User talk:Jerrydeanrsmith

Welcome!

Hello, Jerrydeanrsmith, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! First Light (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trenzalore‎

Please read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines linked above, and you'll see that your article, Trenzalore‎, should not be recreated as an article. It is not notable enough for an article (WP:GNG), you are writing it as an essay, and you are not providing a single Reliable Source for your screed. Please stop recreating it. Thanks, First Light (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Trenzalore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trenzalore 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/Trenzalore 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. First Light (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of the deletion of Trenzalore

You've asked for me to reverse the deletion of the article you've created. I'm afraid that's out of the question. As the consensus found in the deletion discussion, the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It has original research, citations to self-published sources (namely, Tardis Wiki and other sources you've pointed to), and no citations to anything other than these self-published sources. The consensus of the community here to delete and redirect to the list of Doctor Who planets page was reasonable and sensible. If you can give some sources that are independent that establish notability, I'll be happy to. If not, I can put a copy of the page in your user space so you can edit it there or e-mail a copy if you would like it. But as it currently stands, the article is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said on my talk page: "6-month redirection is adequate". Let me explain: I have not 'redirected' it for six months. I've redirected it and put semi-protection on the redirect for six months given that there has been a history of recreating the article after it has been deleted. It is simply a method to enforce consensus. The consensus may change before that: it could change now, if you can present sources that establish that the topic of Trenzalore is notable. (And, no, a 16,000 word treatise on ufology is not exactly what I'm looking for.) If such sources can be presented to me or any other admin, we'll turn off the page protection and there can be a new article on the topic. But the consensus from the deletion discussion is simply that the article as it existed is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

You state that you were simply being bold, and doing what you can to improve Wikipedia. That is admirable, and I have not assumed otherwise, nor have the participants in the deletion discussion. But the problem is that the consensus of people at the deletion discussion don't believe that the article as it existed did improve Wikipedia. The way to convince them of this is to make a better article. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at Trenzalore, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. What you just did was page move vandalism. You need to face the facts and accept that Wikipedia really does not need an 'esoteric understanding' of a planet from Doctor Who. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More suitable venues for collaborative work on Trenzalore

Wikipedia is not a publisher of exegeses and fan fiction, so there is really no way to host your collaborative script here. Continuing to attempt this will probably get you banned from Wikipedia. Your best bet would be to find another website for this project—if tardis.wikia.com doesn't do this sort of thing, perhaps the Collaborative fiction section of the Fiction Wiki would be a good place.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. Volpen is another collaborative fiction resource you might find useful: http://www.volpen.com/#mt=story&sort=recent It's fairly new and works a bit different from a wiki. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Inexplicable

A tag has been placed on Inexplicable, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No dictionary definitions, please

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think about the deletion notice you received?

Hi Jerrydeanrsmith,

In November you received a message about either "Nomination for deletion" or "Proposed deletion" of an article you created. I'd like to ask you a few quick questions:

Was the message helpful? Were the instructions clear and easy to follow?
If not, how do you think the message could be improved?
What do you think about the deletion process in general? Do you understand how to contest a deletion?

You can feel free to answer on my talk page or send me your response by email (mpinchukwikimedia.org). (I won't quote you or link your answers to your username if you don't feel comfortable with that.) Your feedback is incredibly useful for improving the content of deletion notifications, so please take a minute to think about and answer these questions. Thank you! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for your feedback on deletion notices, and for helping us better understand the deletion process from the point of view of new Wikipedians! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmetic

I've reverted you as well, please discuss this on the talk page and don't restore it until you get agreement. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Inexplicable for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inexplicable 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/Inexplicable 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. 123chess456 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]