User talk:Ndołkah

Welcome!

Hello, Ndołkah, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Byng High School, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Butter72 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Byng High School

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Byng High School, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Butter72 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macdonald 80 Shopping Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KGO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metrotrén, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kaitlin Bennett

The article Kaitlin Bennett has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject has questionable notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ben Kenobi151 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think she should be kept because she meets the GNG as she is the primary topic on numerous articles from reliable sources such as Newsweek the ny times and many other news outlets, she's been all over the news for years ever since gaining notoriety for her open carry stunt at Kent stateNdołkah (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Salesian College Preparatory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. When a subject is under discussion on the talk page, you participate in that discussion. Also, any controversial content should be sourced. BTW, everything added to any article on Wikipedia must be paraphrased from a reliable source. You cannot add anything just because you "know" it to be true. John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any unconstructive edits to any page and I sourced my material directly from a newspaper, did you bother to read the articles? If you cannot afford a subscription and they are behind a paywall there is help, I believe wikipedia offers assistance in such cases as you may only view a certain number of articles in full for free per month for the Contra Costa Times for example.Ndołkah (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsourced material on a subject that is currently under discussion on the article talk page. The article is named in the warning message. I get you are new. It is still on you to learn how to do what you are doing. If you'd simply read the messages and links you are getting here that would go a long way towards you understanding what you are doing wrong. I've been doing this for nearly 8 years. Perhaps you should listen to what you are being told. Most everyone comes to Wikipedia with misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. You clearly have many. Those who WP:AGF and actually listen to the information they are being given usually succeed and end up enjoying Wikipedia. Those that don't either quit in frustration or have their editing privileges revoked. It's up to you. John from Idegon (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Salesian College Preparatory; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please take a pause and find out how Wikipedia actually works. The material you added is controversial and opposed by several other editors. The sex abuse stuff is under discussion on the article talk page. Some of what you are adding is unsourced. Some is promo. You do not have consensus for any of it. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did reach consensus and did not post anything unsourced. You I believe removed the sources which I then readded with the appropriate sources.Ndołkah (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Ndołkah. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Orville1974 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Just my two cents worth

I noticed you asked for assistance locating a source on the editor assistance request board, then asked for assistance on the teahouse. The wording of both requests makes it appear as if you're having difficulty maintaining a neutral point of view, which is affecting your edits to the Salesian College Preparatory article. Words like horrors and racist do not present a neutral point of view. Regardless of how you personally feel about a subject, Wikipedia editors are expected to present information from reliable sources avoiding WP:SOAP:

"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." (my emphasis added)

Statements like "My comments will reflect whatever I want them to thank you very much, we are all entitled to speak freely" are best left to forums and blogs, not encyclopedia articles and their related talk pages. Orville1974 (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it i was referring to child sexual abuse as a horror i don't think that's not neutral and i was only stating they were because another more experienced editor referred to them as such anyways. There seems to be a lot of captains here but not enough sailors imo.Ndołkah (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this example may help move the discussion forward (in your favor or against, but at least movement). As you'll see in the link, the clearer you are with your rationale and wording, the easier it will be for other editor's to name specific adjustments to what should be inserted or removed. In this case, the topic is Hillary Clinton's legal defense of an accused rapist. Some news sources described the defense as an atrocity. Others that she was just doing her job. Similarly, editors disagreed about how the content should be included (or even if it should be included). The Hillary Clinton article is under special restrictions, where only one revert per 24-hour period is allowed, so almost everything has to get hashed out on the talk page if an editor wants to make a change: Hilary Clinton Talk Page, Section 3. Orville1974 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the article must state in a paraphrased form accurately what the news articles state however i never inserted the term "horrors" into tyke article myself and another editor simply referred to the abuse as such on the talk page. I never took that as consensus for including it in the said article. I would like to say to you that i sincerely appreciate your proactive approach and positive tone as others editors are rather harsh sounding and even threatening without attempting the dialogue. Merry meet and merry part.Ndołkah (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the word horrors from your Teahouse help request. Did you look at the Clinton talk page link? WP:PROPORTION and WP:DUEWEIGHT both came up in the discussion. These two considerations should also come up in your talk page discussion regarding both the mascot and the abuse. Other editors have rightly stated their case using Wikipedia policies. Take a look at those two policies to see if either will help advance your case. If they actually do the opposite, then consider how much weight the issues should be given in the article and propose specific wording to include (once again, like the proposed wording in the Hillary Clinton article), so everyone has a chance to consider exactly what is being proposed in order to tweak/rebut/come to a consensus on it. Orville1974 (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not changing of name

It is complete upgradation under parliament bill it is going to have it's first vice Chancellor and different UGC guidance portal and thus it should notified by the administration to have it's own wiki article Bengal18 (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?Ndołkah (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, this was meant for me. Orville1974 (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No directed at Bengal18Ndołkah (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the message from Bengal18 was meant for me. He's requesting a major edit about a future change of a college to a university and I think he saw our interaction on the Teahouse and reached out to you, too.

Oh I see I was so scared and confused about thatNdołkah (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote formatting

So when you want to register your vote on the talk page, type:

Support - (then whatever you want here)
or
Don't Support - ....
or
Comment - (When you just want to add something you want everyone to see)
or
Whatever wording you think is appropriate - (etc.)

We still need to wait about a week. There are other editors that have recently been involved in the conversation that should be given the opportunity to weigh in.

Also, just in case this comes up this or another page, WP:CONSENSUS is not the same as a democracy, the most votes doesn't automatically win. It's who states their case best using Wikipedia policies and guidance and sources that defend their position. Orville1974 (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ndołkah! You created a thread called Can another editor removed content that is agreed upon on the talk page but that dislikes and claims is unsoured even though there are inline citations? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kaitlin Bennett for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kaitlin Bennett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaitlin Bennett until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited San Pablo Lytton Casino, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Patch and ABC10 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 357 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, GJ 357, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PATH SLOPU 13:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Seduced By Doctor Bigfoot: Attorney At Large for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seduced By Doctor Bigfoot: Attorney At Large is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduced By Doctor Bigfoot: Attorney At Large until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Salesiano Valparaíso

Hello, Ndołkah,

Thank you for creating Salesiano Valparaíso.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Salesiano Valparaíso, but please see WP:EXIST. A Wikipedia article needs more text beyond a simple announcement that the place exists. Possibilities include famous former students, news on the school's relations with the local community, etc.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, 2019 Chilean protests

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2019 Chilean protests. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2019 Santiago protests. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2019 Santiago protests. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. --Bageense^(disc.) 14:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Proposed deletion of Maria Viramontes

Hello, Ndołkah

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Maria Viramontes, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion. The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maria Viramontes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maria Viramontes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Viramontes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ben Choi

Hello Ndołkah,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ben Choi for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TomCat4680 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ben Choi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ben Choi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Choi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeff Ritterman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeff Ritterman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Ritterman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Caeser's ghost

Please stop putting hatchet jobs into the Wikipedia, it is annoying and wastes our time to have to remove, it's also an egregious violation of the important WP:BLP and you might what to consider if what you are trying to accomplish here is in line with our goals. Herostratus (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not created any hatchet jobs, the only hatchet jobs are your opinions that you've stated about my edits. I don't think you're in charge here if you don't like my contributions then leave Wikipedia and you won't have to deal with them. I have not violated the BLP in any way stop accusing me. It's my goal to include Blow Buddies and other niche articles that Jimmy Whales might find deserving of inclusion for posterity.Ndołkah (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in charge here but WP:BLP is. You can create Blow Buddies, Penis Pals, or any other article you want as long as the subject is notable enough and doesn't violate the core rules including WP:BLP. As a tip, My-way-or-the-highway telling of people to leave the Wikipedia does not usually go well. Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation of a hatchet job is still unsubstantiated and doesn't go over well! And on a humorous note what the heck is penis pals!?Ndołkah (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I mean since Blow Buddies is successful, competitors might spring up, and they'll need a name... maybe start a chain of franchises, so they'll want a memorable name... =) Herostratus (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny!!!Ndołkah (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richmond City Council (Richmond, California), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages KGO, Nancy Skinner and Point Molate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Soto moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Andres Soto, does not have enough sources aabout him specifically to show notability apart from the organization he founded. It needs references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ndołkah! You created a thread called Can anyone help me fix Richmond City Council (Richmond, California)? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rogers

It doesn't matter how many local sources in the local media you can show — once again, every city councillor everywhere can always show local coverage in their local media. The notability test for city councillors is the ability to show that he's much more notable than most other city councillors, by virtue of the ability to show nationalized coverage demonstrating a nationalized profile that transcends what every other city councillor can always also show. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Bearcat (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, you're editorializing, the GNG says reliable sources and that includes local and regional sources period.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not editorializing one bit. I am not reporting my own opinions on a matter for which consensus says otherwise; I am neutrally and dispassionately informing you of the state of established consensus when it comes to notability, and my own personal opinions have not entered into it one bit. The notability standards for politicians are that the person has a nationalized claim of significance, either because they (1) hold or have held office at the national or state levels of government, or (2) can show significantly more nationalized prominence than the norm for a politician at the local level. Not because I said so, but because established consensus, supported by many Wikipedians in many prior discussions on city councillors, said so. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the article in the San Jose Mercury News is "local coverage" of a Richmond politician is patently absurd, Bearcat, and shows your complete lack of understanding of Northern California media outlets. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose and Richmond are both part of a single metropolitan area that constitutes a single unified media market. I don't have any responsibility to be an expert in anything other than the basic notability standards for politicians — which are not automatically passed by a smalltown city councillor just because he can show local coverage within his own media market where such coverage is merely expected to exist, because every city councillor in every city on earth can always show local coverage within his or her own local media market. But having an article about every city councillor on every city councillor on the planet is not, and should not be, our goal or or mandate or our mission. And incidentally, I wasn't the nominator of any of the articles under discussion in the first place, so I have no idea why you're singling me out for special attack — if you don't like Wikipedia's long-established consensus around the notability of city councillors, I'm not who the problem is with. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any convincing him at this point, he seems to think it's opening a can of worms to keep this article to have an article on just about everyone, but I think we are over 5,000,000 articles past that at this point - and for the better I would say.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Blow Buddies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blow Buddies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blow Buddies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. - Mr X 🖋 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oaks Card Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oaks Card Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oaks Card Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. - Mr X 🖋 12:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Corky Boozé

The article Corky Boozé has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This does not meet any existing notability guideline. Radical fail of WP:NPOL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ndołkah! You created a thread called RE: Jim Rogers (California politician) at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Corky Boozé for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Corky Boozé is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corky Boozé until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Emeryville Public Market

The article Emeryville Public Market has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

local market, local references only

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Corky Boozé" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corky Boozé. Since you had some involvement with the Corky Boozé redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Corky Boozé

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Corky Boozé requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corky Boozé. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ben Choi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ben Choi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Choi. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of María Viramontes

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on María Viramontes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Andres Soto

Hello, Ndołkah. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Andres Soto".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]