reliable source isn't this a reliable source victims emily hilscher what the heck i edited something on the may page and you keep deleting it why it is constructive and i don't see how it is vandalism so i plan to re edit the page thank you for causing others more work and frustration sorry i haven't remover anthing of the footballers wives episodes page and i created the page an just wasn't signed in at the time i accidently lost the series episode summarys when i was writing them i put them back up straight away deleting things thanks for clearing the stuff about deletion up i'm new to deletion the preceding unsigned comment was added by talk contribs ok and where am i supposed to reply to things you say to me here thanks for the insight i agree with you it's much easier to do it back and forth how do i change the title of an article i want to change st peter high school ottawa to st peter catholic high school never mind sorry i got it now dr qwert i was not aware that the consensus had changed i was also under the impression that removing recent warnings from one's talk page was also considered vandalism i'm sorry if i had erred t re i tagged byron long for speedy deletion since it appeared to be entirely unreferenced which given the controversial nature of the subject matter would constitute a serious wp blp violation wp blp states that administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone where there is no npov version to revert to should delete the article without discussion see wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion criterion g for more details looking through the page history however it appears that there actually was a reference for the article which i have restored csd g does use the term negative in tone which is a somewhat unfortunate choice of words the more fundamental policy here appears to be wikipedia biographies of living persons which states that biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone should be speedily deleted the underlying issue is not whether we believe that a description of a living person as a porn actor is actually negative rather for wp blp purposes the issue is whether if an article incorrectly described someone as a porn actor such a description would be regarded as defamatory for the purpose of wikipedia libel that is whether such an incorrect description if widely believed might be likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the employment prospects or general reputation of the subject of the article i would contend that describing someone as a porn actor is sufficiently controversial in tone to invoke wp blp concerns for the speedy removal and or deletion of any unreferenced claims of this nature deletion of rain check why has this valid article disappeared please undelete it and if you feel it is not up to wikipedia standards instead nominate it under wp afd to give others a chance to comment on it and or improve it thanks i understand that it has been transwikied however it was enough to be its own wikipedia article and can be expanded from a stub to a better article by adding information about how rainchecks are handled and processed by stores for example some simply hand the user a piece of paper or carbon copy others take the customer's information enter it into a computer and print a raincheck with a