User talk:RonSigPi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:RonSigPi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey, thanks for the help on Malone College Athletics! Can you write some more on the Track & Field team? coaches, history, etc?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Matthew Halischuk, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Halischuk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. JD554 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In the first part a HBCU is defined as an institution founded before 1964. However, later it states institutions founded after Brown v. Board are not eligible. Brown v. Board was decided in 1954, so there is a 10 year gap where it seems to be contradictory. For example, University of the Virgin Islands was founded in 1962, after Brown v. Board, but before the 1964 date and is recognized as a HBCU. Can someone clear up the discrepancy (1954 against 1964) for both me and on the page. Thanks. RonSigPi (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1964 date is the official measure, not Brown vs. Board of Education. The court ruling was a compromise statement added to address a past discussion on the issue of predominately black instuituions that were not included on the listing. I added the following (which is actually more accurate):

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defines an HBCU as: "...any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary [of Education] to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation."

Other educational institutions currently have large numbers of African Americans in their student body, but as they were founded (or opened their doors to African Americans) after the implementation of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (the court decision which outlawed racial segregation of public education facilities) and The Higher Education Act of 1965. Thus by definition they are not historically black colleges, but have been termed "predominantly black."

Hopefully this provides a little more clarity. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Bart Tanski requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 biographies.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Paste (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Though the Bart Tanski article could be sent to AfD for the sake of process, it has very little chance of surviving AfD unless more sources can be found. If you would like me to move the article to your user space so you can add sources and improve the article, that would be a reasonable step. Let me know if you think you could spend any time on that, or have any idea where press coverage might be found. If you are wondering about the importance of the Mr. Football Award (Ohio), you'll notice that most winners of that award who currently have Wikipedia articles have a lot of references in their articles. The Tanski article, when it was deleted, had no references at all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article to User:RonSigPi/Bart Tanski. You can work on improving it there. Later, it can be restored to mainspace. Of course, if it is moved back to mainspace, it will need to take its chances at AfD unless the sourcing can be improved. Let me know if I can help with anything further. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Josh McAdams, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from , and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Josh McAdams and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Josh McAdams with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Josh McAdams.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Josh McAdams/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Josh McAdams saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! -Jrcla2 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Bob Lewis (golfer), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Lewis (golfer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Delvon Roe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delvon Roe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello RonSigPi! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 395 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Kwon Hyuk - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, John Flanagan (footballer, born 1993). 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 - John Flanagan (footballer born 1993). 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 John Flanagan (footballer born 1993) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 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. User:ConconJondor _talk ^contribs 19:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Pete Lalich requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Greenmaven (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved the article to User:RonSigPi/Pete Lalich. It is not acceptable to have biographies without a simple reference. The person probably meets Notability guidelines, but it needs references. Let me know if you want some help creating refernces, or check out Referencing for beginners

Please feel free to work on it in user space, and move it when it is ready.--SPhilbrickT 14:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (2nd nomination). You were involved in a related discussion on notability of Pan Am game baseball participants and are are invited to participate in this AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The article List of 2008 Olympic Swimming National Trials has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Really not necessary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain what problem changing a has been team like Notre Dame for a team that has actually been productive over the past decade like LSU would cause? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. To be blunt, this causes a slippery slope that people can just edit to put in their favorite team. Why LSU? How about Ohio State? How about Oklahoma? Or Florida? The point is that many teams are 'powerhouses', but the whole point is to just give examples, not to give the 'best' teams. All an edit like this does is cause needless edits of chest pumping of people over favorite teams. Everyone know Notre Dame and Michigan are storied and elite programs. That does not state LSU is not, but the list is of examples and is not exhaustive.

Look at it in this context, so in five years we are going to need to constantly update our examples for who is 'good' for that period. It actually goes further than that. The guidelines are not just for the current time, but historical as well. So the historical accomplishments of Notre Dame and Michigan are just as relevant as those of LSU, Ohio State, etc. Your edit gave no further clarity to the guidelines and solved no existing problem. Therefore, to stop a president for those needless edits, the edit was undone. RonSigPi (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Irv Rothenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. Louis Bombers

Ray Wertis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. John's University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Defiance College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swimming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Frank Caraballo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TKO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 04:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Great work with {{Footer USA Wrestling 2012 Summer Olympics}}. If you have some time, you might want to create some wrestling olympic team templates for other years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alonzo Martinez 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/Alonzo Martinez until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow! 15 new members in October! Welcome CarlosB2709, ComputerJA, De132Wiki, Dolson94, I remember halloween, Miufus, MMAcleanup, Onebadtown, Poison Whiskey, Rissx, RonSigPi, Stewwie, TheAmazingChandler, Willdawg111, and WilsonFiskUFC. Posting this to your talk pages and PW:MMA Talk page. This month we have a survey for new and existing members, What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better? Kevlar (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for recreating and sourcing the Ortiz biography! Also, in the future, if you see something you'd like to source and recreate, and there's a deleted copy, I'm generally happy to provide a copy that you can work from in the future, if that would save time, just let me know. Thanks again! j⚛e deckertalk 16:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United States at the 2013 World Championships in Athletics may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ||[[[Ashley Spencer (athlete)|Ashley Spencer]]<br>[[Joanna Atkins]]<br>[[Jessica Beard]]<br>[[Francena

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bart Tanski 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/Bart Tanski (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The changes have been discussed at length here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Notability discussion, and I believe a consensus has been reached. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. RonSigPi, thanks for creating Stephen Howard (rugby league)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 4

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. RonSigPi, thanks for creating Tomas Walsh!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article is slightly short, so if you have anymore information about the subject of the article you might want to add it to the article to expand the article. Also you could choose a couple of applicable categories and add them near page bottom.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. RonSigPi, thanks for creating 2014 FILA Wrestling World Cup - Men's freestyle!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article is nicely written and will be quite informative. Perhaps you could choose some appropriate categories near the bottom of the article to help improve the overall article and make the article more easily searchable by wikipedia users.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Anne Keenan-Buckley, RonSigPi!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A tag has been placed on Kevin Burke (quarterback) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Jersey92 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Kevin Burke (quarterback) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he never played in a professional league, and played in Division III college.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Jersey92 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on N Vijay Sundar Prashanth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The article N Vijay Sundar Prashanth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. The listed tournament is not a high level tournament that is required to satisfy WP:NTENNIS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Safiel (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Sean Soriano has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There's no notability for this article to be created. It's an UFC fighter who lost all three of his bouts at the organization and wasn't a big name before that anyway.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Ivan Jorge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

article has no relevance. This is a widely unknown fighter that has a 1-1 record in the organization against lower competition.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on your participation at the previous deletion discussion, you may be interested in the ongoing deletion discussion for Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres which can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres (2nd nomination). ~ Rob^Talk 09:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello RonSigPi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Powerade Wrestling Tournament for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

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

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Davey Browne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or an organised event, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. --Finngall ^talk 23:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Tom Dallas, 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 debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, 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 removed 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. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

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 Cory McGee page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (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) 00:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Kelsie Ahbe, RonSigPi!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

maybe add an infobox, create talk page with WikiProjects, more things like that

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, RonSigPi. Keenan Reynolds, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 01:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

On 31 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Keenan Reynolds (American football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Keenan Reynolds is the only Navy quarterback to win all four games against Army? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your proposed change to WP:NBOX, Luke Wilton would not meet your proposed criteria since he lost his title fight. If that is not correct, please clarify for me. I must admit I don't know what it is about the martial arts that leads to so many different organizations. It doesn't matter whether it's boxing, MMA, karate, kickboxing, or whatever--everybody feels the need to create their own group and/or style. I guess it'a all about the egos of those involved (and, of course, money). Papaursa (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Papaursa - To your message, yes - if my proposal is accepted his presumption would go away. I think my proposal is more strict than I would like, but I think it is a fair summary of the consensus and does address actual controversies arising due to ambiguity. I would rather the guideline be correct than me personally be right. Far as your combat sports question, I think its the de-centralized nature of the sports. Most sports either are nationally-focused and have a national body the governs (National Football League or Australian Football League) and/or are an Olympic sport with a sub-organization the governs International Association of Athletics Federations (yes boxing is an Olympic sport, but is the only one that only applies pretty much for amateurs). With boxing, MMA, etc. its much more of a free-for-all. From a guidelines standpoint I think it makes them trickier to nail down. Just one guy's opinion. RonSigPi (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Following discussion with you have been engaged in, I have put forward an amendment to the Notability Criteria for boxers which is up for discussion Here. Your in put would be greatly welcomed. --Donniediamond (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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 Pita Taufatofua page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (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) 00:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm John from Idegon. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Walnut Creek, California, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Does the presence of a pile of dog poop in the living room suggest the solution is bringing more dog poop in? No....you clean it up. The vast majority if not all of the other entries have referenced content in their bios verifying the tie with the community. This fella is alive, so BLP applies. It isn't my or any other editor's job to do your research for you. WP:V is a core policy. If you want to be lazy, expect to get reverted. John from Idegon (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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 Eric Meeks page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (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) 00:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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 Lindsey Scherf page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (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) 00:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RonSigPi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephanie Fryar 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/Stephanie Fryar until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Fryar 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/Steve Fryar until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article Dougie Gair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NFOOTY. Highest level he has played at is Scottish League Two.

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. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dougie Gair 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/Dougie Gair until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephanie Fryar 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/Stephanie Fryar (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jared Keylon 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/Jared Keylon until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian Bain 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/Brian Bain until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Gunnevera, definitely an interesting back story on his trainer even if the horse is a bit marginal for notability (we normally want to see them win a G1 first). You may want to expand it a bit. If you could be so kind, would you consider adding an infobox {{Infobox racehorse}} and pedigree as we do for most of the horse racing articles? You can use the example at Cloud Computing (horse) to help you. I'm willing to provide advice on this one (I've already created two others, so a bit out of gas for starting new articles at the moment...) Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heart Ashley 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/Heart Ashley until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irish Jasper 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/Irish Jasper until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Though not a G1 winner, Afleet Again will probably pass GNG due to his win in the Marathon, which used to be a G1. However, the article is a real stub, so, per my suggestions on the Gunnevera article above, can you at least add the infobox and source it to the equibase record for the horse? We have about 10,000 horse racing articles and need everyone to pitch in on these. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have now crossed your path at both rodeo and horse racing articles. I have to ask you flat out the following questions: 1) Is this your only Wikipedia editing account? 2) Have you been asked to create any article by any entity that could give rise to a conflict of interest? 3) Are you being paid to edit wikipedia in any way? As it sits, you are creating a lot of low-quality stubs of marginally-notable subjects, tendentiously gaming the guidelines to keep them, and this smacks of undisclosed paid editing. Please clarify your role here on Wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw - At best, this is a violation of WP:CIV. At worst, something far greater. You do not have to ask such questions, you are choosing to ask them, choosing to be aggressive, and choosing to disparage my name. I have been an editor for years as have you. Maybe you are what one pejoratively calls a deletionist and I an inclusionist. Reasonable minds can differ. Virtually all articles I write meet a guideline and are sourced. If not to a level to establish GNG, the so be it, but no one would think its not honest effort. Nothing wrong with stubs - better to ave a stub than nothing. Also, marginally-notable subjects, are still notable (or at least may reasonably be notable). Its not as if no basis is given. I think your conduct have been aggressive and out of line. My suggestion is for 3 months stop nominating my articles for deletion or commenting on their deletion. Let's see how many are nominated and how many nominations are successful. Based on the result we can come to an understanding on if I need to raise my standard for inclusion or if you need to let articles that meet the guideline be. In other words, stay out of each others way for a while, let things cool, and re-evaluate with more data. You consistently attacking my articles and me making efforts to defend them is a waste of both our times. I think this is a reasonable solution. If you have a better idea, then please let me know, but note I am not going to accept something one sided such as "work on articles that far exceed the standards" or "work on what I would like see improved" are only one-way and not a productive route forward. RonSigPi (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

OMG! You are accusing ME of being a deletionist! LOL! (I, who am repeatedly accused of being an inclusionist... !) I have a better idea: Answer the above three questions with a simple yes or no answer. Your decision to go on the attack suggests to me that you are getting paid to create articles. But if you unequivocally answer a simple 1) yes, 2) no and 3) no, I'll drop this line of questioning. (I still will use independent judgement about AfD nominations, as they are subject to the consensus of the community, but I will agree not to PROD tag your stuff, even when it's a low quality stub with minimal sourcing.) Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am going to ask Anna Frodesiak and Bri to intervene on the dispute with Montanabw. In the paid editor questions, you seem to have handled this reasonably and neutrally. The response in the ANI has been two ways - "I know the editor and they are good, I side with them" (irrelevant) or "figure this out on your own, you both have your faults" (fair and I can admit true). Any chance you two have a good solution to this? If you come up with something reasonable, then I will agree and remove the ANI assuming Montanabw does the same. Here is how I see it (trying to exclude negative language):

• I follow guidelines given by the community that give a presumption of notability. I create articles based on these guidelines. I do searches and come up with sources. I will admit at times the subject do just meet the lowest threshold and the sources range in length/quality. Every articles I now write is being personally evaluated by Montanabw, even after being initially reviewed and no flags being put up. I have no interest in putting effort into articles that are just going to be deleted against the guidelines of the community. I also do not care for what I perceive as personal attacks (even outside of the paid editor question - being told I am "gaming the system", and not just on my talk page, but on discussions to marginalize my position.) To be frank, if this continues, I will just quit wikipedia. I am not going to work on the articles other want me to (e.g., the Kentucky Oaks because someone thinks it needs done). I find it deeply troubling that on a volunteer website this is how the efforts are treated of someone that is following the guidelines, let alone guidelines an editor wrote.

I am sure Montanabw has a perspective s/he would like to give. I would love to find a reasonable solution. In all this I have tried to be fair and find a solution. Otherwise, I see it a waste of time to write an article that meets a guideline and then have the person that wrote that guideline not only nominate for delete, but then personally attack me. At this point I am near quitting hoping a fair solution can be found. RonSigPi (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The reasonable solution is to write articles about more notable horses and, ideally, also do a better job with the ones you write so other people don't have to go in and clean up after you. The redlinks at Kentucky Oaks would be an excellent place to start. Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I am not AfD nominating every article you write. I just ran your stats 600+ articles? I've Afd'd what, five? Seriously, take some deep breaths here. I see you also created Dialed In, a horse that clearly meets our notability guideline, but man, slow down! Take your time to do these right, not to do yet more low-quality stubs... at least project tag them so they can be placed into various cleanup lists... Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I was asked to look into this. Please do not consider this an attack. I am simply asking to be sure:

Are you editing here as part of your job? Are you in any way being compensated for editing here? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No and No. RonSigPi (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ron, please don't take these questions personally. I've asked many editors the same. We ask in good faith, sometimes with boilerplate templates like Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Question, sometimes with more personalized messages. If the answer is "no" then just say so and move on. I was alerted to this discussion by your initiation of a WP:ANI incident, which is usually not a good idea. Hope you can move on from that and go back to being productive. In fact I'd recommend that you just retract the ANI complaint as soon as possible. - Bri (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Ron, for the straight answer.

Well, Montanabw, if you have some direct proof, or an overwhelming number of suspicious coincidences, please say, otherwise, suspicions must remain suspicions. There's not much more I can say about this.

Ron, I must assume good faith, therefore an apology is in order from me. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, no need to apologize. You were asked to come in as a neutral party to evaluate. I did not take the questions from you (or comments by Bri) at all personally. The opposite - I appreciate you following a request to intervene. It resolved the matter quickly, fairly, and most importantly with civility. RonSigPi (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• And had RonSigPi simply said "no and no" to me above, instead of throwing a fit, we would all be done now... I did tell him I would accept a simple "no." If RonSigPi unequivocally stating that he is not engaging in paid editing for an undisclosed third party, I am glad to know this and shall take his statements as true. I do reserve the right to discuss quality and notability. I strongly encourage RonSigPi to consider the reasons my suspicions were raised -- creating large numbers of low-quality stubs is a red flag, particularly when they are based on the most generous and literal read possible of the SNGs, which augment and assist, but do not supercede WP:GNG. Doing simple things such as adding a wikiproject tag at talk, adding categories, attempting to ask other editors for assistance with standardized formatting, all help. Montanabw^(talk) 03:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I actually took far less issue with the questions and far more issue with your behavior at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NHORSERACING. You nominate two articles for deletion. I only contest one - note I didn't even comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart Ashley. I basically said "hey, this term significant is confusing, how about we fix it. BTW, I won't even propose something. Let the community figure it out, I am pointing out the error." In response to that you tell me I am gaming the system (and basically taking away any good faith you should show towards me), misstating the guidelines, and causing problems through multiple projects. You then remind me that you will be evaluating all that I do. You attacked my character multiple times and I responded accordingly. Note that I believe I have always tried to respond to you with civility, something you have not accorded me. You chose to ask those questions as an additional action to accusing me of multiple infractions. And in my opinion, accusing a seasoned editor of being conflicted is a serious accusation. If earlier today you said "I put a few of your articles up for deletion. Since I have noticed a few in a row I have to ask..." I would not have taken offense. I certainly did take offense when Anna Frodesiak asked me. Even accusing me of "throwing a fit" says to me you don't understand what the problem has been all along. Even if you think my response was drastic, inappropriate, ill advised, etc., you certainly could approach it in a better way than equating my concerns to a petulant child. RonSigPi (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ron. You said above "...I certainly did take offense when Anna Frodesiak asked me..." Is there missing "not" in there? If not, then I am sorry to have offended you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes Anna Frodesiak, should have been a not (insert blush face of embarrassment)...RonSigPi (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• • I'm not going to tag any of your non-equestrian-related articles nor shall I assess their notability. But I'm seeing a pattern here: Young Zulu Kid? Mario Tiziani? Dennis Tiziani? Emily Pritt? Christophe Masson -- 124th place? Seriously? James Tennyson? (well, maybe). Can you see why these quick-and-short articles looked a bit suspicious? Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Honsetly, no. Young Zulu Kid - no doubt notable. Not even close. Fought for an undisputed title. Still referenced today (albeit in response to summary pieces on Jimmy Wilde). Both Tizianis - detailed Sports Illustrated article and a lot of Wisconsin based stuff. They also spent some season on the PGA Tour - not just an event or two, but a year or three (depending on which one).

      But, you do make fair points. With that being said, I always intended to go back and fix Masson and never did. That one is marginal and would be fair to have an AfD. I have always had a soft spot for WP:BIAS concerns (i.e., non-English athletes), but I will admit its not a great article. On a different day I would have not created it. To be honest, much like Heart Ashley, I don't even know if I would dispute that. Pritt is an interesting case. I was tying to complete the US Cross Country team for that year. I found stuff - it may not be to the level you would like, but I would not have created if I didn't find enough to make me comfortable. That being said, I can understand why you may not think that article should stand.

      However, all of these meet the guidelines. I would never question an editor that created articles that on their face meet. Random selection, but I would not question User:TheCatalyst31 for creating Wang Lianyuan - no actual sources (again I at least try to provide good sources). No substance. Maybe AfD, but why would I question that user? Even if they made 20 articles like that, at least they are contributing and have a rational basis for thinking there should be an article.

      I think what you propose is fair. You stop AfDing non-equestrian-related articles (rodeo and horse racing) and I will stop creating articles that I think only meet criterion 2 of horse racing and rodeo articles all together. RonSigPi (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I did NOT say I would not AfD all non-equestrian articles -- only your non-equestrian articles. I am a new pages patroller and will use that toolset as needed. (in your case, none of your articles were found via NPP, they popped up in other ways. You are certainly welcome to keep creating new articles, just do a better job of it. If you wonder if you have a notable topic, you can inquire at WikiProject Horse racing for input -- there are several people there besides me and they are glad to help Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw Yep, got it. Just my created pages. Didn't mean to imply it was for everything, just the scope of what we were talking about here. RonSigPi (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Since this falls under WP:CANVASS, I am notifying Montanabw.

User:Ravenswing, User:Djsasso, User:MATThematical, and User:Lugnuts. You are all editors I have worked with a lot and respect your opinions (even at times when we did not agree). However, I feel the need for a sanity check (as I think I am at my wits end and thinking about quitting). I have found myself in a dispute with an editor that I need resolved. I was wondering if you could opine/give input. Maybe I am crazy. Maybe I am correct. Whatever it is, since I know you are active in WP:NSPORT I thought your opinion would be of value. Basically two core issues:

• First, two articles I wrote were submitted for deletion by Montanabw. I commented to keep one and on the other remained silent. In my mind, I think there was ambiguity in the guidelines. I basically said "hey, this term significant is confusing, how about we fix it. BTW, I won't even propose something. Let the community figure it out, I am pointing out the error." Another editor even agreed that it was confusing and should be fixed. In response to that, Montanabw tells me I am gaming the system (and basically taking away any good faith I might be given), misstating the guidelines, and causing problems through multiple projects (many of which the four of you are involved with). I am then told that Montanabw will be evaluating all that I do. I believe I have always tried to respond to you with civility, even if I was not accorded the same. In addition to this, I was accused of being a paid editor. I think that's a bad accusation in of itself, but maybe reasonable. However, its unreasonable when its on top of other character attacks. I tried to resolve this between us (and have tried two other ideas to get past this, including this message), but also felt the need to take this to a more formal resolution venue. In response to that I was accused of "throwing a fit" to equate my concerns to a petulant child. So basically, I see what I think is ambiguity, I mention it to the community, and I get attacked on multiple fronts. I understand its possible to be oversensitive online, but this was on multiple fronts on a generally bland issue - something another said was a good point and should be addressed.

• Second, this stems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Fryar (2nd nomination). Montanabw asserted that s/he wrote WP:NRODEO (in of itself bringing up concerns that one editor wrote a guideline). They wrote that an appearance in the National Finals Rodeo confers a presumption of notability. I wrote an article for someone that does just that (Stephanie Fryar). Montanabw then nominates for deletion stating that if they won then they would be notable, but not someone that just competed. They then say I am "gaming the system" to write such an article and wasting the time of the community with such a low-level article. So they make a guideline, I follow that guideline and write an article in good faith with at least some sources, they try to delete the article on the premise that the guideline they wrote is faulty, then make strong accusations at me for following their guideline, including that I am paid to write such an article. Just to be clear, my question has nothing to do with articles being deleted. Sometimes we create articles that don't meet GNG, but meet a SNG and they get deleted. So be it. I accept that. My issue is when I follow a guideline in good faith and then not only have the article removed, but then am told I am accused of what I said above, including causing problems through multiple projects (all of which have had their guidelines followed by me). How am I supposed to proceed? Again, its not that the articles get deleted, but I get attacked and accused in response to following the guideline that this editor wrote. It's like telling a child to eat half their vegetables, and then not just being disappointed they didn't finish them, but punishing them for not doing finishing them despite what I said earlier.

I will leave it open to thoughts/comments/insights. For your reference, feel free to glance at these to get more details on the summaries I just made:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Indefinite one-way AfD proposal and argument ban
• User_talk:RonSigPi#Your_challenges_to_AfD
• User_talk:RonSigPi#Possible_paid_editing
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#WP:NHORSERACING
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Horse_racing#WP:NHORSERACING

I understand this may be slanted, but this is my perception and I am trying to see from neutral parties if my perspective is correct or slanted from editors that frequently comment on WP:NSPORTS. I just cannot see how this is the proper course of action on either of these fronts. Am I missing something? Do you have a different perspective? Please give me any insights. It would be appreciated. Again, thank you - not your normal wikipedia request, but I am at the end here on this and need a check. RonSigPi (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• A few disjointed thoughts: (1) No, this isn't a CANVASS issue. This isn't an AfD, nor is it a RfC, an ANI issue, or a talk page discussing how a rule should be enforced or whether a guideline needs to be changed. You're asking whether you're being harassed or not.

  (2) There's nothing suspect about Montanabw having written a NSPORTS notability guideline. I've done so myself, and probably make reference to the fact more often than I should, though it's almost always in the context of "Yes, I'm quite familiar with the guideline, thank you / Yes, I'm quite comfortable with my take on what those words mean" than in "How dare you challenge me?" Whether Montanabw crosses the line into WP:OWN country I don't know, and shall leave it to people who pay more attention to rodeo edits than I have.

  (3) That being said, Montanabw needs to acquire a healthy dose of AGF. There is nothing more sinister in you creating stubs in multiple sports than there is in him taking interest in several different sports. I've created articles on hockey. And on politics. And on baseball. And on public transit. And on football. And on speedskating, piano instruction, British law, neighborhoods in the city of my birth, and so on. Some of those started out as stubs, and I would be furious at anyone accusing me of being a paid editor because of any of them. I would greatly like to hear his rationale for making such serious accusations beyond that you've created articles shorter than he would in your shoes or that he disagrees on how you see various guidelines. Ravenswing 14:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Ravenswing , thank you for your response. For (1), I was unaware that only applied to AfDs. Since I was asking for insights from specific editors I thought it best to try to follow that (especially since I am being accused of all sorts of things these days). For (2) My concern was not that Montanabw wrote the guidelines - I wrote the old boxing ones (since been replaced). Someone has to write and spearhead. My concern was that the person that wrote and spearheaded the guidelines not only put an AfD on an article that meets the guideline, but argued vigorously that someone that meets that guideline is clearly not notable. It would be like you going around and starting AfDs for first-round draft picks in the NHL Entry Draft (not just one questionable one, but a number of them) and approaching it like its insanity for those articles to exist. For (3) I would not make paid editor accusations without a lot more evidence or suggestion, but that is me. As I said before, I really do appreciate your input. RonSigPi (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ravenswing, as noted by others in the ANI discussion, my criteria was really quite simple -- a sudden and heretofore unknown user (to me) suddenly creating a bunch of very low-quality articles on BLP subjects of very dubious notability (see the AfDs above) -- a common tactic in new wiki-pr firms that are hired to boost internet presence and create backlinks to people's own commercial enterprises. I kept my AGF on this user for weeks, but I began to get suspicious. I know what it takes to create decent articles (I'm at only about 250 because I know how much work it is), and when a user one has not seen before suddenly creates multiple low-quality stubs with inadequate sourcing, it looks odd... particularly when I noticed the same editor had done the same in many other areas. I decided it would make more sense to just ask rather than posting to the COI noticeboard. Had he said "no", we would have been done here. I'm friends with other prolific article creators who have started thousands of articles; they do better research than this and their articles will stand alone without need for others to go in and clean up the messes they make. Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:RonSigPi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.