User talk:St. claires fire/Archive 1

St. claires fire, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi St. claires fire! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Word banning

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. St. claires fire, thanks for creating Word banning!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article needs references to independent, reliable sources. You need to show that word banning is a term that is in common use and provide sources that cite your examples.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cultural decay

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Cultural decay, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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. IExistToHelp (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. IExistToHelp (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cultural decay

To preserve the article, add references. Where you've said that various people have used the term, link to the website, or magazine, newspaper etc, where they did so. Everything in Wikipedia, especially anything relating to living people, must be sourced. Thanks. PamD 07:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Cultural decay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cultural decay 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/Cultural decay 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hal Parrish

The article Hal Parrish has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hal Parrish

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 Hal Parrish 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 credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Hal Parrish for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hal Parrish 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/Hal Parrish 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. reddogsix (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017 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/Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017 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. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Sara Townsend for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sara Townsend 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/Sara Townsend 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. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Contraband in prison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shank. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Bearing Drift

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. St. claires fire, thanks for creating Bearing Drift!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I don't really see any of the sources as providing substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's tough because the Old Media often doesn't like to link to the New Media. St. claires fire (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Audit of the Federal Reserve System

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, Audit of the Federal Reserve System. 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 – Criticism of the Federal Reserve. 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 Criticism of the Federal Reserve – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, 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. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello St. claires fire, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Scott Lingamfelter have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Total victory

Hi, I'm RileyBugz. St. claires fire, thanks for creating Total victory!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hello! I noticed that your recent creation, total victory, is slanted towards an American view of the subject. It would be nice if you could try and globalize it. It is good otherwise, though, so I marked it as reviewed. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Abortion in Virginia

added a link pointing to Corey Stewart

American Sovereignty Restoration Act

added a link pointing to New American

Bearing Drift

added a link pointing to The Fix

Libertarian legal code

added a link pointing to Gerard Casey

Virginia's 29th House of Delegates district

added a link pointing to Chris Collins

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Virginia election articles

The contents of the articles are detailed below. I have to say it looks very strange that you and N I H I L I S T have so much overlap. Are the two accounts related?

• Virginia's 22nd House of Delegates district election, 2017, to be held 7 November 2017, is between Kathy Byron and Libertarian Michael Millner.
• Virginia's 32nd House of Delegates district election, 2017, to be held 7 November 2017, is a contest between Democrat David Reid, and incumbent Republican Tag Greason. Reid, who describes himself as a moderate and pragmatist, wants to bring full-day kindergarten to Loudoun County, Virginia, focus on improving transportation in Northern Virginia, and send more state funding to colleges. It is expected that this race will be competitive.
• Virginia's 42nd House of Delegates district election, 2017, scheduled for 7 November 2017, is a contest between Republican incumbent Dave Albo and Democrats Kathy Tran and Nelfred "Tilly" Blanding. Although Albo has in the past proven hard to defeat, Democrats still look at this as race as a pickup opportunity because 57% of the district went for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the United States presidential election, 2016.
• Virginia's 67th House of Delegates district election, 2017 is a race between Republican Jim LeMunyon and Democrats John Carey, Karrie Delaney, and Hannah Risheq. Democrats are looking at this race as winnable, since they have an advantage in districts with strong turnouts. Also, the district voted for Hillary Clinton in the United States presidential election, 2016.
• Virginia's 89th House of Delegates district election, 2017, to be held 7 November 2017, is between Democrats Joe Dillard and Jay Jones, and Libertarian Terry Hurst. Dillard is president of the Norfolk NAACP, and Jones is an attorney and the son of Jerrauld Jones. The incumbent Democrat, Daun Hester, is stepping down to run for Norfolk treasurer.

Number 57 12:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, no relation. Thanks for your help! St. claires fire (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP removal on Murder of Yeardley Love

Do not restore. You have a political agenda going on and we're not going to let people exploit someone's murder. You created an article about a school board and the material that I removed was lacking in neutrality. There is no need to try to conflate a school board election and spin a controversy into a murder article. With an ongoing election, you need to leave this out. If it is a notable event then try to see if it stands as an article on its own...I don't think so.

Those people are not notable themselves and this does not even meet BLP1E as far as being a controversy. Look, if Bart Simpson or some politician comments on a subject that doesn't mean that this becomes notable within the subject article. If it is important, relative to Bart or the politician, then go put it in their own articles and nowhere else. Political sideshow spam.

This is a BLP removal. If you feel the inclination to restore it then go ahead and post at ANI and ask for further input. I'll be happy to let other admins look this over and give you their opinion. Btw, I don't live in VA and have no dog in the fight.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You need a good strong dose of "Don't Assume Bad Faith".

"If you feel the inclination to restore it then go ahead and post at ANI and ask for further input." Are you actually inviting me to hit myself with a boomerang? Heh. St. claires fire (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop creating things like "Yeardleygate." You appear to be coatracking local political criticism into articles. I've deleted it. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what I'm doing. The content had to go there because there was nowhere else to put it. Lander himself is not notable, but the controversy is, and the interpretation that politicians are attaching to the murder is relevant to the "aftermath" of the murder. St. claires fire (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yet that's what it looks like from here. Don't shoehorn local political gaffes by non-notable people into unrelated (to the person making the gaffe) articles. That's coatracking - hijacking a topic to criticize a tangentially-related issue. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. When a new law is passed because of this murder then you'll have something to write. Somebody having a local squabble...doesn't mean anything to this case or article. Please review WP:COATRACK.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So then we should also get rid of mention of the gross negligence accusations against Dom Starsia, Marc Van Arsdale, Craig Littlepage, etc., because they are all non-notable people who got shoehorned into the article as well, as their involvement in the murder was only tangential at best.

It wasn't just a gaffe. Lander was talking about the relation between culture and/or education policy, and murder. Yeah, okay, there's no Yeardley's Law yet, that's true. St. claires fire (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The people you mentioned above are relative to the case. The school board people are not...not at all.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No, Dom Starsia, Marc Van Arsdale, Craig Littlepage, etc. weren't relevant to the murder case. They were defendants in a wrongful death case that got dropped. Their being named in Murder_of_Yeardley_Love#Wrongful_death_civil_lawsuits could be a BLP concern, since there's potential for harm to their reputation.

What's about John Casteen's expressed hopes "that her dying inspires an anger, a sense of outrage that engenders determination here and wherever Yeardley's name is recognized that no woman, no person in this place, this community, this state, our nation need either fear for her safety or experience violence for any reason"? (See Murder_of_Yeardley_Love#Aftermath.) Casteen had no involvement in her murder case either. He's just a person who, like Lander, is commenting on the murder's meaning in the larger picture of society.

What about Julie Myers; the team's planning to go forward with its role in the NCAA tournament isn't directly relevant to the murder either. So one could argue that's another case of COATRACK. (Although who really cares, since COATRACK is just an essay. I assume there's a reason why there was never a consensus to make it a guideline.)

Anyway, it seems like you framed this as a BLP removal in order to escalate it to a level at which I can be blocked if I reinstate the material, but I don't think it's actually a legitimate BLP issue. St. claires fire (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to argue for their removal on the talk page, I won't stop you. That is not the issue that I have raised here. It also doesn't matter what folks running for school board elections think about our article subjects. Their opinions are not germane and do not need to be noted. As to the legitimacy of the BLP claim, let's see what others have to say at the noticeboard.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)