User talk:Ancistrus80

Ancistrus80, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ancistrus80! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Stefan Certic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stefan Certic 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/Stefan Certic 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. Mkdw ^talk 00:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G7 Request

Ancistrus80 / GoaInsomnia, you have been blocked indefinitely by another administrator following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoaInsomnia which determined you were abusively using multiple accounts. A strict violation of site policy. You are unable to edit any English Wikipedia articles except for your user talk page here. In this time, an editor identifying themselves as Stefan Certic has made comments at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Certic and at User talk:StefanCertic. They're requesting that the article be speedily deleted, however the only available criteria would potentially be WP:G7. While other editors have made edits to the article, they have only been custodial in nature. I believe under the definition, you are still the sole author who has added any meaningful content to the article. Only you can consent for the article to be nominated for G7 deletion. If you consent then I am willing to tag the article for G7 review at your request. It's not guaranteed it will be deleted but it's the only speedy deletion criteria available. Otherwise, the AFD will run for 6 more days before being closed. Mkdw ^talk 05:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not PR firm, nor paid for. This was my first ever article about a colleague as described multiple times. I oppose deleting my hard work to put everything together. This is a disaster. It is my fault for using more accounts, but i did that in hope to include more professionals into discussion. Now i am going to ask a return for donations i made to WikiMedia foundation since all you care is deleting hard work of someone, instead of creating.--Ancistrus80 (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you won't respect your colleagues wishes; it genuinely sounds like it will do them harm in their personal life. Perhaps now you will understand why we have policies in place to protect individuals who are the subject of articles such as strict adherence to WP:BLP and WP:PROMO issues. In creating this article about someone you work with reinforces the importance on why articles should be written neutrally and free from conflicts of interest. Lastly, the lack of reliable sources and significant coverage fails even our most basic notability requirement. Something that should be assessed indifferently and by editors familiar with our guidelines.

These requirements have been put in place by the community to ensure that we don't mistake simply the act of "creating" potentially harmful pages that do not meet our notability guidelines with that of creating a meaningful and useful encyclopedia. Any quality encyclopedia requires standards and the means to delete articles that fall short. In regards to your donation, I can't speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, but your donation goes towards this encyclopedia and all those who use it and no donation guarantees an article for inclusion. Mkdw ^talk 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Srpska Levica for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Srpska Levica 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/Srpska Levica 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. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]