User talk:Stealth mountain lion

Welcome!

Hello, Stealth mountain lion, 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, like California Game Warden, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of California Game Warden[edit]

The article California Game Warden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article has many problems. The entire article consists of WP:TRIVIA, improbable statements, and outright WP:HOAXes. It also has no sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I have written is true and experienced first-hand. The common public does not understand much when it comes to Game Wardens. This is why I tried to create an article so people do know what game wardens do. After reading the definition of WP:TRIVIA I can understand comments about California Highway Patrol is trivia and not accepted. I can also accept having no sources. I wrote from first-hand experience. After trying to reference and cite California Dept. of Fish & Game(as below), I understand that references of first-hand experiences are not accepted at Wikipedia. Everything I have done to try an improve information about Game Wardens has been deleted. I am beginning to think nothing can be done on Wiki to improve information about game wardens.

California Department of Fish and Game[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to California Department of Fish and Game, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. So far, none of the sources you've added this month have a shred of credibility, not to mention reliability. Please do not add blogs, google cache, or editorial pieces as references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rubin, what exactly is a good reference? References I'm thinking of could come from the California Fish & Game Code. There is an Expose type document that was published. Are these good references? Unfortunately not much is on the internet pertaining to game wardens. Internet solid references are practically non-existent.(~~~~)

The California Fish & Game Code would be a primary reference; usable for clear facts, but not if any potential interpretation needs to be done. "Expose type documents" are rarely acceptable. Please read WP:RS for some hints as to what might be acceptable.

References don't have to be on the Internet; articles (not editorials or commentaries) in printed magazines might be acceptable, but not blogs, (except under WP:SPS), editorials, or commentaries.

(And, as an aside, please don't use <nowiki> to "escape" your ~~~~, per WP:SIGNATURE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]