hey mate, you said there wasnt enough on the article reuploaded so I added some more, is it okay now. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coheed56 ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
great, To be honest these are hard pages to mess around with becuase any reference is purely balcklisted due to the nature of this website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coheed56 ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm hoping this will be a useful resource as I couldn't find anything comparable. I've made some minor changes and copied the page into the Main namespace. If there's any suggestions or changes you would make to improve the article in any way I'd be very appreciative!
Wildilocks ( talk) 07:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm really chuffed to have my first article have such a positive comment, especially so soon after putting it up!
Wildilocks ( talk) 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto to the above but even more so now, thankyou for being so welcoming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildilocks ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind if I ask what chapter? CiTrusD ( talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing other templates is not advisable in case the original editor's point is still valid. Unless the speedy is blatantly unjustified, then it should always stay where there is doubt. αѕєηιηє t/ c 09:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for saving my article, or at least trying to, I was just about to throw in the towel. It's a first time I use this. I have now amended quite a lot already, there is hardly anything left but it doesn't seem to meet the approval. Please help me into what else I could do to get this article accepted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckchief ( talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. Can't imagine people would search that string and expect to be taken anywhere else. CiTrusD ( talk) 10:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. An indefblock seems like a good remedy. Spellcast ( talk) 11:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a little puzzled why you thought the article on Rick turner did not assert importance. If you thought the importance was insufficient, the proper course would have been to place a PROD or an AfD. But in fact the article at present shows not only an indication pf importance, but the importance and sourcing is such that I think it would easily survive AfD. Agreed, the guy who wrote the article should not have removed he tag, but it was not justified in the first place. What I would have done is readded it with an appropriate edit summary to indicate this, and then removed the tag. -- or just left the guy a note not to do that. DGG ( talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The image is still hinky, but I've given the author some examples of better screenshots (from Slashdot and Fark), so maybe we can get that fixed, as well. It's not rescue'd yet, and I'm not confident it would survive an AfD, but it's something. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken your advice and have retrieved some more references which I now have included on the test page that you have saved for me. (Big thank you for that). If you could give me some pointers as what else could be of importance to imporve my page? Cheers! Duckchief ( talk) 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckchief ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My daughter's got a bit of dyslexia, and is atheistic too; so she doesn't believe in Dog. -- Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you for your help at electromagnetic device thingy! -- CyclePat ( talk) 04:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
An encyclopedia, or, traditionally, encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided up into articles with one article on each subject covered. The articles on subjects in an encyclopedia are usually accessed alphabetically by article name and can be contained in one volume or many volumes, depending on the amount of material included.
I am supplying infomation about a website/company , Im am supplying the globe with histoy about this particular website. Please rethink your decision. It bothers me that you disagree with my writing. Triippe ( talk) 09:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read the rules, and the article does apply. It is a secondary source and a independent secondary source. Triippe ( talk) 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was about to offer to restore it on a subpage page of his, but he recreated it before I finished my message. Anyway, hopefully the AfD will be a learning experience for him. Spellcast ( talk) 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Your tips have been tremendous helpful. I now understand what was wrong with the article. Being a PR person, I created a PR article which was not acceptable. Could you have another look at my test page and let me know if my changes are acceptable and the article is now Wikipedia worthy? Very much appreciated. Duckchief ( talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you help with that? Spellmanloves67 ( talk) 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the constructive help, owe you one :) Duckchief ( talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I take vehement exception to your speedy deletion of my article yesterday, on which I spent a fair bit of writing. Your characterization of it as "blatant advertising" is false, it was neither advertising nor blatant, it was a legitimate article in standard wiki style. You apparently missed the rest of the criteria, which state, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." My copy wasn't event CLOSE to the character of marketing language -- there are other articles which are but at least get a "rewrite" tag instead of your deletion. ITunes and other paid download tools are commercial services but are nevertheless of valid interest.
Your charge is absurd. I am a longtime Wiki contributor and also a subscriber to the service, and my whole reason for writing the article was the hope that (1) it would be of use to other users, who are many, and (2) somebody else would also amplify it with a useful technical info on points that puzzled me.
I don't know if you have an anti-paranormal bias, and I doubt you even checked, but the article was an OPEN EXISTING LINK, for a service that might even be approaching hundreds of thousands of ::users, I wasn't able to get the numbers yet. I have no connection whatever to Premiere Radio or interest in it, I believed the article of use/interest.
As I do not know how to undelete an article and did not save the text of my work, I will thank you to immediately restore the full text of it and apologize for your pretty gross mischaracterization of my effort. (Please also do me the favor also of a pointer towards how to undelete, if you're going to be this careless.) Chris Rodgers ( talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You might be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check - they're the project that coordinates all such efforts, and their page has links to references that can help you out, including categories that contain poorly referenced articles. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Right on. Looks better than fine now. When I tagged it, I was about 90% sure it was one of the 3 million hoax pages we'll see this week. He cleaned it up good though in just a few minutes, it seems. Thanks for the note. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe you added your name to the wrong list on the Vandal Proof page. You added it to the list of people recently approved instead of the list of people waiting to be approved. The list you wanted was the shorter one located closer to the top. I just thought I'd point that out. Have a good one! Peace WacoJacko ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Torchwoodwho, in communicating with Discospinster, I neglected to also thank you for the work you guys all do. Outside Wiki, it's not always clear to us how to be in harmony with the policies of your organization, but no one should fail to appreciate the difficulty and enormity of your jobs. So, thanks and kind regards, Jim Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfbrown ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for re-working the original so it could be kept. It's always nice to see new (and well-ref'd & written) HG articles -- Cooper-42 ( talk) 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The Battlestar Wiki aritlce has been nominated for deletion for the third time. Feel free to add your comments to the corresponding discussion.-- DrWho42 ( talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Torchwoodwho! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb talk 09:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your message : Speedy Deletions It seems that your only edits have been related to this particular software and you've created two articles for the same topic. If this is an error, please ask one to be removed, if not please refrain from creating these types of pages.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
>It seems that your only edits have been related to this particular software I have edited some articles including on TRIZ before but I have lost my ID, so I created a new account. I have many emails and didn't note my wikipedia account properly.
> you've created two articles for the same topic Sorry for the double articles, it's a mistake. One comment on one of them after the last edition was "please delete this one I don't manage to do so" or so.
I think one article should be maintained. Thanks, P.
>Talk:Solidresult >Your recent edit to Talk:Solidresult doesn't seem to make sense. If you explain what you were trying to do I might be able to >help you with it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC) >Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAO33"
Hi,
Thanks for the proposal.
To complete the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_software page I wanted to add solidresult on this table and an article explaining the differences with other approaches. Most (all?) software use Gantt Chart but this is not the only approach.
Then I took several articles of other software, merged and edited them with solidresult info so it explains the differences.
If external links makes it look like advertisement, of course I remove those links. I clearly want to explain why gantt chart is not the only or best way to display plannification for innovating projects.
Any help welcome ;) P.
Your recent line in the AfD for list of fictional magic users cuts very close to the line of a personal attack. "Also, everyone but you seems to be just fine going on our existing guidelines," is not very civil and is a sweeping generalization. I would appreciate if you didn't use that kind of language with me in the future as I haven't made any kind of assertions toward you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Torchwoodwho/Archive 2! Thank you for your
support in my RfA (87/3/3).
|
I removed the tags because I thought I had adequately addressed the issues. Is this not kosher? Who decides when a tag no longer applies? Deuces are wild! ( talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegas949 ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Frank the Tank (THE BRO's) 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, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Torchwood Who? (
talk)
21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to post an abuse report, following instructions on [1].-- AkselGerner ( talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there.. I am unable to connect still.-- Cahk ( talk) 07:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
hey mate, you said there wasnt enough on the article reuploaded so I added some more, is it okay now. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coheed56 ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
great, To be honest these are hard pages to mess around with becuase any reference is purely balcklisted due to the nature of this website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coheed56 ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm hoping this will be a useful resource as I couldn't find anything comparable. I've made some minor changes and copied the page into the Main namespace. If there's any suggestions or changes you would make to improve the article in any way I'd be very appreciative!
Wildilocks ( talk) 07:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm really chuffed to have my first article have such a positive comment, especially so soon after putting it up!
Wildilocks ( talk) 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto to the above but even more so now, thankyou for being so welcoming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildilocks ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind if I ask what chapter? CiTrusD ( talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing other templates is not advisable in case the original editor's point is still valid. Unless the speedy is blatantly unjustified, then it should always stay where there is doubt. αѕєηιηє t/ c 09:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for saving my article, or at least trying to, I was just about to throw in the towel. It's a first time I use this. I have now amended quite a lot already, there is hardly anything left but it doesn't seem to meet the approval. Please help me into what else I could do to get this article accepted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckchief ( talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. Can't imagine people would search that string and expect to be taken anywhere else. CiTrusD ( talk) 10:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. An indefblock seems like a good remedy. Spellcast ( talk) 11:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a little puzzled why you thought the article on Rick turner did not assert importance. If you thought the importance was insufficient, the proper course would have been to place a PROD or an AfD. But in fact the article at present shows not only an indication pf importance, but the importance and sourcing is such that I think it would easily survive AfD. Agreed, the guy who wrote the article should not have removed he tag, but it was not justified in the first place. What I would have done is readded it with an appropriate edit summary to indicate this, and then removed the tag. -- or just left the guy a note not to do that. DGG ( talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The image is still hinky, but I've given the author some examples of better screenshots (from Slashdot and Fark), so maybe we can get that fixed, as well. It's not rescue'd yet, and I'm not confident it would survive an AfD, but it's something. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken your advice and have retrieved some more references which I now have included on the test page that you have saved for me. (Big thank you for that). If you could give me some pointers as what else could be of importance to imporve my page? Cheers! Duckchief ( talk) 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckchief ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My daughter's got a bit of dyslexia, and is atheistic too; so she doesn't believe in Dog. -- Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you for your help at electromagnetic device thingy! -- CyclePat ( talk) 04:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
An encyclopedia, or, traditionally, encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided up into articles with one article on each subject covered. The articles on subjects in an encyclopedia are usually accessed alphabetically by article name and can be contained in one volume or many volumes, depending on the amount of material included.
I am supplying infomation about a website/company , Im am supplying the globe with histoy about this particular website. Please rethink your decision. It bothers me that you disagree with my writing. Triippe ( talk) 09:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read the rules, and the article does apply. It is a secondary source and a independent secondary source. Triippe ( talk) 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was about to offer to restore it on a subpage page of his, but he recreated it before I finished my message. Anyway, hopefully the AfD will be a learning experience for him. Spellcast ( talk) 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Your tips have been tremendous helpful. I now understand what was wrong with the article. Being a PR person, I created a PR article which was not acceptable. Could you have another look at my test page and let me know if my changes are acceptable and the article is now Wikipedia worthy? Very much appreciated. Duckchief ( talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you help with that? Spellmanloves67 ( talk) 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the constructive help, owe you one :) Duckchief ( talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I take vehement exception to your speedy deletion of my article yesterday, on which I spent a fair bit of writing. Your characterization of it as "blatant advertising" is false, it was neither advertising nor blatant, it was a legitimate article in standard wiki style. You apparently missed the rest of the criteria, which state, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." My copy wasn't event CLOSE to the character of marketing language -- there are other articles which are but at least get a "rewrite" tag instead of your deletion. ITunes and other paid download tools are commercial services but are nevertheless of valid interest.
Your charge is absurd. I am a longtime Wiki contributor and also a subscriber to the service, and my whole reason for writing the article was the hope that (1) it would be of use to other users, who are many, and (2) somebody else would also amplify it with a useful technical info on points that puzzled me.
I don't know if you have an anti-paranormal bias, and I doubt you even checked, but the article was an OPEN EXISTING LINK, for a service that might even be approaching hundreds of thousands of ::users, I wasn't able to get the numbers yet. I have no connection whatever to Premiere Radio or interest in it, I believed the article of use/interest.
As I do not know how to undelete an article and did not save the text of my work, I will thank you to immediately restore the full text of it and apologize for your pretty gross mischaracterization of my effort. (Please also do me the favor also of a pointer towards how to undelete, if you're going to be this careless.) Chris Rodgers ( talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You might be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check - they're the project that coordinates all such efforts, and their page has links to references that can help you out, including categories that contain poorly referenced articles. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Right on. Looks better than fine now. When I tagged it, I was about 90% sure it was one of the 3 million hoax pages we'll see this week. He cleaned it up good though in just a few minutes, it seems. Thanks for the note. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe you added your name to the wrong list on the Vandal Proof page. You added it to the list of people recently approved instead of the list of people waiting to be approved. The list you wanted was the shorter one located closer to the top. I just thought I'd point that out. Have a good one! Peace WacoJacko ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Torchwoodwho, in communicating with Discospinster, I neglected to also thank you for the work you guys all do. Outside Wiki, it's not always clear to us how to be in harmony with the policies of your organization, but no one should fail to appreciate the difficulty and enormity of your jobs. So, thanks and kind regards, Jim Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfbrown ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for re-working the original so it could be kept. It's always nice to see new (and well-ref'd & written) HG articles -- Cooper-42 ( talk) 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The Battlestar Wiki aritlce has been nominated for deletion for the third time. Feel free to add your comments to the corresponding discussion.-- DrWho42 ( talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Torchwoodwho! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb talk 09:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your message : Speedy Deletions It seems that your only edits have been related to this particular software and you've created two articles for the same topic. If this is an error, please ask one to be removed, if not please refrain from creating these types of pages.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
>It seems that your only edits have been related to this particular software I have edited some articles including on TRIZ before but I have lost my ID, so I created a new account. I have many emails and didn't note my wikipedia account properly.
> you've created two articles for the same topic Sorry for the double articles, it's a mistake. One comment on one of them after the last edition was "please delete this one I don't manage to do so" or so.
I think one article should be maintained. Thanks, P.
>Talk:Solidresult >Your recent edit to Talk:Solidresult doesn't seem to make sense. If you explain what you were trying to do I might be able to >help you with it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC) >Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAO33"
Hi,
Thanks for the proposal.
To complete the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_software page I wanted to add solidresult on this table and an article explaining the differences with other approaches. Most (all?) software use Gantt Chart but this is not the only approach.
Then I took several articles of other software, merged and edited them with solidresult info so it explains the differences.
If external links makes it look like advertisement, of course I remove those links. I clearly want to explain why gantt chart is not the only or best way to display plannification for innovating projects.
Any help welcome ;) P.
Your recent line in the AfD for list of fictional magic users cuts very close to the line of a personal attack. "Also, everyone but you seems to be just fine going on our existing guidelines," is not very civil and is a sweeping generalization. I would appreciate if you didn't use that kind of language with me in the future as I haven't made any kind of assertions toward you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Torchwoodwho/Archive 2! Thank you for your
support in my RfA (87/3/3).
|
I removed the tags because I thought I had adequately addressed the issues. Is this not kosher? Who decides when a tag no longer applies? Deuces are wild! ( talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegas949 ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Frank the Tank (THE BRO's) 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, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Torchwood Who? (
talk)
21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to post an abuse report, following instructions on [1].-- AkselGerner ( talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there.. I am unable to connect still.-- Cahk ( talk) 07:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)