User talk:Vaughanster

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Brazilian Summer Beauty Pageant. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! mabdul 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blast and Whisper. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! mabdul 15:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello! Vaughanster, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sarah (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blast and Whisper.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Millermk90 (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can kiss my ass forever.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Blast and Whisper movie.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Blast and Whisper movie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vaughanster. You have new messages at GoingBatty's talk page.
Message added 22:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please sign your posts on user talk pages

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. This is reminds me of Office Space. Surely, we have the technology to insert signatures automatically when we're logged in. When is WikiPedia going to enter this century? Actually, we probably already had that technology last millennium.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The technology is trivial, but writing a program intelligent enough to reliably distinguish those situations where a signature is appropriate from those where it isn't is not so trivial, as you will know if you have ever seen examples of SineBot automatically adding inappropriate signatures. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Libertad Green

The article Libertad Green has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Altered Walter (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Libertad Green

The article Libertad Green has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Altered Walter (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Libertad Green for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libertad Green 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/Libertad Green 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 template from the top of the article. Altered Walter (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Libertad Green. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "references" that you have supplied such as Facebook, Youtube, IMDB etc. are not reliable sources. These and other unreliable sources (including spam links) have been removed, along with the related content. What is left may not pass the notability guidelines and so has been proposed for deletion. Please read the guidelines on notability and reliable sources, but please do not re-add the sources that have been removed or remove the AfD template. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Libertad Green. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at William Mortensen Vaughan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, but it is not a place like Myspace or Facebook for people to write about themselves. It is a different sort of site, a project to build an encyclopedia, so it is selective about subjects for articles (see WP:NACTOR for the notability standard for actors), and writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography. The WP:Welcome page and the guide to writing WP:Your first article will tell you more about Wikipedia. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake when I was experimenting. Sorry!William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bjelleklang - talk 16:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding inappropriate refs on Libertad Green

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again gone through each "reference" you have added and removed all those that are IMDb, Youtube, blogs (including your own) or Facebook, as well as ones that either do not mention the subject or do not credit her in photos. If you re-add any inappropriate refs you may be blocked from editing. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph regarding Libertad Green's "Hawaiian Hula dance" on YouTube should be put back in the article. Having a YouTube video with over a million views is notable. Furthermore, having a video which appears on the first page of hits on Google and YouTube when searching for a term not including any of the subject's names or location is even more notable. How many WikiPedia editors or moderators have thumbnail pictures of themselves and links to their work appear when searching for "WikiPedia Editors" or "WikiPedia Moderators" on Google or YouTube's search engines? In fact, when I Google "Harry the Dirty Dog," I get a picture of Betty White! LOL

Also, YouTube videos and Facebooks should not be dismissed out of hand. Companies and celebrities typically have official Facebooks and YouTube channels, which serve as sources which are as reliable as if they published a separate website to post their videos, photos and updates. The videos I cited regarding the Brazilian Summer Beauty Pageant have written descriptions as well as in-video subtitles including the names of the judges and participants. In fact, the only "proof" I've been able to find online that Libertad Green took 4th Place is in the BSB 2011 Part 3 video when the M.C. is seen and heard announcing her title. Videos such as these serve as more convincing evidence and documentation with regard to the veracity of claims about their topics than mere text and pictures on other websites.

Seriously, after viewing these videos, do you doubt any of the claims I've made in this article about who participated in what role in the Brazilian Summer Beauty Pageants in 2011 and '12?

Do you seriously think I created a CADE Cordoba Facebook in Spanish and stuck a stock photo of Libertad Green on it to add to her notoriety? Is there any serious doubt that the stock photos I listed are of Libertad Green? Does the girl in these pictures not look like her? How do you suppose I discovered the images on these websites? Did it occur to you that Libertad Green might have retained copies of stock photos taken of her, and that she searched for them with Google's image comparison/search tool? Or do you really think I just surfed around the Internet looking for pictures of girls that vaguely resemble my wife so I could add them to a fake article about her?

As for soapboxing, isn't that what all the biographies on WikiPedia do? Why mention anyone's accomplishments if it's not to make a point?

Also, why dismiss IMDb sources out of hand? They seem to be the standard in the industry, as well as on WikiPedia. Virtually all of the work Libertad Green has obtained in the Entertainment industry, including her starring roles, is from CraigsList.org, and the two sources most sought after in CraigsList ads for actors and models are IMDb pages and ModelMayhem pages. I was recently filmed as a news anchor in a Bulgattie commercial starring and produced by Miguel "Juwanna Mann" A. Nunez, Jr.; what was his director's first question before deciding whether or not to hire me? "Do you have an IMDb page?"

The "Sins of Jezebel" page on WikiPedia gives Paulette Goddard credit for the title role, but has no "References," and only one "External link" to (YOU GUESSED IT!) the Internet Movie Database.

Then there's the circle jerk logic of not using WikiPedia articles as sources for articles on WikiPedia. LOL The articles on WikiPedia must be supported by verifiable, reliable sources 'cause you wouldn't want to grant WikiPedia article status to an unverifiable article, but full-fledged WikiPedia articles aren't themselves reliable sources?!?!?!

And some guy identifying himself as "Harry the Dirty Dog - Woof" is going to threaten to block me on WikiPedia??!?!?

Your hypocrisy and lack of professionalism is so astonishing, that, at this point, I've lost so much respect for WikiPedia that I'd rather you just deleted the god damn article rather than have Libertad Green's good name tarnished with any association with you morons! William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it to others to respond to your points and explain Wikipedia policies to you yet again, because I don't respond to personal attacks. But rest assured that you will be blocked if you continue to engage in them, and to ignore Wikipedia policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaughanster! You may wish to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (specifically the "Self-published sources (online and paper)" section) and Wikipedia:Video links. Instead of using Wikipedia articles as reference, I usually copy third-party references from one Wikipedia article to another. Unfortunately, if the person has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, the person may not meet the requirements for being included in this encyclopedia, which are laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (people).

I have a great deal of respect for everyone who has served our country, and wish you all the best in your editing efforts here. Happy New Year! GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just another quick comment regarding youtube and similar sites; this article gives a pretty good argument for why the number of views shouldn't count towards notability, ever! YouTube cancels billions of music industry video views after finding they were fake or 'dead' Bjelleklang - talk 19:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; they are too subjective. Certain Wikipedia moderators use them to bully me and my wife, Libertad Green, but allow Wikipedia articles about less notable people to stand. My sources are as as reliable, independent, and third-party as any. They are reliable enough for one of the bullies to ascetain that Libertad Green is my wife. The article you site does not give a very good reason for why the number of views shouldn't count toward notability; as long as YouTube allows Libertad Green's "Hawaiian Hula dance" video to remain on their site, one should assume that the view count they give is valid.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be civil. No one is "bullying" you. We are trying to impress upon you that Wikipedia is not a medium for promoting your wife. You are free to seek community consensus to change the policy on reliable sources, but until you do, you must abide by the policies as they stand if you want to keep partici[ating in this project. And under those policies Libertad Green is simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. As for your "other stuff exists" arguments, if you feel that other articles don't meet Wikipedia policies, you are perfectly free to nominate them for deletion as well. I will support any nomination for deletion where appropriate. But please stop wasting your efforts on Libertad Green. The article has been deleted following a community discussion and it is highly unlikely that it will be re-created. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. To be clear, though, no one is accusing Vaughanster or Libertad Green of doing anything inappropriate to manuipulate YouTube results. For any video (and the people in the video) to be notable enough to be encyclopedic, they still have to be mentioned in reliable sources. GoingBatty (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Libertad Green as Queen Jezebel in-Blast and Whisper.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Libertad Green as Queen Jezebel in-Blast and Whisper.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

As far as I'm concerned, Bjelleklang is accusing me and/or Libertad Green of doing something inappropriate to manipulate YouTube and Google results. Google is regarded as such a reliable source, that is has replaced atlases as well as dictionaries; just ask Apple. If you "Google" the mere name of an art form, and consistently get a thumbnail of someone who has performed that art, with a link to their work, that work is notable and verified by a reliable resource.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Libertad Green as Queen Jezebel in-Blast and Whisper.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Libertad Green as Queen Jezebel in-Blast and Whisper.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vaughanster. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 21:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding that entry to Libertad until there is an article for it

Hi. You've been repeatedly attempting to add an entry for Libertad Green to the Libertad disambiguation page. I see that this is a battle you've been fighting for some time, but the disambiguation page is not the forum for it. Per MOS:DAB, entries should aid readers in finding existing articles, and every entry should have exactly one pertinent blue link. The United States article is not pertinent to the actress.

You'll need to establish notability and get the Libertad Green article created before it will be appropriate to have an entry for it on the disambiguation page.

I'd like to emphasize that I am not making a judgment on the notability question one way or the other. I am only addressing the disambiguation entry. Nick Number (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Libertad, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Per the previous Talk page entry, please stop adding the dab entry which does not contain a valid link. Nick Number (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the links in my entry work. Please stop removing it. William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are blue links, but they do not fit the purpose of a disambiguation page, which is to aid users in finding existing articles. Someone going to the page Libertad is not going to be looking for United States, Holy Bible, Queen, or Jezebel. I reiterate, you will need to win your battle to create the Libertad Green article (which I am not taking a stand on) before adding a disambiguation entry. Nick Number (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad Green is mentioned on the Jezebel page, because she is one of the few actresses to play the role of that Biblical Queen in a feature length film, as opposed to Betty Davis, who merely played the role of a fictional woman by another name in a movie entitled Jezebel. Using the Jezebel link and reference makes as much sense as using the Mafalda link for the cartoon character Libertad in a list of PEOPLE named Libertad.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would if Libertad Green were notable. As Nick has explained, any entry on a disambiguation page should lead to an article directly relating to the subject. Since Green's article has been deleted it cannot appear on a disambig page because there is nothing to link to. Appearing in a minor movie, even in the lead role, does not make a person notable. There are lots of non-notable people listed in the casts of movies on Wikipedia. Libertad Green is one such person. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that non-notable people are listed on Wikipedia, so why are you bullying us? So, Wikipedia lists a fictional, Argentine comic strip character with no link to its own Wikipedia article, and an Argentine best known for her work in The Pink Pussy: Where Sin Lives, but not Libertad Green, who played the role of the historical, Biblical queen who gave us the term Jezebel? And some guy identified as Harry the Dirty Dog gets to make this decision? Really? William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is bullying you. If you keep making accusations you will be blocked from editing. Non=notable people are listed when it is appropriate. A disambig page is not an appropriate place. It is clear that you have one purpose and one purpose only on Wikipedia - to promote your wife, Please stop or you will be blocked from editing. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my primary purpose on Wikipedia is to shamelessly promote my wife, Libertad Green, which makes me unique (sticks tongue in cheek), 'cause it would never occur to anyone else to use Wikipedia to promote anyone or anything they cared about.

You and Altered Walter are bullies, plain and simple. How else do you explain why Libertad's entry on the list of PEOPLE named Libertad keeps getting deleted, while Libertad the fictional comic strip character's does not, even though she doesn't have a Wikipedia article of her own, either? How else do you explain why Libertad Green's Wikipedia article gets deleted, but Libertad "the Pink Pussy" LeBlanc's does not? Not to mention other actors who are less notable, with fewer references... How else do you explain Altered Walter's remarks about deleting Libertad Green's article because her references appear to be "jokes and hoax"?

As for blocking me, that is exactly what I expect you to do, because, not only are you bullies, but punks, as well, which is what most bullies like you really are. By blocking me, as far as I'm concerned, you would be tapping out, because you have no logical explanations for my accusations. I have you in mental headlocks, and I'm choking the logical air out of you, so, by all means, please tap out and block me, PUNK!!!William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Libertad. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Nick Number (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Libertad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (2).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad Green

Dear Vaughanster:

I can see that you have been having some trouble getting your article about Libertad Green accepted into Wikipedia. I would like to help if I can. I think there has been some misunderstanding here, which I will try to explain.

When Wikipedia reviewers talk about a topic being "notable", it has nothing to do with popularity or importance. They are just talking about whether journalists and other authors who are not connected with the subject have published articles about it. Wikipedia articles are all descriptions of information that has been published in reliable sources.

When deciding if a person will have an article in Wikipedia, that's the first criteria that the reviewers look for. They don't count "connected" items such as the person's web page, or the web pages of their agents or movie companies or friends, only items written in published sources by professional writers. They also don't count information from amateur sources such as blogs and facebook. HOWEVER, you are right that these days a great deal of material is published on line rather than printed. So what's the difference? If I start up a web site and write my opinion about my favourite movies, that's not considered a reliable source. However, if I start an on-line magazine, have an editorial policy, only publish reviews by experienced, reputable movie reviewers and not by anyone who writes in, check every fact before its published, don't show favouritism to my friends and relatives, don't sell the movies that I review, etc., then it is a real magazine and it doesn't matter if there is no paper involved.

Libertad seems to have been involved in many public activities, so there probably are news reports about this somewhere. Maybe you have newspaper clippings from local papers that aren't on line. Perhaps the events she was involved in have been written about in a magazine or a trade journal for models or actors.

Here's an article that you haven't included: http://www.hipmix.net/featured-article.php?pid=30

It's difficult to write from a neutral point of view about something or someone that you love. My article about the Mandolin Society of Peterborough, of which I am a member, was declined for being too promotional at first. If Libertad received any bad press, or was involved in a project was panned, you should add it in; it makes the article seem more balanced.

One more thing: I think you have been doing a lot of work unnecessarily. If your article which is submitted to the Articles for creation is declined, you don't have to start over and write it again. Just change and add to the existing one. When you think it's ready for another try, just click the link in the pink decline box and it will re-submit. The old decline box will still be there, and the next editor can see why it was declined and see whether you've addressed the issues.

You mentioned that you had found some articles that didn't have good sources and weren't tagged for that. There are millions of articles, so there are always some that haven't been weeded out. As a Wikipedia editor, if you find articles like that, feel free to tag them yourself. Be sure that you have looked carefully at the references first. There should be several that are not press releases or just a name or photo, but have substantial information about the topic. Once tagged, if no one improves them after a period of time they may be deleted. Here's an article that shows how to tag: Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems.

Sorry to go on so long. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor formatting edits to the page as well. GoingBatty (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get the whole third-party, reliable source thing, and I'm tired of hearing about it. At one time or another, I've included references to Libertad's entries on HipMix.Net. At one time, I had up to 80 references, so a lot of my work has been undone, and yes, I tend to keep copies so I don't have to rewrite it.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green has 82 listings in the references section. #23 contains a different link to HipMix.Net. GoingBatty (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why isn't it approved?William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, many of the items used as references in that version are not considered independent reliable sources in Wikipedia standards. GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So publish the article with the ones that are.William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you update Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (2) with the HipMix reference that Anne provided and any additional references, and then resubmit your proposal. For example: Have there been any reviews of Blast and Whisper that discuss Libertad's performance? Have there been any independent articles that discuss the importance of Libertad's YouTube video? Are there any articles about Cut Copy's video that credit Libertad properly? Were any of the beauty pagents covered in the press? Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph about Libertad's winning and taking Honorable Mention in the two HipMix.net contests, as well as the four references to these events, including Anne's, and resubmitted as "Articles for creation/Libertad Green (3).

The Christian Film Database and FilmFestivals.com reviews of Blast and Whisper are already referenced.

I haven't been able to find any correct reference to Libertad Green for the Cut Copy video, and Keith Schofield, the Director, hasn't answered my request for the correction to his official website.

There are press photos of Libertad Green at that pageant on TopNews.in, Exposay.com and PRPhotos.com, but the only proof I've found of where she placed is in one of the Pageant's official YouTube videos. Disallowing YouTube videos is ludicrous, as is disallowing Facebooks, because credible organizations typically have official YouTube Channels and Facebooks, and are just as valid as if they published separate webpages to showcase their videos, pictures and text.

I doubt there is any review of Libertad's "Hawaiian Hula dance," but this requirement is also ludicrous, because it's consistent appearance among the first few hits returned when Googling "hawaiian hula" is notable and verifiable, prima facie. If someone asked for a picture of GoingBatty, and I told them to Google Wikipedia Moderators to find a thumbnail of you on the first page of hits returned, would that not be notable? When people with smart phones hear me brag about my wife, and ask to see a picture of her, as often happens, I don't pull out my wallet or smart phone (I don't own a smart phone, anyway); I tell them to Google "hawaiian hula" and look for the thumbnail of her linked to her "Hawaiian Hula dance" video among the first few hits returned. Their reaction is initially disbelief; their astonishment to discover I'm telling the truth is proof of her verifiable notability, idiots such as Huon, Altered Waltered and Harry the Dirty Dog notwithstanding. It seems pointless to have this conversation with anyone lacking the mental capacity to acknowledge Libertad Green's verifiable notability, especially on a website which would rather host articles about people known for raps entitled "Fuck It!", lyrics such as "Fuck you, you 'ho'!" and movies entitled The Pink Pussy: Where Sin Lives!William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I made some formatting and copyedits to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (3) for you. Most significantly, I removed the entire "Wikipedia Article and Verifiable Notability Controversy" section, as that's not going to increase your chances of getting the article approved.

I didn't see any references to HipMix.net in the References section in this version, so I added it for you. However, the fact that HipMix doesn't have a Wikipedia article makes me wonder if people will consider it a good enough source. The New York Times profile only mentions she appeared in The Foot Fist Way, and HipMix mentions Glee, so I added them both to the article.

I don't doubt that she won awards in these beauty pageants, and videos of the pageants would show that. However, if the pageants weren't covered in the media, the pageants themselves probably don't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability (especially the Vaughanster's Ultimate Belly Dance Video Challenge).

Just because you could find some pictures of me on Google, Facebook, and YouTube doesn't mean that I meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. I even have some newspaper articles about awards I've won which made me somewhat notable in my high school or Scout troop, but that doesn't make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, even though there have been thousands of Marines who have done great things in service of our country, only some have Wikipedia articles.

Yes, it's disappointing that people such as Eamon (singer) get global notoriety and their own Wikipedia articles. However, Eamon's song hit the charts in eight different countries, and his article now has multiple reliable sources. It's also possible that Libertad Leblanc doesn't have enough references to merit inclusion, but the requirements for articles on living people are stricter now than when Leblanc's article was created. I've tagged her article and those of her films with {{notability}}.

I know that you're frustrated with Wikipedia's requirements, but I'm concerned that there may not be a significant enough difference in this version of the article for it to pass muster here. I hope you're able to find more references. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A personal warning

Hello Vaughanster,

In light of your persistent editing, I have to firmly ask you to stop posting information everywhere about Libertad Green. It's been discussed over time that she is not "notable" by our encyclopedia's definition of the word (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertad Green); we have objective standards for that, as I am sure you are well aware. Persisting to promote a non-notable person is unconstructive to the website. Please consider yourself warned, because if your account continues to be used solely for promoting Libertad Green, you will be blocked from editing. Jamie S93 16:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Bill Clinton, "Kiss it!"William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistent disruptive editing, including edit warring, editing with the purpose of promotion, refusing to accept Wikipedia policies, and incivility to other editors, at times reaching the point of being personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (3).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Blast and Whisper

Hello Vaughanster. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Blast and Whisper.

If you no longer want this submission, it will shortly be deleted. However, if you wish to keep it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blast and Whisper}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will place the undeleted submission in your user space.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks!William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (3) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (3), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (3)

Hello Vaughanster. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Libertad Green (3)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Libertad Green (3)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vaughanster. You have new messages at Nick Number's talk page.
Message added 22:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

March 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Harry the Dirty Dog. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ruby Murray 04:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jezebel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen. 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) 09:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally linked Queen to the Queen page. William Mortensen Vaughan, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Retired) (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]