Capixa23

Capixa23, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Capixa23! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Reed Brody for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reed Brody 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/Reed Brody 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would describe it as "slovenly". Absolutely no attempt to create a Wikipedia article. Just dumping some text you have written for something else. Are you Reed Brody? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. your "article" was a text dump almost entirely lacking independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that he meets thenotability guidelines. (organizations and companies) (music) It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, or they will be deleted. It was also written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. It looks as if its been restored and cleaned up now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies at talk:Reed Brody. Jimfbleak, pity you did not look at the history. The more appropriate response would have been to revert my vandalism and slap my wrist. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am new to Wikipedia so I am still learning the formatting and how to post in discussions as I go. I did not intend to write it in a promotional tone but just used the information and quotes I found in various sources to create his biography as I noticed there was one in French but not in English. I also wrote the article from scratch and did not 'dump' any text from somewhere else. What were your other concerns? I am sure we can find a way to address them in order to make this article more encyclopedic. Thanks Capixa23 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Capixa23

I have no current concerns about the article. Obviously you should watch the AfD discussion and action any suggestions there. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking glass world

Originally posted at user talk:RHaworth

[[Category:Reed Brody Deletion]]

I apologize for deleting your modifications of the Reed Brody post yesterday. I am new to Wikipedia and was unsure of how to insert my entire post (which I had written before) and was trying to set up all of the links. From now on, when I write a Wikipedia article I will simply start on the actual Wikipedia site. Thanks – Capixa23 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly, what is this kinky idea of starting a post with [[Category:…]]? You put the heading on a line by itself bracketed by == . Is that clear? Your message seems to come from some looking glass world. "I apologize for deleting your modifications" - it would be useful exercise for you to give me a "diff" link such as this one showing your deletion of edits by me. Don't you realise that I am apologising to you for the exact reverse? "Simply start on the actual Wikipedia site" - not necessarily a good idea and potentially disastrous if you start in the (article) namespace. Did you actually read my message at talk:Reed Brody. By all means develop an article off-line as much as you wish. When you are ready to check wikilinks, copy it into user:Capixa23/sandbox and work there until it is viable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Re leaving a message at user talk:RHaworth: most editors prefer discussion threads in one place. We were discussing Reed Brody here so there was no need for you to come over to my talk page - you could assume that I was watching yours. If you had spoken to me here and not received a response within 48hrs then the {{talkback}} tag is the preferred way of alerting me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions and tips. Like I said, this is all still new to me, but I am learning. Capixa23 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Capixa 23

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Capixa23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: Some pages you might like to check out are:

• Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia — main welcome page.
• Wikipedia:Introduction -- Wikipedia introduction page.
• Wikipedia:Tutorial -- Wikipedia editing tutorial.
• Wikipedia:Questions — the "where to ask questions" directory.
• Wikipedia:FAQ — quick answers to the most common questions.
• Wikipedia:New contributors' help page — a place for new users to post questions and get answers by volunteers who monitor or frequent the page.
• Wikipedia:Help desk — where volunteers answer questions on how to use Wikipedia. Many new users go there for help too.
• Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User — where a new user can be adopted by an experienced user who will be his/her mentor.
• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual — Thorough and intuitive guide to Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Capixa23, I see you have been invited to the Teahouse, but I think you might also find a collection of informational links useful, so here is one that I hope has useful stuff without being overwhelmingly long. There is indeed a lot to figure out about how to edit Wikipedia, but don't worry too much about the formatting stuff, it is a collaborative enterprise - I see someone has fixed the headers in your article on Reed Brody and if no one else gets to it first, I'll make the references look a bit prettier as soon as I have time; I'm at work right now.

At a glance, I believe Mr. Brody does meet our notability guideline; so I'll probably go to the AfD discussion and say so. I suggest you also take a look at the guidelines and argue your case there, since you know the topic best. Thank you for creating the article! Courage, and feel free to ask questions. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir, thanks for all of these suggestions! I really appreciate it. I will start looking into how to better use the tactics and formatting tools. So, how to we take out the Reed Brody article from being considered for deletion. When does the process end? Capixa23 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Capixa 23

You're welcome :-) The discussion stays open for at least a week in theory; in practice someone could come along and "snow close" it if everyone is on one side - the term derives from the phrase "a snowball's chance in hell". If very few people comment, it may also get relisted for another week; this sometimes happens multiple times. My advice is to look at the notability guidelines and go there and say why he meets them. Look at my comment there for the format convention. It can't hurt and is kind of expected. If the article survives this nomination for deletion, it should be ok - it has major media sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)