User talk:GetSomeUtah/Archive 2

Proposed deletion of Jane Hallaren

The article Jane Hallaren 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added to the page, and I see the tag and request for deletion are now removed. GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Jane Hallaren) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jane Hallaren, GetSomeUtah!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have tagged this so it will be deleted in one week if no sources are added within that time. You can remove the tag as soon as it has a reliable source (see WP:RS and please be aware that imdb is not a reliable source).

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

* Thanks, I've added to the page (no iMDB, of course), and I see the tag and request for deletion are now removed. GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of April Mullen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article April Mullen 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/April Mullen 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) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bearcat, for letting me know. I understand the discussion was closed with a decision to keep. I appreciate your efforts, which improved the article greatly. Regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

BYU talk page

Hey, I put a discussion on BYU's talk page about whether a reverting editor should keep undoing changes unrelated to the issue he's complaining about, or just make those changes and not reverting a bunch of other ones just for grins and giggles, and not also making any statement of issue with any of those. Will you please go there and add your input?

Thanks if so,

Editor currently parked at 174.23.183.180 (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC).

Thanks. I'll be happy to take a look. I've found that page to be full of POV-pushers who don't budge. One of the current editors has been brought to the ANI for repeatedly violating the 3RR rule. I would recommend that course of action if that's the underlying behavioral problem. Regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. By the time you say something about it I may not still have this IP address. But how long should I give you before following up?

And thanks for your new edit to the article.

And when reverting edits for one specific issue, while the edit itself contains several unrelated things, which editor's responsibility is it to separate the things, either leaving unrelated material intact while changing that which is complained about, or redoing the unrelated material after that while leaving the complained-about material undone?

Mike, still 174.23.183.180 (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC) at this point, but it could change at any time.

I'm not sure about the issue of taking on multiple changes in an edit, and thus I don't feel sufficiently competent to weigh in on that issue on that page. It seems to me you could restore your edits that don't seem to be disputed by the other editor. If those get reverted, too, without an explanation, you would be able to start building your case for bringing it to the ANI. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cite concisely

Hello GetSomeUtah, your last edits to April Mullen cite the films, not her. More references only to have more is not helpful, especially when the films have their own articles (see also WP:NEXIST). Put the references where they belong to (in case of if they are notable). Better is a cleanup to have only references about her, not with her. That's what I've done in my edit. E.g. I deleted the reference (TV Guide) to Good God (TV series) because it is not useful and exported it to the article. Greetz -- MovieFex (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MovieFex. I appreciate the clean up effort and will heed your guidance on further citations. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Lesbian Filmmakers

Hello, GetSomeUtah. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of Lesbian Filmmakers, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

-- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)