User talk:Antony Howe

Welcome!

Hello, Antony Howe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Australian Doctor Who Club, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Deadly∀ssassin 10:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Australian Doctor Who Club

A tag has been placed on Australian Doctor Who Club 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 club, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Deadly∀ssassin 10:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deadly Assassin (rather apt title if you want to Assassinate everything I wrote so fast) ... Please leave this for a bit longer (today being 19th Jan 2009) - I am nursing a legally blind mother, and digging out references is time consuming it can't all be done in one grand hit - it seemed better to write what I knew for a FACT - discuss with others, and then gradually work in the many references that I know exist (but do not always have to hand) - I feel (as a professional historian reading some of these WIKI policies), that there is here an overly strict application of a rule that PUBLISHED sources need to be used, this has a somewhat uncritical implication that these are somehow the only reliable sources - but we all know that that is not true. Look at Autobiographies by politicians, etc.! Apart from those I could cite all sorts of publ. material that is self-serving, or plain ignorant (look at newspapers where quotes are made up ... yes, it has happened to me!). Also do not forget that MEMORY based "History" is increasingly seen as normal and professionally acceptable in university circles (as long as it is from some participant/observer - the view that such material is by definition so flawed as to be useless is not tenable given published Autobiogs., Diaries, Letters, etc., also often push certain lines to suit their authors. I have a PhD in history, have lectured and run courses at three universities, and have written for the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography," "Dict. of Labour Biog" (UK), as well as elsewhere in WIKI (in several revisions of existing articles), articles & reviews for academic journals, and references - so I am not some fan time waster. Unlike that parts written by someone unknown in the previously existing material on "DW in Australia" which was woefully inadequate, and in several places inaccurate - but I note THAT item has not been deleted. As far as length goes, I think there is a good case for more SHORT specific articles like these as the "search" engine is not very effective since it seems to only search through the ARTICLE titles, and is too precise re phrasing of search items and is case-sensitive e.g. "DW fandom" won't come up if I type "DW Fandom" - (F not f) - many people may type a CAP either intentionally or in error - if it was NOT case-sensitive it would be a more effective tool. Antony Howe (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Doctor Who Club of Australia

A tag has been placed on Doctor Who Club of Australia 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 club, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Deadly∀ssassin 10:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deadly Assassin (rather apt title if you want to Assassinate everything I wrote so fast) ... Please leave this for a bit longer (today being 19th Jan 2009) - I am nursing a legally blind mother, and digging out references is time consuming it can't all be done in one grand hit - it seemed better to write what I knew for a FACT - discuss with others, and then gradually work in the many references that I know exist (but do not always have to hand) - I feel (as a professional historian reading some of these WIKI policies), that there is here an overly strict application of a rule that PUBLISHED sources need to be used, this has a somewhat uncritical implication that these are somehow the only reliable sources - but we all know that that is not true. Look at Autobiographies by politicians, etc.! Apart from those I could cite all sorts of publ. material that is self-serving, or plain ignorant (look at newspapers where quotes are made up ... yes, it has happened to me!). Also do not forget that MEMORY based "History" is increasingly seen as normal and professionally acceptable in university circles (as long as it is from some participant/observer - the view that such material is by definition so flawed as to be useless is not tenable given published Autobiogs., Diaries, Letters, etc., also often push certain lines to suit their authors. I have a PhD in history, have lectured and run courses at three universities, and have written for the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography," "Dict. of Labour Biog" (UK), as well as elsewhere in WIKI (in several revisions of existing articles), articles & reviews for academic journals, and references - so I am not some fan time waster. Unlike that parts written by someone unknown in the previously existing material on "DW in Australia" which was woefully inadequate, and in several places inaccurate - but I note THAT item has not been deleted. As far as length goes, I think there is a good case for more SHORT specific articles like these as the "search" engine is not very effective since it seems to only search through the ARTICLE titles, and is too precise re phrasing of search items and is case-sensitive e.g. "DW fandom" won't come up if I type "DW Fandom" - (F not f) - many people may type a CAP either intentionally or in error - if it was NOT case-sensitive it would be a more effective tool. Antony Howe (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sydney University Science Fiction Association

A tag has been placed on Sydney University Science Fiction Association 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 club, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Deadly∀ssassin 10:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deadly Assassin (rather apt title if you want to Assassinate everything I wrote so fast) ... Please leave this for a bit longer (today being 19th Jan 2009) - I am nursing a legally blind mother, and digging out references is time consuming it can't all be done in one grand hit - it seemed better to write what I knew for a FACT - discuss with others, and then gradually work in the many references that I know exist (but do not always have to hand) - I feel (as a professional historian reading some of these WIKI policies), that there is here an overly strict application of a rule that PUBLISHED sources need to be used, this has a somewhat uncritical implication that these are somehow the only reliable sources - but we all know that that is not true. Look at Autobiographies by politicians, etc.! Apart from those I could cite all sorts of publ. material that is self-serving, or plain ignorant (look at newspapers where quotes are made up ... yes, it has happened to me!). Also do not forget that MEMORY based "History" is increasingly seen as normal and professionally acceptable in university circles (as long as it is from some participant/observer - the view that such material is by definition so flawed as to be useless is not tenable given published Autobiogs., Diaries, Letters, etc., also often push certain lines to suit their authors. I have a PhD in history, have lectured and run courses at three universities, and have written for the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography," "Dict. of Labour Biog" (UK), as well as elsewhere in WIKI (in several revisions of existing articles), articles & reviews for academic journals, and references - so I am not some fan time waster. Unlike that parts written by someone unknown in the previously existing material on "DW in Australia" which was woefully inadequate, and in several places inaccurate - but I note THAT item has not been deleted. As far as length goes, I think there is a good case for more SHORT specific articles like these as the "search" engine is not very effective since it seems to only search through the ARTICLE titles, and is too precise re phrasing of search items and is case-sensitive e.g. "DW fandom" won't come up if I type "DW Fandom" - (F not f) - many people may type a CAP either intentionally or in error - if it was NOT case-sensitive it would be a more effective tool. Antony Howe (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zerinza

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Zerinza, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article about a fanzine which does not state its notability or provide references.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Deadly∀ssassin 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deadly Assassin (rather apt title if you want to Assassinate everything I wrote so fast) ... Please leave this for a bit longer (today being 19th Jan 2009) - I am nursing a legally blind mother, and digging out references is time consuming it can't all be done in one grand hit - it seemed better to write what I knew for a FACT - discuss with others, and then gradually work in the many references that I know exist (but do not always have to hand) - I feel (as a professional historian reading some of these WIKI policies), that there is here an overly strict application of a rule that PUBLISHED sources need to be used, this has a somewhat uncritical implication that these are somehow the only reliable sources - but we all know that that is not true. Look at Autobiographies by politicians, etc.! Apart from those I could cite all sorts of publ. material that is self-serving, or plain ignorant (look at newspapers where quotes are made up ... yes, it has happened to me!). Also do not forget that MEMORY based "History" is increasingly seen as normal and professionally acceptable in university circles (as long as it is from some participant/observer - the view that such material is by definition so flawed as to be useless is not tenable given published Autobiogs., Diaries, Letters, etc., also often push certain lines to suit their authors. I have a PhD in history, have lectured and run courses at three universities, and have written for the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography," "Dict. of Labour Biog" (UK), as well as elsewhere in WIKI (in several revisions of existing articles), articles & reviews for academic journals, and references - so I am not some fan time waster. Unlike that parts written by someone unknown in the previously existing material on "DW in Australia" which was woefully inadequate, and in several places inaccurate - but I note THAT item has not been deleted. As far as length goes, I think there is a good case for more SHORT specific articles like these as the "search" engine is not very effective since it seems to only search through the ARTICLE titles, and is too precise re phrasing of search items and is case-sensitive e.g. "DW fandom" won't come up if I type "DW Fandom" - (F not f) - many people may type a CAP either intentionally or in error - if it was NOT case-sensitive it would be a more effective tool. Antony Howe (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles

Hi, as you'll have seen I've marked a number of your articles for deletion as they don't indicate the notability of the subject or provide reliable sources to support the content. Can I suggest you take a look at WP:NOTE to understand more about notability in Wikipedia? Oh, you should also probably take a look at WP:COI as writing about subjects that you are personally involved with is problematic - the rule of thumb is that you should wait for someone else to write about you, your club or fanzine. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very "Dr Who" name Mr(s) "Deadly Assassin" - I have given identical replies above for the 4 articles - they are interlinked - and I had also started to make links back to them to-from other existing items. While some of their content might be put into other sections, I think they deserve SEP. entries - e.g. ZERINZA is extensively cited in books on Dr Who - indeed whole interviews from it are reproduced in the 3 recent TALKBACK books by "Telos" (which has an entry - to presumably help them make money - not something I am trying to do! If you delete me, you should delete all such self-serving commercial entries - and politicians, etc ) - so, TALKBACK readers seeing "Zerinza" credited, will have no idea what "Zerinza" ever was - and without such entries will be left wondering. I thought this was the sort of thing you might want - it is the sort of thing some people would expect to find in WIKI. I am a bit surprised, after spending so much VOLUNTARY effort on these, to be met almost instantly with a rather brusque and authoritarian response. I was hoping that WIKI would want expert contributors to feel welcome, instead of slapping them in the face. How, now, can I urge friends and colleagues to contribute to this from any of the universities (were I teach), and history clubs that I speak to (and am President of, etc)?? As I wrote above (for each individual piece - put here in case you read this first) - Please leave this for a bit longer (today being 19th Jan 2009) - I am nursing a legally blind mother, and digging out references is time consuming it can't all be done in one grand hit - it seemed better to write what I knew for a FACT - discuss with others, and then gradually work in the many references that I know exist (but do not always have to hand) - I feel (as a professional historian reading some of these WIKI policies), that there is here an overly strict application of a rule that PUBLISHED sources need to be used, this has a somewhat uncritical implication that these are somehow the only reliable sources - but we all know that that is not true. Look at Autobiographies by politicians, etc.! Apart from those I could cite all sorts of publ. material that is self-serving, or plain ignorant (look at newspapers where quotes are made up ... yes, it has happened to me!). Also do not forget that MEMORY based "History" is increasingly seen as normal and professionally acceptable in university circles (as long as it is from some participant/observer - the view that such material is by definition so flawed as to be useless is not tenable given published Autobiogs., Diaries, Letters, etc., also often push certain lines to suit their authors. I have a PhD in history, have lectured and run courses at three universities, and have written for the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography," "Dict. of Labour Biog" (UK), as well as elsewhere in WIKI (in several revisions of existing articles), articles & reviews for academic journals, and references - so I am not some fan time waster. Unlike that parts written by someone unknown in the previously existing material on "DW in Australia" which was woefully inadequate, and in several places inaccurate - but I note THAT item has not been deleted. As far as length goes, I think there is a good case for more SHORT specific articles like these as the "search" engine is not very effective since it seems to only search through the ARTICLE titles, and is too precise re phrasing of search items and is case-sensitive e.g. "DW fandom" won't come up if I type "DW Fandom" - (F not f) - many people may type a CAP either intentionally or in error - if it was NOT case-sensitive it would be a more effective tool. Antony Howe (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mark the articles as candidates for deletion because of the conflict of interest, merely warned you that there are concerns about it on wikipedia, I wouldn't get hung up on that, it was just a note in case you weren't aware. The reason I did tag it was because the articles didn't indicate why they were notabile which is a central tennant of Wikipedia that all articles need to meet. I notice that you're also saying that because other stuff exists they should too, but each article should stand on their own merits. I agree that the native search engine has issues, but if you have a valid search term that isn't returning the articles you think they should then the best way to deal with that is with a redirect rather than a whole new article. Lastly I'd point out that I'm not an admin so don't do any deleting myself. I flagged the articles with my concerns, but as two of them were deleted it looks like someone agreed with me. One of the articles wasn't deleted, and there is a discussion about whether it should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Club of Australia which you can weigh in on. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Are You Being Served?, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]