User talk:N94228

Welcome!

Hello, N94228, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! The Cosmos Master (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation

Hello! N94228, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a problem that I am a horrible racist?N94228 (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Dina Rubina has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Dina Rubina was changed by N94228 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.960746 on 2013-10-26T14:22:18+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Dina Rubina. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Your comments on the talk page and on the noticeboards, and your failure to supply reliable sources, appear to indicate that you are claiming ownership of the article, rather than collaborative editing. When you go to the noticeboards, watch for the incoming boomerang. As to your threats to leave Wikipedia, read WP:DIVA. Unlike the editors in question, you don't have an entourage. Work with us rather than making idle demands. The author probably is notable, but it is your job either to demonstrate it or to ask for help, rather than making accusations of vandalism Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N94228: I don't know whether you will see this, but for what it's worth, I have to second what Robert McClenon says above. I just added 2 sources to Dina Rubina without much effort; I would have appreciated your being around so I could ask whether «Во вратах твоих» in the article is a later version of "Vo vratakh Ivoikh" - "Within Thy Gates" - referred to in this article, but ... she's notable regardless. Thanks for creating an article on her, but whether it survives if you get blocked depends on whether it has reliable sources demonstrating her notability. In other words, articles here stand or fall on their merits, not on who created them. It's less stressful - and more respectful to the subject of the article - if the sources are added right at the start so that the notability is obvious. It avoids the whole tagging business. But please realize no one is out to get "your" articles. If you do see this, please add some more sources. You probably have access to a lot more than I do, and if you can read Russian you have a big start on most editors here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that N94228 misunderstands one of the criteria for speedy deletion. (It isn't clear whether he or she understands anything about Wikipedia.) Articles written by banned or blocked users can be deleted. N94228 apparently is concerned that he or she is about to be blocked, which may happen if he or she continues making idle accusations. However, the deletion rule does not apply to users who are blocked or banned after writing the articles. It only applies to users who are already blocked or banned, and so never should have written the articles, but were evading the block, typically by sock-puppetry. Now that reliable sources have been added, the article should not be deleted either for lack of notability or for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adam Zelga for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Zelga 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/Adam Zelga 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. ES &L 16:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]