User talk:RagingEddy

Welcome!

Hello, RagingEddy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Richard Wang, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richard Wang[edit]

The article Richard Wang has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinserted the tag which you deleted. Please read what it says above. David Biddulph (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. If you keep deleting the WP:BLPPROD tag without adding at least one WP:RS, this could be regarded as vandalism or disruptive editing, and you would be in danger of being blocked. I'm sure that if you search you would be able to find at least one WP:RS. You may also wish to read WP:COI about editing articles regarding organisations with which you are closely connected. David Biddulph (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy. You're still not getting this, are you? Yet again you have tried to remove the WP:BLPPROD tag, but there is still no WP:RS. Have you actually read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners as mentioned above? Looking at the 3 references in the article in turn:

The first reference is another wikipedia article (although you have linked it as an internet page instead of a wikilink). The last phrase of Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Good references specifically refers to "... another wikipedia article.".
The second and third references do not refer specifically to Richard Wang. The second sentence of Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Good references specifically says " To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. "

We are not trying to be awkward, but one of Wikipedia's pillars is verifiability. I am not doubting the truth of what you have included, but the rules of WP:BLPPROD are clear, and at least one WP:RS is required. Do a Google search, and hopefully you'll be able to find something that meets Wikipedia's rules. David Biddulph (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've removed the tag yet again, despite these warnings, I'm afraid it has to be regarded as disruptive editing and vandalism. This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Richard Wang, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. David Biddulph (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Raging Dragons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

team, the most notable of which are [[Richard Wang (athlete)|Richard Wang]] and [[Victor Martinez (ex-footballer]]. Celebrity [[Gok Wan]] has paddled with Raging Dragons and the team featured in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wave Walkers[edit]

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 Wave Walkers 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 club, but it does not 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have asked a question about this on the Requests for undeletion page. I will not undelete the article, because it indicates no possible basis for importance,. The first [whatever] in London is not a plausible basis for significance: WP is not Ripley's. I note the article had no references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases-- in fact, it had no references of any sort at all. I wonder if this might be an attempt at promotion for Judy Cumberbatch, as I can see no other reason for mentioning her. . She may or may not be notable, but it would seem more logical to try to write an article about her, as I see one of her two books is in a reasonable number of libraries. To do this you will need book reviews providing substantial coverage from independent published reliable sources, but not amazon or the publisher. I was going to suggest mentioning it in the article on the sponsoring club, but I see it's already listed--I see no reference there, however, and the material will e removed if a RS is not provided.

As mentioned at the Help, you can go to Deletion Review. You will not succeed thee unless you have some substantial sources available--and if you do, nothing is stopping you from rewriting the article, based on those sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]