User talk:LogicalCreator

Welcome!

Hello, LogicalCreator, 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 Facethejury, 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! Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Facethejury for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Facethejury 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/Facethejury 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 good 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. Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. removing deletion templates from an article, before the discussion is completed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that my article stay.[edit]

According to WP:BOLD I made an article that was sorely missing from Wikipedia and no one is helping me improve the article and only trying to delete it. This is against Wikipedia's policies of "being bold."

Being bold does not mean you get to be bold and cannot be reverted. It means be bold and see what happens. What is happening is your article being deleted. Please read WP:Reliability WP:Verifiability and specifically how they relate to WP:Notability, particularly WP:CORP. You do not get to 'demand' anything. That is not how wikipedia works. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To delete this article would be disturbing.[edit]

There are many listings for obscure dating sites on Wikipedia and this one is definitely notable. I am adding more references as we speak and have donated money to Wikipedia. There is something very wrong with Wikipedia users who are more concerned with deleting entries rather than helping to build on them, especially when it is obvious that the entry I made is legitimate and "noteworthy." (About as noteworthy as "vampirefreaks.com." Now, someone help me or feel disgusted with yourselves for being abusive towards new CONTRIBUTORS to Wikipedia and being more of a detractor to this wonderful website.

Making WP:PERSONAL attacks is a good way to get yourself in trouble. Other sites that perhaps should not exist do have pages. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel those sites should be deleted, you may nominate them for deletion. It is not obvious that your site is legitimate and noteworthy, which you need to prove using WP:RS as I mentioned before. Please show specifically how you have complied with the policies I posted to you previously, and you will get a lot more help than attacking everyone. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding is disabled for some reason?[edit]

I was attempting to cite another source, but it is being blocked for some reason. It doesn't make sense, because that website seems to compare, very logically, all different types of websites online. I'm baffled as to the types of "moderators" or whatever are trying to delete my article rather than help me. It is very upsetting to see people being so un-academic.

What site are you trying to link to? Some sites that are well known for being problematic are blocked pre-emptively. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find(the) best (dot) com is for some reason being black-listed. Looking over the site, I have no idea why it would be black-listed. I am simply being logical, I have used Wikipedia for many, many years, and a website such as FTJ should be listed on Wikipedia. For a dating site to be listed ONLY because it has a news story about it, doesn't make sense. That's not logical. What about a new website that is launched? It has to somehow make the news before it is granted an entry on Wikipedia? This is not logical, at all.

you can find more information about why that site was blacklisted here Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist. Regarding needing a news source - yes, that is exactly the policy of wikipedia. We are not a site to be used to promote a website. We are site to find information about topics which are ALREADY notable (by someone else noting it). Please read the policies I have linked to you several times. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding the herald reference. Unfortunately that article is not actually about facethejury so fails the portion of the notability guideline. Specifically ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." You would need to find some sources saying what a great resource FTJ is etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lack of sources for facethejury[edit]

So, I did some sdearches to see if I could help you out, and I must say I think your outlook does not look good.

There are 0 google news hits for facethejury (compare to match.com, eharmony.com etc which have many many google news hits.

in the main google results here none of the source are major editorial websites that would meet WP:RS. They are all blogs, or website directory sites, or sites like alexa that report on every website, and do not help contribute at all to WP:V WP:N. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entry now should stay; here's why.[edit]

I have no produced the same exact amount of "notability" as the entry for VampireFreaks.com. So, logically speaking, if VampireFreaks.com has not been deleted, nor should FaceTheJury.com. I provided a link to a crime that was committed and attached to FaceTheJury.com, similar to VampireFreaks.com and its killings reference.

Vampirefreaks has been associated with multiple events, and had 5 or 6 WP:RS links discussing it. You have one. Find a bunch more articles talking about you, and then you can approach notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that this article is not about "me," right? This article is about a dating website, not a human being. Why would you say "find a bunch more articles talking about you"? This place is beginning to look very, very anti-academic, and that truly disappoints me, seeing as how I donated money to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for saying "you". I had assumed that you are in some way associated with the website. I think you and I have very different definitions of "academic". Expecting special consideration because you donated? Yah. thats academic. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth is VampireFreaks.com still here and FaceTheJury.com is up for deletion? It's just a double-standard, I suppose. I have given enough criteria (big-boards.com) to justify keeping my legitimate, yet small, article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks has multiple multiple WP:RS references to it. If you want you could try to get bigboards judged to be a reliable source by going to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but I believe you will not be successful in that effort. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven references to basically the same exact story, that's not really "notable" to me at all; so, who's to judge what is and is not "notable" on Wikipedia? You guys? It seems that way, since you are the ones trying to delete this. I just don't have the time and energy to figure out a way to get an obviously legitimate website to stay on Wikipedia. I mean, the sheer size of its membership database should be enough to have it listed here, I'm just confused as to the entry process of websites here. I mean, if I had a few hours, I'm sure I could find many websites on the list of social networks that, other than casual mentions on random news articles, don't belong here at all (according to your view that each article needs news articles as references). It's just disparaging, that's all, and I think instead of immediately trying to delete things, you guys should improve Wikipedia by fixing articles to make them acceptable, rather than just immediately deleting them. I mean, what if I am researching dating sites for a school project and I miss FaceTheJury (a definite for my list) and it's not on Wikipedia? Sure, Wikipedia isn't really perfect for school projects, but it SHOULD be a better choice than winging a project with just ones on imagination. Anyway, I digress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very right that there are many sites with pages that probably shouldn't. WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. If someone notices them they may be deleted in the future. You may nominate them for deletion yourself if you feel like it. Who is to judge is via WP:CONSENSUS. I am just one opinion, which is why the article is currently up and receiving a deletion discussion. You are making assumptions regarding "obvious" though. We have very clearly spelled out standards, which I have linked you several times. If you think you meet those standards, please link to the specific passages of the guildelines and policies, and indicate how you satisfy them.

Luckily, WP: Notability states that "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." It also states that popularity does not preclude the inclusion of an article. My question is, how can one have an article made when it has somehow gone "under the radar" of popular culture? This is extremely disconcerting to me because I know for a fact FaceTheJury is a very active, online community with many, many members (reported by itself and by Big-Boards.com) to have more than 500,000 members. That alone should fit the criteria of being notable, no? Help me to understand how an article can be added when it has, like I mentioned, "flown under the radar" by some odd reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is - It cannot. If there are no reliable sources about it, then it is in fact not notable for the purposes of wikipedia. Per the notability guideline : "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." A site can be important without being notable (true for people, companies, websites, books, etc). It can also be notable, without being important (if some newspaper or magazine writers happen to like it). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse for keeping the article, If you feel that VampireFreaks.Com should be deleted, and you have Wikipedia policies to support it, then list it at WP:AFD and if consensus is to delete, it's deleted. Also, your misunderstanding of WP:BOLD above is disrespectful and rude. We are willing to help you with the article. We do not nominate any article for deletion just because we "want it gone"; we do not feel the article passes notability guidelines at the moment and so we initiated a deletion discussion. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already proven that this article has passed WP:Notability with two references that "take notice" of the website. One of those references is mysteriously "black listed" and the other one apparently doesn't fit the criteria because one person on this talk page says it doesn't. An encyclopedia of this magnitude should have a prominent, large-scale website such as this listed and there is absolutely no logical reason to state otherwise. Now, I know there are logical, rule-based people who are out there who agree with me, and luckily I'm sure one of them will find a way to keep this article on Wikipedia. If not, it's a true shame, and I will stop using Wikipedia because of this bizarre censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is happening "because" I am deciding anything. I am trying to help you by informing you of general policies and previous consensus. As I mentioned, you are free to go to the reliable sources noticeboard to try and get bigboards judged reliable - but I think you will not be successful. The fundamental problem is you think that you have "proved", that things are "obvious", that we are "censoring". There can be differences of opinions on things. When a large number of people tell you you need to rethink something, or are incorrect - sometimes they are right. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also, if you wish to try and petition directly for the notability of the site (which is seperate than the article for deletion) you could do so via Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard but again, I think you will not be successfull. But I am pointing out the option. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one other option[edit]

Although you likely cannot justify a full article for this site, it may be possible to add some informatino about the site to a page such as Comparison_of_online_dating_websites or List_of_internet_forums. However, the editors who regularly edit those pages may have some standards for inclusion in their lists that I am not aware of. (The second page for example says it only lists forums that have wikipedia pages of their own) I would start on the talk pages of those articles and see what people think, rather than just adding the information Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another good idea, thank you. Have you ever run into this particular problem before? Finding something that should, in your opinion, be added to Wikipedia, only to be told it is not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think this particular article should not be included in wikipedia (at this time). I am merely trying to help you understand why so that you can be involved in wikipedia more productively in the future. I have certainly been involved with such pages in the past, and generally I try to find additional sources. At a more general level - there have been numerous times when I disagree with the way a policy is being enforced, or believe that people are being biased in their actions. But at a certain point you have to deal with that you are in the minority and do not have a consensus. It can help to take on more "administrative" tasks like contributing to AFD discussions, or new page patrol, to take part in discussions regarding pages that you are not personally involved in. That way you can learn more about the various guidelines, and how they are applied in different cases. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I can't wait to add more to the community and to ensure that things like this particular scenario are watched more closely in the future. Wikipedia should have articles on everything in existence, not just things featured in news papers.

Your recent edits[edit]

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. --SineBot (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eduard_Davis[edit]

Responded to you there. 86.** IP (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jetset Magazine | Thank You[edit]

Thank you for your reference and attempt to save our page for "Jetset Magazine." Unfortunately it has been deleted, Despite not being sold on Newstands, Jetset Magazine is a private publication with an exclusive membership. Aside from the facts, our page was still deleted. Anything you can do again to assist us in establishing this page would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.104.106 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Wikipedia can be extremely confusing with how it arbitrarily keeps or deletes articles. Some ridiculously petty and horrible articles are kept, while others that have completely logical information are deleted. So, I am sorry yours randomly got deleted, but I have no real power here other than my "vote," which (according to Wikipedia) isn't even really a vote, but more-so a "part of a discussion" in any articles lifespan. LogicalCreator (talk)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, LogicalCreator. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOS 6.
Message added 00:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I want to state for the record that as the original nominator for this article to be deleted, I do not nor have I ever worked for Apple. It was not nominated for deletion because of its success or failure in the market, nor is its success or failure a valid reason for it to be kept or deleted. GSK ● talk ● evidence 00:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobage AFD[edit]

Hi, just wondered if you had any further thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobage. The only explanation you gave for it being "not notable" was that there were "no sources". I found many very quickly, and presented them at the AFD, and can find more upon request. Wondered if you had any other sort of problem with the topic. If you do, please include it at the AFD discussion. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMA[edit]

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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. --SineBot (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing text supported by dead links[edit]

Hello, LogicalCreator. Edits like this one and this one that you made generally should not be done. Read WP:Dead link for why. It is often that links go dead, and removing text due to the link being dead is usually an invalid move and detrimental to this site; most of the times, the links can be easily replaced. You should use Template:Dead link instead when encountering dead links. Flyer22 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack (Tekken), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]