User talk:Nigel Pap

Hello Nigel Pap, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Nigel Pap, good luck, and have fun. – MohamedTalk 17:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Group of 88

Group of 88 was a clear group. These people are clearly members. As long as categories exist they can be legitimately applied to all people who it describes. There is no problem including any of these people in the Group of 88. They were all clearly members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a clear group, but I do not think it is defining of the people in that group. Why not make a list article instead? Nigel Pap (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nigel welcome to Wikipedia. Once a category is put up for deletion, you should not remove items from it unless it is uncontroversial. However you are welcome to add things to it. This helps in people discussing the category so they can see its potential scope. I do agree with JPL if the category is kept there's no good reason to exclude anyone who was part of the group - defining or not - and esp if we renamed to 'Group of 88 members' - but since this isn't defining for most/all group members I think the category itself should be deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the category is self-evidently 88 biographies. Since the category is rightly headed for deletion, I'm not removing it from the biographies that Johnpacklambert has added it to. Pretend the category was Category:People who are evil and read over your advice again. Nigel Pap (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re: evil - well then there would be scope for removal of the category on BLP grounds. Membership in a group that self-signed a document is not the same thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Girl detectives

Category:Girl detectives, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional girl detectives

Category:Fictional girl detectives, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Nigel Pap (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove most of the "Truck Nuts" article?

Nothing in that article was factually wrong, and it's pretty counter-intuitive to remove 90 PERCENT of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40D:4400:10C0:40A7:325D:8AE4:7262 (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If something isn't backed up by reliable sources then there's no way for people to know if it is "factually wrong" or not. When someone looks up truck nuts on Wikipedia they want to understand what they are. I took out the stuff that wasn't helpful and didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. Does that answer your question? What do you think needs to be in the article that I removed? Nigel Pap (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to agree. The removal of the content simply because you think it's "factually wrong" isn't a good enough excuse. Did you attempt to find a source? That's what should have been done. The article is severely damaged. What's your reasoning behind removing the also-known-as list? That was definitely beneficial. Thanks in advance. Failure to respond will result in your revisions being reverted and I will find a source to the "factually wrong" points. --CoolCanuck eh? 04:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]