you are correct, still no need to be uncivil. I'll edit.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There you go. Better? AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I should have looked farther back at your previous AfD discussions,specifically that AfD for UFC149. But you do still have the appearence of an SPA, you only are contributing to these MMA discussions, really no other edits. I can tell you this, that editor DennisBrown is up for being an admin, and is a good editor, I've strongly disagreed with him on other articles, but he is concerned with Wikipedia above most things at least. Look I don't know alot about MMA, and just because it isn't mainstream doesn't mean it shouldn't have any coverage, but to say that this event deserves a page when no the AFC or NFC championship don't have their own page?? You have to explain why this particular UFC event is notable, they can't all be notable. Did one of these guys really come outta no where or some big thing happen at the even, that we can go find good sources for? Tell me where and, I'll even go do the citing.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

http://sportv.globo.com/site/eventos/combate/noticia/2012/04/anthony-johnson-recomeca-carreira-no-titan-fighting-mas-mira-o-ufc.htmlBrazilian. Translated: Anthony Johnson at Titan Fighting resumes career, but sees the UFC Fighter, who lost his job after failing to make weight at UFC Rio 2, says that he has no ghost haunting his life, and only think about the future.

This event took place in Brazil, and an up-and-coming Top 5 ranked Middleweight lost his job after losing to a Brazilian national hero in Vitor Belfort. That's notable for sure. AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I get that that is notable in the MMA World, but it isn't notable on the level that would be required for a stand alone page. Does Vitor Belfort have a page? It could go there.

That it is just notable in the MMA world is not a requirement for notability. WP:GNG It's been shown to have been significantly covered by reliable, independent sources. Vercingetorix is only notable to those studying ancient Gaul or Rome and has absolutely no bearing on the world today, yet he stills merits his own individual article, as he should.AugustWest1980 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For Sports events think Mike Tyson biting off Evander Holyfields ear, or some unknown guy beating the world champ. Or the Music City Miracle from an AFC Championship game(in that case the play, not the game got a stand alone page). Also, even if you really only want to contribute to MMA stuf, you really have to find other things to contribute to, or you will always bee seen as SPA by some people. If I can help you anymore, please let me know.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[1]

It probably doesn't hurt to comment. 86.** IP (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well, I reverted so it's back.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Case

Really got your ass handed to you on that one, didn't you? I hope you and the other two stooges continue your anti-UFC tirade, it's starting to get really entertaining watching outside parties telling you to quit wasting resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optravisprime (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't really phrase it that way, especially considering the Check User admin, states the online MMA community is atwarodds with the Wikipedia Community. I know I would rather have an admin tell me this is a waste of time and nothing to do here than let socks be used the way I've seen them lately.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fredkin's Paradox

Hello Newmanoconnor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fredkin's Paradox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is not covered in EPR paradox, nor in Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis. Moreover, it's not a hoax - it's mentioned here. Regards,JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JohnCD , I appreciate you noting this and the ref. I have added a citation to the page for the book. I may have misread EPR paradox. Thanks for looking out for Wikipedia and me!

Speedy deletion declined: Epizod II: Rapnastyk

Hello Newmanoconnor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Epizod II: Rapnastyk, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to records. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk03:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please slow down

I see you've been editing for 11 days. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivarian propaganda was a premature AFD, not grounded in policy, and you put multiple and gratuitous tags on the article that don't indicate you understand yet all of Wikipedia's relevant policies. The number of Speedy deletion decline notices on your talk also indicate that you aren't yet well enough grounded in Wikipedia's policies to be tagging articles for deletion or nominating them at AFD. Might I suggest you engage further with Wikipedia before doing New Page Patrol and tagging articles? SandyGeorgia(Talk) 15:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I wouldn't consider it premature, I may have been off the mark with a tag, or so, but even some of our policies are open to interpretation. I have no way of knowing how some of these rules and policies are interpreted if I don't test the waters a bit. As far as , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivarian propaganda goes, I am going to ask that the AfD be closed, since the article in it's present state (after all your hard work, which I applaud you for) is not remotely the same article.

There are often articles such as this that will go for months or years sitting in a state that is disorganized,misleading,POV,etc. They do a disservice to Wikipedia and it's users when they are left up like that for so long. Maybe you had noticed it already, if that is the case. Then you either would have done the work anyway, or you wouldn't have, and in that case someone needed to , or remove it until they could take the time to put up something worthwhile. I learned more from your editing this page,the TWO speedy deletion declines, and the tag changes you made and the state the articles in, than I ever would just reading and rereading the WP:xxxxxx policy entries(Which I have).Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I had already started working on the article before your AFD nomination, I would have fixed the article regardless of your AFD nomination, and I would have tagged it correctly. Your AFD nomination brought no attention to getting the article fixed that wasn't already present, and wastes admin time (someone has to close it, and the AFD has to be recorded on talk). Please don't make pointy AFD nominations: tagging the article is sufficient. AFD is for reviewing notability, not for getting people to work on improving content. I'm glad you learned something from my editing, and hope you will carry forward with what you've learned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

See, now there is something I was not under the impression of, that AfD is ONLY for WP:N. I will definately go and reread the AfD article.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case against me?

You posted a message on my talk saying that I am accused of being a Sock Puppet (which is 100% false), but I couldn't find where to defend myself in the link you provided. I haven't even heard the term sock puppet until a couple weeks ago so please let me know what I have to do to verify I'm a legit, single user/single account person. Thanks. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Pull lead (talk •contribs) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

He removed you from the SPI after the fact (meaning after the SPI was declined and scoffed at). Repeating my request above, Newmanoconnor, please slow down and learn your way around in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Do you mind letting me respond to things on my own talk page? Or at least giving me time to? Are you aware of any of the issues surrounding the UFC/MMA articles and their AfD's and the issues with sockpuppets and meatpuppets? I removed Pull lead when it became clear that I was not seeing user histories correctly on my iPad and double checked everyone I had added as well as when the CheckUser editor declined the checkuser. Which I also stated I had done on the investigation page.

I'd appreciate it it you would stop being so condescending, and uncivil ("meaning after the SPI was declined and scoffed at"). The SPI was closed BEFORE I removed three users names? No it was AFTER! If you are so brilliant as to never make mistakes, why aren't you an admin? Unless I'm going around repeatedly making tha same mistakes over and over without learning a damn thing, or deliberately being a jerk,etc. Either offer some help, your view of the way a policy should be interpreted, or something constructive. I can see from looking at your barnstars page you obviously do excellent work on many things, and I respect that. However, telling anyone,in maternal fashion to slow down and learn the rules, in a public arena that has user driven and interpreted policies, instead of offering constructive criticism (i.e. " You shouldn't have nominated that album for A7 as it doesn't apply to recordings, you should have done...")will get you nowhere fast with me. I can read and reread policies, but you can only learn so much from that. Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"why aren't you an admin?" Question, meet answer: [2]. Sans culottes 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer, bzzzzt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't convinced by Wikipedia review, I'm not interested in getting into personal issues with either one of you guys. Sandy can seem abrasive and abrupt, but she is also a prolific contributor to Wikipedia , and her quality of work is higher than most I've seen. Not to mention she wasn't perturbed at me for standing up for myself. She has also been pretty helpful, inspire of the fact that we might disagree about the best way to get up and going on Wikipedia.

I'd suggest you try a different approach, that stuff was all along time ago, maybe she learned from the situation?Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The best thing you can do when someone disrupts with something like this is delete or archive the whole thing, Newman ... I learned from that situation to avoid like the plague engaging disruptive users and socks, but I've picked up several over the years, and they still chase me around and stalk my edits. :) Eventually, Wikipedia catches up with them and they end up blocked. Best,SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

AFD advice

Hello there. When nominating articles for deletion (as you have with Anywhere in the World, Only the Horses and other), may I suggest you take a look at WP:AADD? It's better to develop a full argument rather than just evoke a policy or say that something isn't notable. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gagaas a recent example of mine. SplashScreen (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Speedy deletion declined: Asha Kumari

Hello Newmanoconnor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Asha Kumari, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lata Kumari

Hello Newmanoconnor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lata Kumari, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Declined Speedy

Javier Martínez Benito has an indication of importance - playing professional football for Racing de Santander. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)