User talk:AlexLoeher

Welcome[edit]

Hello, AlexLoeher, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied copy of Casual (rapper)[edit]

In response to your request on my talk page, I have "userfied" the article at User:AlexLoeher/Casual (rapper). This is a temporary measure to give you a chance to work on the page until it is ready to go back out as an article. Userfied pages should not be thought of as a long term way of retaining material which has been deleted from articles. 09:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright thank you very much. I believe i am finished with the article in question. Can you show me how to restore the article back? Or perhaps you would like to review over it to see if it's suitable? AlexLoeher (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably do a more thorough job of providing reliable third party sources and showing that the claims in the article have been previously published. Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My hands are thoroughly tied here. i mean, i rigorously checked for sources, tried to see if they were reliable, i think they were, i cited them correctly. No citation i made was from an unreliable source, nor was it biased. If the source you are looking for is a 200 page book biography, im sorry, but youre just not gonna find it. if this article was on stem-cell research or something where every source should be measured with a grain of salt itd be different, but this is one of the many articles on Wikipedia that makes the site great. if someone did stumble across Casual in their music listening where would they go to learn more? i mean, the Hieroglyphics website is the old article verbatum! now i dont want to come off rude, i dont want my inexperience in writing articles to be the crux in which an article that was never supposed to be deleted, is or is not restored. i operate under no agenda, im not a huge fan of Casual. so please, review the article again, if you see something that is outright lying then yes change it. but with the sources ive given i see no reason not to restore the article AlexLoeher (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to provide reliable third party sources for claims, then you will need to remove any such claims and commentary before the article is "ready for prime time" in live article space. There are 3million plus articles in Wikipedia and many may not currently meet our content requirements, but that is not an excuse to allow additional improper content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok its obvious you have an agenda here, no "improper content" was "excused". All the sources are reliable, and if you cant state how or why they are not then it appears you are just impeding the process unecessarily. If there is something inherently wrong with the sources, by all means change them to your suiting. however, Wikipedia is not a website of opinions so if youre not willing to help, then i will do all in my power to acquire as much information/sources as humanly possible until the article is appropriate for reinsatment. AlexLoeher (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors by falsely accusing them of having some type of agenda. My only "agenda " is to have as many articles within Wikipedia comply as closely as possible with the WP:5PILLARS. I wish you Good Luck in your work to provide sources for your proposed article.

news.google.com and books.google.com are generally good places to look for reliable source material (although they will bring up a few inappropirate blogs, and occasionaly inappropriate self published books or Wikipedia mirrors - stay away from Icon Inc, Lulu, iexpress)Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ive done as much to the article as possible. it is sourced correctly, sourced thoroughly, establishes notability, and has plenty of citations and links to verify this. can we please go about restoring this article? This is darn near as perfect as the aricle can get. I see no humane explanation to not restoring it, in all honesty. Sorry for any hard feelings earlier, but this time, if the article is not up to par please state "why" and not just that it needs more third party sources. ive worked very hard on this article and i think doing so is nothing but benefiting wikipedia. AlexLoeher (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

I really hate to bother you about this, but i didnt see a response back on deletion review of Casual (rapper). i normally would not be this annoying about it lol but i have asked several admins to help me restore the article and they have ignored me. Please help me, this article was deleted unjustly and now the article has been edited beyond deletion concerns. i just want to sleep at night knowing the article is back on here haha. thank you. AlexLoeher 16:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given a valid original article name. You wrote Casual, which is an existing article. I can't overwrite that. You need to give me the right destination name.

Please post further comments on this request at the deletion review, not on my talk page, as I am just about to go away for a week. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC

okay the article was on the Casual disambiguation page, about 3 or 4 down. The actual article name was Casual (rapper). That's as specific as I can get i'm sorry AlexLoeher 16:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]