User talk:Lazenbee

Proposed deletion of Lazenbee Industries

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

Lack of notability, unreferenced

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. —Snigbrook 21:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Please read what WP:ELNO says about external links to blogs. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Item 11 at WP:ELNO:

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:

...

11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) ..."

- David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see how Games Monitor 2014 fits into this. Lazenbee (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and can i point out that "one should generally avoid" doesn't mean the same thing as "never put a link to a blog". and in the case of this article, there is no reference to opposition to the Games. the article seems like a press release. Lazenbee (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert rule

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that you read WP:BRD. You will save yourself an awful lot of trouble. Reverting David Biddulph a second time was unwise. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, fair enough - so how can this article reflect the fact that not everyone in glasgow is supporting this event? Lazenbee (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]