User talk:Mkwayisi

Speedy deletion of James Hayfron-Acquah

A tag has been placed on James Hayfron-Acquah 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 a copy be emailed to you. Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 11:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Undercover investigator

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Undercover investigator. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Private_investigator. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Private_investigator – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Hello, I'm Dawnseeker2000. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Private investigator, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 23:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Undercover investigator section under Private investigator

It's preferable to use a new source or point to an existing source for any new material. I didn't read what you'd added so I don't know if it's something that's just obvious, but I don't see a reason not to add material that's based on a source, because otherwise it might be interpreted as opinion. Sorry, I don't mean to be so black and white about this, but there's just so much nonsense added to WP that my first reaction is to check to make sure new material is added "by the book". If you'd like to find a source that says what you added I can help you do the formatting for it. See, to me, the most important part of each article is the references section. I tend to look there first and can immediately make an assessment of an article based on what is or isn't there. If there's quality, recognizable, sources it just makes for a much nicer article overall, and no one has to guess what the material is based on. Again, sorry for being so dry about the process, but this is how it works. If you need a hand don't hesitate to ask, Dawnseeker2000 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]