![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The article My Hitch in Hell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The article A Christmas Carol (TV 1949) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
03:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Fleshpots of Egypt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on My Hitch In Hell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a
mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion (
{{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
DASHBot (
talk)
18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Jonathan Schiffman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
05:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Larry Moffitt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
05:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Schleifer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
05:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Schleifer 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/Schleifer 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. SummerPhD ( talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Per discussion on my user talk, your admission that you "barely know what I'm doing" and "can't write for beans" and the fact that WP:Competency is required on Wikipedia, I am formally requesting that you cease and desist creating new articles until such time as you acquire sufficient competence to do so without creating so many articles that are so malformed as to be immediately proposed/nominated for deletion. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think you may take the community's decision not to delete Flemming Rule as a good example of "Precisionism gone wrong". Or to put it better, please stop using AfDs as cleanup.
I have created a lot of stubs lately, which you and a couple of others have plastered (to use your term) with prod's and afd's. Perhaps you haven't read Wikipedia:DICTDEF lately, and so have forgotten: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written."
To refresh your memory, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Tagging, which offers several excellent alternatives to prod'ing and afd'ing, such as {{ refimprove}}, {{ stub}} and {{ merge}}. Using these will save a lot of everyone's time.
Most of what I write stays in Wikipedia because I'm a good writer. And I've started over 1,100 articles - again, most of which started small and got improved via WP:TEAMWORK. Get on the team, my friend. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 06:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm giving this its own subtitle, because in spite of being told this repeatedly, you keep on doing this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Which definition of wikt:cleanup covers this burn to the ground and start again procedure? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you. The template clearly states: "This biographical article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". The only sources you cited in this article was Grossbard-Shechtman's former employer ("affiliated") and a paper she co-wrote ("primary source").
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P)
06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would hit you a WP:TROUT and tell you to get a clue -- but what'd be the point? Even a blue whale would appear to be inadequate for the task. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() Hi, Ed Poor, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender ( LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
-- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Ed Poor/welfare, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/welfare and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ed Poor/welfare during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I've decided to delete the article. Since you suggested a merge, I'm just dropping a line saying I'm happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted content if you want to perform the merge. Der yck C. 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Under siege by Deletionists
A number of articles I created recently have been subjected to "prod and Afd" attacks. To me, this looks like a misuse of process, if not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One of the three or four contributors doing this even made a Formal Request to me, that I stop creating new articles until I could meet (his personal) standards; he's cherry picked non-policy norms while ignoring others such as:
I've created over 1,100 articles in the last 10 years. Some, like Intelligent design, have become very good or featured articles. But nearly all of them started as just a sentence or two, with or without a couple of references. I have been relying heavily on WP:TEAMWORK to propel the completion of such articles.
Bear in mind that this is all within the first 48 hours of the article's existence. It's hardly gotten any better in the last 10 years. Although we have more detail, especially on opposition to ID, nearly all the major aspects are mentioned. The only defects at this early stage are:
As you can see, this is the way I've always operated at Wikipedia. I've relied on my fellow contributors to jump in and work with me. I've almost never tried to create a finished, standalone article all by myself.
I don't always take on major popular topics. Sometimes I've recognized the need for an article split. 1973 Chile coup, one of the first uses of WP:Summary style (see History of Chile.
The idea that anyone can or should create a complete Wikipedia article on the first go is silly. It's certainly against our original tradition, and arguably against current standards. But I'm finding that I must spend an inordinate amount of time defending new creations, rather than building them. This leads to a catch-22 where articles I don't defend get deleted too soon, but defending articles takes time away from building them - which in a vicious circle makes them weak and vulnerable to attack.
What's the best thing for me to do? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Abdullah II of Jordan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Culture of peace and Intolerance ( 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) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the page needs to exist BECAUSE I made a search for just this topic and received a mess of unhelpful results. Usually, the correct (desired) result arrives on the top of a search, even if the phrasing of the search does not match the article's title. This time what I was looking for (nor the article it would most likely have been confused for) did not even appear in the first page of results.
I did follow your suggestion and add the musical as well to the page. Thmazing ( talk) 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Uncle Ed, can you view a page I created today and if you agree with the content, defend it against speedy deletion? International Institute of Trauma and Addiction Professionals I don't think this page is promotional. I wrote it to be informational as a supplement to the Certified Sex Addiction Therapist and Sexual addiction pages. There are 17 references - including Newsweek, the APA, and several newspaper articles. I don't know what else would have to be done for it to be approved. Any ideas? TBliss ( talk) 04:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Scientific study of religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cults ( 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) 10:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ed Poor, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again — Welcome! Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
can you explain these mass deletions? Pass a Method talk 13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
|
I assume the invitation was serious; I don't think Northamerica1000 was around 7 years ago, when "we all knew each other" and the consequences for fooling around weren't monumental. Then I was a big frog in a small pond, now I'm just one of tens of thousands.
But AfD process does have some problems, especially those who used it for cleanup. Their watch word: "Fix it in a week, or it's gone forever." I had a series of run-ins with Hrafn and 2 or 3 of Hrafn's buddies last month. It was tided over when ARS helped.
Having 3 million articles doesn't mean we've made an encyclopedia. How many "good" articles do we have? I mean, by our own criteria? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tothwolf. I read about your saga a little bit; sorry to take so long to reply. I have a real life!
Your analysis is spot on. Some of the same problems are mentioned by " Truth in Numbers", a documentary about Wikipedia. The only thing I can suggest is that we band together and help each other.
If we see bullying, we can intervene. Back in the day, I used to be pretty good at stopping personal attacks. Apparently one of the keys, here, is not to 'talk back' as this can be misinterpreted. It only seems to work if an "uninvolved party" wades in. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've replaced your quote collection with a redirect to Science. You seem to have cherry picked (?) quotes from a college class notes page. Vsmith ( talk) 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Illegal guns requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Thetechexpert ( talk) 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our
policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read
Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the
Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Thetechexpert (
talk)
00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your opinion about The Trix -- but have a different view of some of the other issues you raise in several essays. So I thought I'd mention them. One of deepest confusions on Wikipedia is between notability and reliability. You suggest that wiki-notability is proven by the existence of reliable sources, but not so. Let me explain what I'm driving at.
in the sciences, there are hundreds of areas where the "reliability" of the source is beyond doubt, and yet the issue is so minor, so technical, and so obscure that it is completely non-notable. A real example I engaged with was a group of Wiki articles where each one was devoted to a single species of a beetle, and each one was supported by a thoroughly "reliable" taxonomic reference. Just because this beetle has reliable sources does NOT make it notable, not one tiny bit. The eager editor who had created the articles said to me that ALL organisms are notable! Well, not so... no matter how "reliable" the sourcing is, no one except a few beetle experts has ever heard of this creature -- and no one else cares at all. So the species of this beetle -- it lived in the jungles of Guatemala, if memory serves -- are not notable no matter how reliable the sourcing is.
The converse holds as well. There are topics of considerable notability that have few wiki-reliable sources or at least few obvious sources. Examples include many areas of fan interest, including soap operas, Harlequin romances, and related pop-culch material. These topics get lots of blog-level attention, often very detailed labors of love, and yet none of the sources are wiki-reliable. There are sometimes workarounds for those problems, but the workarounds can sometimes be hard to create.
We have forgotten, I think, the original reason for the notability criterion. It was designed to prevent people from writing Wiki articles about their cat, their darling cute little kitty-cat Medley the Kitten. The idea was that "Look, Medley the Kitten may be cute, but she is not NOTABLE." In brief, the idea was to limit the coverage on Wikipedia to genuinely significant, important, or "notable" facts and events -- and Medley the Kitten is NOT one of them.
And that provides a tool for using Google searches in establishing notability. "Medley the Kitten" will get three hits, all on Medley's owner's website -- and nothing else. But a Google search for The Trix -- to return to the example at hand -- got me something like 367,000 hits. And that means a LOT of interest "out there" about this component of the Winx universe.
Why is that important? Because Wikipedia is read by those people, not merely by a few Wikipedia editors, but by people who want to know something about one of their favorite topics, whatever that might be. Those readers are our clients, so to speak, and Wikipedia must speak to them. Most folks, I am guessing, use Wikipedia to look up things they have forgotten or never knew, like Benjamin Franklin's birthday, or to find out more about their favorite soap opera or band or whatever. So when we see 367,000 Google hits on a topic, we are not allowed to dismiss it by saying it is "non-notable." It IS notable. And then OUR problem is to find reliable sources for this topic, not lazily sweep it under the rug with a contemptuous sneer. So we ended up solving the Guatemalan beetle problem with a single short article about the genus that listed all the species that before had each had their own article. Much saving in space, much economy of thought -- and a better article.
So the relationship between notability and reliability is not as simple as it might seem! I hold that its is nearly always preferable to improve an article, and not delete it -- compress, rewrite, and the result will be much more appealing to our primary clientele, the readers "out there."
Timothy Perper ( talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear colleague: I acknowledge your request. Thank you for asking me to continue with wikipedia. I will think about it, in part because you are asking in a way that tweaks my conscience, and in part because I think you may be right. That said, I have NO vested interest in the article, it just seemed kind of thought-provoking and kind of neat when I stumbled on it in the AfD list. But I didn't want to make it into a Crusade. I have profound reservations about the polite, nice but seemingly culturally insensitive attacks on the article, and the crushing negativity of many of the comments. More generally, I have to confess to occasionally finding the "rules" and in particular how they are being applied to have ridiculous consequences, to the degree that they are abusive. I did go to the Rescue Squad page. I followed their 10 points. I missed the link to the actual resource team even though I tried to find it. I also had the apparently wrong impression that Userify, which I have never done, would leave that person without the collaborative energy that I think would be needed on something like this. I will go away for a few days, cool off, see what is decided about this article, and potentially be amenable to assisting on it, or userifying it and working gradually on it going forward if I can see taking it on with the good faith expectation of really having enough oompah to devote to it. FeatherPluma ( talk) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thx. :D (Tho not actually necessary. :) ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I suggest that the article you created, Daylight savings time overlap be add to Daylight saving time as it would be a great addition to the article, but does not need a new page of its own. Dream Field Arts 2:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The article My Hitch in Hell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The article A Christmas Carol (TV 1949) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
03:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Fleshpots of Egypt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on My Hitch In Hell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a
mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion (
{{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
DASHBot (
talk)
18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Jonathan Schiffman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
05:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Larry Moffitt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
05:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Schleifer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
05:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Schleifer 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/Schleifer 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. SummerPhD ( talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Per discussion on my user talk, your admission that you "barely know what I'm doing" and "can't write for beans" and the fact that WP:Competency is required on Wikipedia, I am formally requesting that you cease and desist creating new articles until such time as you acquire sufficient competence to do so without creating so many articles that are so malformed as to be immediately proposed/nominated for deletion. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ed:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think you may take the community's decision not to delete Flemming Rule as a good example of "Precisionism gone wrong". Or to put it better, please stop using AfDs as cleanup.
I have created a lot of stubs lately, which you and a couple of others have plastered (to use your term) with prod's and afd's. Perhaps you haven't read Wikipedia:DICTDEF lately, and so have forgotten: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written."
To refresh your memory, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Tagging, which offers several excellent alternatives to prod'ing and afd'ing, such as {{ refimprove}}, {{ stub}} and {{ merge}}. Using these will save a lot of everyone's time.
Most of what I write stays in Wikipedia because I'm a good writer. And I've started over 1,100 articles - again, most of which started small and got improved via WP:TEAMWORK. Get on the team, my friend. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 06:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm giving this its own subtitle, because in spite of being told this repeatedly, you keep on doing this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Which definition of wikt:cleanup covers this burn to the ground and start again procedure? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Thank you. The template clearly states: "This biographical article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". The only sources you cited in this article was Grossbard-Shechtman's former employer ("affiliated") and a paper she co-wrote ("primary source").
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P)
06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would hit you a WP:TROUT and tell you to get a clue -- but what'd be the point? Even a blue whale would appear to be inadequate for the task. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() Hi, Ed Poor, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender ( LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
-- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Ed Poor/welfare, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/welfare and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ed Poor/welfare during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I've decided to delete the article. Since you suggested a merge, I'm just dropping a line saying I'm happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted content if you want to perform the merge. Der yck C. 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Under siege by Deletionists
A number of articles I created recently have been subjected to "prod and Afd" attacks. To me, this looks like a misuse of process, if not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One of the three or four contributors doing this even made a Formal Request to me, that I stop creating new articles until I could meet (his personal) standards; he's cherry picked non-policy norms while ignoring others such as:
I've created over 1,100 articles in the last 10 years. Some, like Intelligent design, have become very good or featured articles. But nearly all of them started as just a sentence or two, with or without a couple of references. I have been relying heavily on WP:TEAMWORK to propel the completion of such articles.
Bear in mind that this is all within the first 48 hours of the article's existence. It's hardly gotten any better in the last 10 years. Although we have more detail, especially on opposition to ID, nearly all the major aspects are mentioned. The only defects at this early stage are:
As you can see, this is the way I've always operated at Wikipedia. I've relied on my fellow contributors to jump in and work with me. I've almost never tried to create a finished, standalone article all by myself.
I don't always take on major popular topics. Sometimes I've recognized the need for an article split. 1973 Chile coup, one of the first uses of WP:Summary style (see History of Chile.
The idea that anyone can or should create a complete Wikipedia article on the first go is silly. It's certainly against our original tradition, and arguably against current standards. But I'm finding that I must spend an inordinate amount of time defending new creations, rather than building them. This leads to a catch-22 where articles I don't defend get deleted too soon, but defending articles takes time away from building them - which in a vicious circle makes them weak and vulnerable to attack.
What's the best thing for me to do? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Abdullah II of Jordan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Culture of peace and Intolerance ( 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) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the page needs to exist BECAUSE I made a search for just this topic and received a mess of unhelpful results. Usually, the correct (desired) result arrives on the top of a search, even if the phrasing of the search does not match the article's title. This time what I was looking for (nor the article it would most likely have been confused for) did not even appear in the first page of results.
I did follow your suggestion and add the musical as well to the page. Thmazing ( talk) 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Uncle Ed, can you view a page I created today and if you agree with the content, defend it against speedy deletion? International Institute of Trauma and Addiction Professionals I don't think this page is promotional. I wrote it to be informational as a supplement to the Certified Sex Addiction Therapist and Sexual addiction pages. There are 17 references - including Newsweek, the APA, and several newspaper articles. I don't know what else would have to be done for it to be approved. Any ideas? TBliss ( talk) 04:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Scientific study of religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cults ( 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) 10:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ed Poor, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again — Welcome! Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
can you explain these mass deletions? Pass a Method talk 13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
|
I assume the invitation was serious; I don't think Northamerica1000 was around 7 years ago, when "we all knew each other" and the consequences for fooling around weren't monumental. Then I was a big frog in a small pond, now I'm just one of tens of thousands.
But AfD process does have some problems, especially those who used it for cleanup. Their watch word: "Fix it in a week, or it's gone forever." I had a series of run-ins with Hrafn and 2 or 3 of Hrafn's buddies last month. It was tided over when ARS helped.
Having 3 million articles doesn't mean we've made an encyclopedia. How many "good" articles do we have? I mean, by our own criteria? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tothwolf. I read about your saga a little bit; sorry to take so long to reply. I have a real life!
Your analysis is spot on. Some of the same problems are mentioned by " Truth in Numbers", a documentary about Wikipedia. The only thing I can suggest is that we band together and help each other.
If we see bullying, we can intervene. Back in the day, I used to be pretty good at stopping personal attacks. Apparently one of the keys, here, is not to 'talk back' as this can be misinterpreted. It only seems to work if an "uninvolved party" wades in. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've replaced your quote collection with a redirect to Science. You seem to have cherry picked (?) quotes from a college class notes page. Vsmith ( talk) 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Illegal guns requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Thetechexpert ( talk) 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our
policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read
Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the
Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Thetechexpert (
talk)
00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your opinion about The Trix -- but have a different view of some of the other issues you raise in several essays. So I thought I'd mention them. One of deepest confusions on Wikipedia is between notability and reliability. You suggest that wiki-notability is proven by the existence of reliable sources, but not so. Let me explain what I'm driving at.
in the sciences, there are hundreds of areas where the "reliability" of the source is beyond doubt, and yet the issue is so minor, so technical, and so obscure that it is completely non-notable. A real example I engaged with was a group of Wiki articles where each one was devoted to a single species of a beetle, and each one was supported by a thoroughly "reliable" taxonomic reference. Just because this beetle has reliable sources does NOT make it notable, not one tiny bit. The eager editor who had created the articles said to me that ALL organisms are notable! Well, not so... no matter how "reliable" the sourcing is, no one except a few beetle experts has ever heard of this creature -- and no one else cares at all. So the species of this beetle -- it lived in the jungles of Guatemala, if memory serves -- are not notable no matter how reliable the sourcing is.
The converse holds as well. There are topics of considerable notability that have few wiki-reliable sources or at least few obvious sources. Examples include many areas of fan interest, including soap operas, Harlequin romances, and related pop-culch material. These topics get lots of blog-level attention, often very detailed labors of love, and yet none of the sources are wiki-reliable. There are sometimes workarounds for those problems, but the workarounds can sometimes be hard to create.
We have forgotten, I think, the original reason for the notability criterion. It was designed to prevent people from writing Wiki articles about their cat, their darling cute little kitty-cat Medley the Kitten. The idea was that "Look, Medley the Kitten may be cute, but she is not NOTABLE." In brief, the idea was to limit the coverage on Wikipedia to genuinely significant, important, or "notable" facts and events -- and Medley the Kitten is NOT one of them.
And that provides a tool for using Google searches in establishing notability. "Medley the Kitten" will get three hits, all on Medley's owner's website -- and nothing else. But a Google search for The Trix -- to return to the example at hand -- got me something like 367,000 hits. And that means a LOT of interest "out there" about this component of the Winx universe.
Why is that important? Because Wikipedia is read by those people, not merely by a few Wikipedia editors, but by people who want to know something about one of their favorite topics, whatever that might be. Those readers are our clients, so to speak, and Wikipedia must speak to them. Most folks, I am guessing, use Wikipedia to look up things they have forgotten or never knew, like Benjamin Franklin's birthday, or to find out more about their favorite soap opera or band or whatever. So when we see 367,000 Google hits on a topic, we are not allowed to dismiss it by saying it is "non-notable." It IS notable. And then OUR problem is to find reliable sources for this topic, not lazily sweep it under the rug with a contemptuous sneer. So we ended up solving the Guatemalan beetle problem with a single short article about the genus that listed all the species that before had each had their own article. Much saving in space, much economy of thought -- and a better article.
So the relationship between notability and reliability is not as simple as it might seem! I hold that its is nearly always preferable to improve an article, and not delete it -- compress, rewrite, and the result will be much more appealing to our primary clientele, the readers "out there."
Timothy Perper ( talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear colleague: I acknowledge your request. Thank you for asking me to continue with wikipedia. I will think about it, in part because you are asking in a way that tweaks my conscience, and in part because I think you may be right. That said, I have NO vested interest in the article, it just seemed kind of thought-provoking and kind of neat when I stumbled on it in the AfD list. But I didn't want to make it into a Crusade. I have profound reservations about the polite, nice but seemingly culturally insensitive attacks on the article, and the crushing negativity of many of the comments. More generally, I have to confess to occasionally finding the "rules" and in particular how they are being applied to have ridiculous consequences, to the degree that they are abusive. I did go to the Rescue Squad page. I followed their 10 points. I missed the link to the actual resource team even though I tried to find it. I also had the apparently wrong impression that Userify, which I have never done, would leave that person without the collaborative energy that I think would be needed on something like this. I will go away for a few days, cool off, see what is decided about this article, and potentially be amenable to assisting on it, or userifying it and working gradually on it going forward if I can see taking it on with the good faith expectation of really having enough oompah to devote to it. FeatherPluma ( talk) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thx. :D (Tho not actually necessary. :) ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I suggest that the article you created, Daylight savings time overlap be add to Daylight saving time as it would be a great addition to the article, but does not need a new page of its own. Dream Field Arts 2:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)