User talk:Sandcat01

Hello World!

speedy deletion of Marklar declined

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article. The tag you applied stated that the article was about a "real person or organization" when the article was about a plot element from an episode of South Park. Therefore it was not delete-able under that criteria. On the other hand, it was a terribly written unsourced article on a tiny plot element from one episode of a television show. I have there for converted it into a redirect page to the article on that episode. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

welcome

• Welcome!

Hello, Sandcat01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Ratifiers for Democracy removed

I have removed the above SD nomination. The reason you used ("No content") was not applicable in this instance - before placing a Speedy Deletion tag on an article, please ensure that you have carefully read WP:SD, which explains all the criteria. I have, however, proposed the article for deletion, as I do not feel that it meets the notability criteria for organisations. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions Advice

Please be careful when you nominate an article for Speedy Deletion. There are strict criteria for deleting an article quickly (see WP:SD). Here are the reasons why your nominations were not accepted:

• Marklar - DB-A7 is only for use with real people or organisations. As Beeblebrox noted when declining this SD, this was clearly a fictional character
• Alecia Nugent - non-notability is not a criteria for Speedy Deletion in and of itself (see WP:NOTCSD) The article mentions that she worked with Carl Jackson, so she is potentially notable if research is done - certainly it is worth giving the article time to be developed.
• Pittston Coal Company - I removed the SD nomination, as the article (such as it is) has a claim of importance, weak though that may be. A quick look at Google returns 117 Scholar links, 637 Book hits, 243 news hits and 3610 Web hits. Many of those may be minor hits, but I get the impression that this could be a notable company - the article just needs to be improved.
• Ratifiers for Democracy - you said there was no content, but there was, so I removed your SD nomination
• Olga Diaz - as with Alecia Nugent above, non-notability is not a criteria for SD by itself. Ms Diaz is a serving council member, so is potentially notable.
• Marcus Nettles - the article claims that he is important (as a rule, all professional sports people can be considered to be potentially notable). Although he may not be as notable as implied in the article, this is not a reason to Speedily Delete the article
• Wfjv - I can understand why you might nominate this, as if I had seen the SD nomination, I would probably have kept the nomination in place.
• Oath Keepers - as the editor who removed the SD nomination said, there was a context.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of carefully reading (and understanding) the criteria given at WP:SD, and the non-criteria given at WP:NOTCSD - I'll be honest, I'm still learning them, and make the occasional mistake in my SD nominations.

I see that your account is pretty new (created on 13th May) with 35 edits - of which 7 are Speedy Delete nominations. May I suggest that perhaps you should have a bit more experience of editing on Wikipedia before nominating pages for deletion? Removing the obvious vandalism as you have in most of your other edits is brilliant - but I feel that you need to have more experience of editing article (the content, not just removing vandalism) and creating them.

Please don't take this as a criticism - I am glad that you are making the effort to ensure that Wikipedia is as accurate as it can be, but I think that you need to be more careful with nominating articles for deletion.

My advice for Speedy deletions:

1. If the article mentions that the subject is important or famous, it is not eligible for DB-A7 - even if the claim seems exaggerated
2. If there is any content on the page (other than gibberish), then it cannot be deleted under No Content - the SD guidelines say The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. The not credible bit means basically if the claim cannot possible be true - for example, if an article about an athlete claimed that the athlete ran the mile in 2 minutes 20 seconds. If the same article claimed that the athlete ran a mile in 3 minutes 42 seconds, this would be credible enough to be kept, even if not verified (the current record is 3 minutes 43.13 seconds).
3. If you can work out what the article is about, then it cannot be deleted under No Context
4. If in doubt, don't nominate for speedy deletion, use WP:PROD instead - that allows a week for the article to be improved.

All of the articles you nominated had been created within the previous 10 minutes to you nominating them for deletion. It is polite to allow the creators to have the time to improve the article, rather than it being deleted almost straight away, unless it is blatantly against the criteria for inclusion. That is why the criteria for SD are so strict.

I hope that this has been helpful - and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me! Regards -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Economic Integration

I have copy edited and re-organized the Economic Integration article. Please check to see if you think it still deserves the copy-edit tag. Hugh16 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine Sandcat01 (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake

[1] Sorry for that! --Jor70 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No Problem. -- Sandcat01 (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know:

Seeing the memorable edit summary (WTF!?) you left on Regis Nelder Medical Centre, I thought i would let you know that this is a recurring sockpuppet that continuously makes "Dr. random name" accounts for vandalism. Thanks for the accuracy of that summary - and a good laugh of course :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome -- Sandcat01 (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifications

If you nominate an article for speedy deletion, please also notify the creators and consider to add a welcome message if they bare newbies to not bite them. Making it clear in the edit summary is useful as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do next time! -- Sandcat01 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. And thanks for helping with NPP.--Tikiwont (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

W.C. Baker House

The existence of W.C. Baker House is the reason I deleted the duplicate article at the alternate title. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Oops. Sorry -- Sandcat01 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: 187, Deeds Grove, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

Hello Sandcat01. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on 187, Deeds Grove, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be more cautious next time. -- Sandcat01 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a nice try, and I too would have liked to speedy it, but neither of those really applies. Sorry. There is good advice on speedy tagging at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sandcat01! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)