User talk:ALXVA

Fiftytwo thirty has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I'm Sorry about the Wikilink. Those red commas blend in against green and yellow backgrounds so well when you are viewing a diff... --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

Adding tags to every unsourced sentience in an entire unsourced section makes no sense. That is why I just put the {{expand section}} tags at the top. It clutters the page and will probably get undone. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria

While I can tell that you are adamant about removing certain portions of the article, I have undid your most recent edit for a few reasons. While one sentence has been cned for months, all of the rest have been very recently cned. Also, it must be noted that there is a spread of wealth in Alexandria, from the very wealthy to the poor. While the wealthy are certainty not all white gov't workers, there is an income gap. Finally, the crime paragraph is also somewhat true, for the majority of DC crimes are committed with Virginia Guns. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just inserted entirely unsourced statements. ALXVA (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say the majority of DC crimes are committed by VA guns, fine. That is not what the sentences you keep inserting say. Source it and say it in the DC article. It might even be ok in the Alexandria article, but the sentence has not source. You should only insert (or reinsert) language if you can back it up. ALXVA (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you found references for these claims instead of just tagging them. Then you can reword the statements so that they conform to the references. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are opinion and are so badly formed it is unclear what would support them. That is why I removed them. Whoever had something in mind should figure out what they are trying to actually say, source it, and then add it. The burden is on the person inserting material when it is unsourced. ALXVA (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed PROD on Nebraskana Society

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Nebraskana Society, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! - There is sufficient doubt in mind after doing few searchs that this is most probably a notable group and/or if the article was about the book Nebraskana Biographical Sketches of Nebraska Men and Women of Achievement Who Have Been Awarded Life Membership in The Nebraskana Society that it will meet criteria for WP:NBOOK--Mike Cline (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will move it to the book title and convert the article into one for the book.ALXVA (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLOPPY RESEARCH

Regarding Mary Lincoln Crume, you said: "A search for Mary Lincoln or Mary Crume in the Harrison book does not look promising either." See pages 350 and 635. A simple search for "Crume" would suffice. http://books.google.com/books?id=v6S01V7Ho08C&q=Lincoln#v=snippet&q=crume&f=false. It helps to check your sources before making assertions. Once again proves my point. See my "talk" page. Meanwhile, I'm outta here.... Drmissio (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD closed weeks ago, and the article was kept. Regardless, two mentions on lists of relatives does not notability make. The book is not a promising source for useful information about her since it doesn't actually say anything about her. For somebody who is quitting Wikipedia, you sure are around a lot. Bon voyage! ALXVA (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Watke

Just to let you know that I have started an AfD on this one. I felt that a prod was not appropriate as the author is no longer on Wikipdia to challenge it. SpinningSpark 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]