Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alzarian16 (talk | contribs) at 22:57, 12 February 2010 (→thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Alzarian16, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Ace Cougar, may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ace Cougar

A tag has been placed on Ace Cougar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to British Rail Class 180‎

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to British Rail Class 180‎. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Keith D (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Powers (TV series)

Hi Alzarian16, the short answer is no. The link was to footage uploaded by a fan group, who are most likely not to have permission from the copyright holder to upload the work. The relevant Misplaced Pages guideline is at Misplaced Pages:External links#Restrictions on linking which explains further why Misplaced Pages does not link to such content. Also, please consider if the references used are reliable sources, for example IMDb user reviews wouldn't be. Hope that helps, mattbr 09:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In the link you provided, IMDb is being used to provide general info about productions (i.e. they exist) rather than critical response. The comments cited are user-generated and are not representative or authoritative because anybody can post whatever they want (and you can always find someone who loved/hated something, so the same could be said of any production). mattbr 10:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The new link seems OK (although not the best for viewing figures) and you need to be careful about interpreting what was said (there is no mention of "average" viewing figures). Also, the statement that it was "generally well received by viewers" is not supported by the reference given. I would suggest you use the new link to provide some production information as this is the primary topic of it. However, I am struggling to find other (online) references that would help develop the article. I would also recommend the use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} to provide a bit more info about the references rather that just the links. mattbr 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you've done well to find the references you have. There may be some more info in offline sources, which may be worth perusing. In the meantime, I would suggest adding an infobox ({{Infobox television}} in this case) to summarise some of the information along with the ref formatting. mattbr 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for your insightful comments at Phase II of "BLP madness" ;) My theory is that most new editors want to keep encyclopedia unreferenced content. Okip (formerly Ikip) 19:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty convincing theory. It certainly applied to me; when my first article had a PROD put on it I fought tooth and nail to get it kept (and was ultimately successful, thanks in large part to a number of new references I found - arguably PROd working at its best). But it isn't just new editors who want unreferenced contetn kept, a number of established ones do too - take a look at the response to this AfD nomination. The current BLP debate seems to me to be yet another aspect of the running deletionism v inclusionism debate, and I favour inclusionism in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)