User talk:Lovelightlaugh

August 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Louis van Dijk. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 02:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hi, looks like you accidentally overwrote an existing page instead of making a new one -- that's why you were reverted. See Wikipedia:Starting an article for more info about how to make a new article. :-) Eloquence* 22:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anastasia Fontaines

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Anastasia Fontaines 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 person or group of people, 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.

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 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. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the administrators here on Wikipedia, and I just wanted to let you know that I did delete the above mentioned article. Looking at the page itself, nothing there was a real claim of significance or importance, much less an actual claim to notability. Based on what you had written, she's appeared in a few television commercials, a film that itself doesn't have a WP article, and was in a band that had no claim to importance either. I looked at the information you supplied on the talk page, but none of those are reliable sources at all--they're just collections of press photos, party info, general database collections, etc. Now, you mentioned that she is soon going to be appearing in some full length films; if that's the case, if those films are important, then after that point Fontaines would likely qualify for a Wikipedia article. I would be happy to help you make one at that time. Once more information is available about her, let me now and I can put a copy of this article in your userspace to work on as a draft. I can also help show you some of the other changes that need to be made (removing links to youtube, for example, along with making the article more neutral). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to your email on-wiki, so that it's easier to link to relevant policy pages.

First, lets consider Violent Blue: Has the movie been "widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics"? Or does it otherwise meet the requirements found at WP:NFILM? If so, then it's fine to make an article about it.

If you make such an article, and the film is considered notable, then that would mean that the Fontaines article should not be speedy deleted, as she would them have a claim of significance. However, the article would still end up deleted via a longer process (called an "Article for Deletion" discussion), because it still wouldn't demonstrate that Fontaines is notable. The relevant notability guideline for entertainers is WP:ENT, and it says that being in a single widely distributed film is not, by itself, enough to establish notability. As far as I can tell Fontaines does not meet our most general notability requirement, WP:GNG, because she has not been discussed in detail in multiple, independent reliable sources.

Also, you state that there are many other people with "less notoriety" in Wikipedia. Well, "notoriety" is a matter of opinion, which is why WP uses more concrete guidelines to measure notability. Nonetheless, if there are other articles about non-notable people, the correct solution is not to add more, but to delete the ones that do not meet our standards.

Finally, the big, important message is that not being "Wikipedia-notable" isn't any sort of judgment against Fontaines; it's just that we need to maintain certain rules to distinguish between which subjects are notable and which are not. The vast vast majority of people, including those who work in the entertainment industry, are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. If Fontaines is going to, as you said before, soon be in more films, then she may well be notable in the future. But WP requires clear demonstratin of notability first. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threat

In your last email threat to me, you said "If I were to send this to all with research I have done on persons with far less that are articled to a legal system, you can be sure you'd have a stack load of paperwork stating everywhere you are being Biased and basing something on "relative" perceptions from one editor to another." Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding legal threats, which you can read at WP:NLT. Per that policy, we fully understand if you feel the need to pursue legal action against either Wikipedia or editors, and you are welcome to do so. However, you may not edit Wikipedia at the same time as you are taking or threatening to take legal action. If you do not withdraw this indirect threat, I will request your account be blocked.

Look, I'm trying to help you, and tell you want needs to be done for the person to have an article. I've offered detailed explanations and assistance in helping you do what needs to be done to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (not my guidelines, but the ones decided by the community as a whole). I'm not interested in helping someone who is making threats. Please withdraw the veiled threat, discuss the issue here (not by email anymore), and I will tell you what you need to show to get this article kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Response from Lovelightlaught: Really? You feel threatened by a reference to if this were a legal proceding it would be clearly a stack of paper work for you? This would only come as a threat if you really felt you were not confident in that which you were saying. My pointing out clearly that this does not seem to factually align with some of the other content or a thorough investigation whether online "googled" or otherwise on "Fontaines" and her notablitly should not bring about a threat to cancel or block another editor. I must add that You also referred to your research on Violent Blue not being notable or have distribution on a International and National level which it does and it is all for you to see online. Grown ups should be able to see fact for fact. You are trying to help me and I am trying to help you see that this "notariety" Wiki rule need apply the same everywhere or not in this case at all! IF you can agree how this is so then we are truly seeking to support the other and the way in which Wiki works in being clear and unbiased in what one deems "nomitated for deletion" and what does not become nominated. FAIR is what we are addressing here and how does that not help me to help YOU and in return help me? I sincerely hope I am discussing this with people who are editors and can step back to look at what is being communicated to them.

Please answer clearly: are you planning to take legal action on this issue? Or were you speaking in some sort of metaphor?

You have not answered my questions and therefore I how can I answer yours? I sincerely do not know what I will choose to do but will base my decisions of whether this is fairly addressed based on all that which was discussed. I have the right to choose based on fairness, equality, being in the know of what I am making my choices based on. What is it about someone raising a real, valid issue around deletion process that is theatening to you? Are your editors willing to be unbiased and see where they may need to step back and see it from a communication perpective or are they basing their decision process on a "relative perpective" rather than facts that reflect on the content of all other articles on Wiki? I believe putting the article back up will suffice!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelightlaugh (talk • contribs)

In that case, I will ask for you to be blocked. You cannot simultaneously edit Wikipedia while preserving a legal threat. I'm sure that as soon as you withdraw the legal threat, that you will be unblocked. If you do, and you want to see the article undeleted, please go to WP:DRV; I'm no longer interested in helping you. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible legal threat. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine with me! I will continue to address this "fairly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelightlaugh (talk • contribs)

October 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. DMacks (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Anastasia Fontaines for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anastasia Fontaines 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/Anastasia Fontaines 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify what happened: 2 other editors at ANI felt that though the article was likely deletable as a non-notable subject, it wasn't so obviously deletable that it should be speedily deleted. As such, the article will now go through a discussion for 7 days to see what a consensus of editors is. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)