User talk:Momononu

'KEEP - user: msnicki appears to be deliberately following my edits on long standing acceptable pages and posting deletion notices. Not in keeping with Wiki manners or code of conduct. Please could someone suggest the most appropriate way to make a formal complaint the nip this in the bud. Many thanks. Momononu (talk)momononu

WP:RESCUE WP:ARS

Hi Momononu. This user nominated an article for deletion that you have worked on. The simple fact you had commented at another AfD she had started does not mean the nomination is illegitimate and the fact you had commented there first does not mean she is following you around.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) it seems odd though, and she is using the precise same wording on pages that have legitimately been published for years. Any advice? Momononu (talk)momononuMomononu (talk)

The most important thing to understand is that articles should be based (shown through citation) on published reliable sources, and mostly on secondary sources, entirely independent of the subject. These demonstrate notability and allow verification of the content. Be aware that Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Use Google Books Scholar and News to your advantage, but you must take in that if the sources don't exist, the article shouldn't. That's all general advice. More specific advice is that you will get nowhere talking about behavioral issues at the AfD. You need to talk about the merits, and the best thing you can do to demonstrate them is add reliable secondary sources to the article that speak about it in detail, and then say you have at the AfD, but if the sources don't exist ... nothing you can do.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent advice User talk:Fuhghettaboutit - thanks indeed. Last Q and sorry for bombarding you but who makes the final decision in a situation such as this? :-)) Momononu (talk)User:MomononuMomononu (talk)

The discussion will stay open for at least seven days. Any time after that, an administrator can close the discussion, making a finding based on the consensus of the discussion. Be aware that it is not a vote and that reasonable, logical, policy- and guideline-based arguments are what are being considered. In other words, if ten people clamor to "keep" a page on irrelevant grounds, and one person makes a solid argument to delete, grounded in bedrock policy, the article should be deleted (and vice-versa). I think you might get some benefit from reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. There are other result possibilities, such as a finding of no consensus (which defaults to keep), to merge the article to another existing one, or to redirect it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Momononu, I'm curious. The ONLY page you worked on that Msnicki filed on was the Tiffin AfD. You've chimed in on the Kogan Page AfD, which Msnicki filed, but you've never edited that page -- SPA accounts called User talk:Kbaldewijns, User talk:Wallstreet100 and User talk:Singo66 have. It's not illegal to create multiple accounts to work on Wikipedia, but it IS a violation of the rules for multiple accounts to chime in on the same discussion. Is Singo66 an account of yours? Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]