|
Cool! Dloh cierekim 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that on the left hand margin (under my css file) of the Barak Obama article is list including "Bosanski Brezhoneg Български Català". This is the "list of Wikipedia articles of Barack Obama in other languages". We do not need a separate article. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I was responsible for tagging your article on articles about Obama, although not deleting it as I am not an administrator. Can I just clarify that I support Obama and would probably vote for him if I didn't live in the UK! The reason I tagged it for deletion was not censorship, it is just that an article about articles relating to Obama is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. If there were such articles then there would be thousands of them relating to all sort of topics. We need to continue to focus on improving content. I hope that you will continue to edit Wikipedia and perhaps start a new article relating to Obama that fits with the notability criteria. -- Vince ( talk) 08:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, take a look at What Wikipedia is Not. You really shouldn't be posting these links for folks to "check out". As the policy I just pointed out says, we're not a soapbox, a link farm or a blog.
We're looking for good, neutral, well-referenced content. We're just an encyclopaedia.
--
A. B. (
talk •
contribs)
22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You need to stop using Wikipedia as a forum or metworking connection. The links you added are unrelated to building Wikipedia. Thanks Dloh cierekim 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
same thing. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote your own agenda. Dloh cierekim 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Once again, spamming outside links to network your political activism is not appropriate. Dloh cierekim 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks for you note. This is not a social network. Wikipedia user pages are for editing Wikipedia. Not serving as political meet-up points. Not for promoting your political agendas. Not for providing you with a soapbox. For for leaving external links for off wikipeida. Not for you to tell others of new places to find a soapbox. Edits in which you add externa links will probably always get reverted. Why don't you try building Wikipedia in other areas. There are thousands of article that need improvement. If your purpose here is to build the Encyclopedia? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 16:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion please on edits by User:Yartett. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Libertarian Wiki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
Libertarian Wiki and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
David (
talk)
19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
>
Yartett (
talk)
19:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well Beeblebrox,
I'm having a real crappy day here at Wikipedia.
Just check out my talk page;
and it's been only about a week since I started editing
---or attempting to edit.
So why should an article of Libertarian Wiki stay?
Why should there be an Wikipedia article of another obviously driven site like
Conservapedia:
complete with quotes of Jimbo Wales kinda praising it.
You tell me why there should be an article on
Conservapedia;
and why such an argument would have nothing to do with any possible arguments in keeping this stub.
In the meantime, I re-evaluate whether I should continue the bother of attempting to be a Wikipedia editor.
Yartett ( talk) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Libertarian Wiki 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 that has been nominated for deletion (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.
Booglamay (
talk) -
19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Notability alone -- or lack thereof -- drives this deletion pursuit. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Gets 100 Google news hits. The article lists like 70 references. As I mentioned before, the Libertarian wiki had none. I've requested before that you read our guidelines concerning notability, reliable sources and verifiable sources. If you were to read and understand these guidelines, it would help you a good deal. Please.
As I mentioned before, it would be better to have sources lined up and listed in the article before posting. For what it's worth, my first article got deleted too. Now I always have sources before creating articles.
Also, this business of wanting to keep articles and posts up till after the election makes it look like you are continuing to try to use Wikipedia as a sopabox. Please read WP:SOAPBOX. Those of us who have a strong long term commitment to the project have a great deal of concern when they see that happening.
Yes, if you can follow our policies and guidelines, you should stay. You've a lot of energy and you are tenacious. If we could channel that in a good way, you could be a great benefit to the project. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for
advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Kraftlos (
Talk |
Contrib)
04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|
Cool! Dloh cierekim 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that on the left hand margin (under my css file) of the Barak Obama article is list including "Bosanski Brezhoneg Български Català". This is the "list of Wikipedia articles of Barack Obama in other languages". We do not need a separate article. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I was responsible for tagging your article on articles about Obama, although not deleting it as I am not an administrator. Can I just clarify that I support Obama and would probably vote for him if I didn't live in the UK! The reason I tagged it for deletion was not censorship, it is just that an article about articles relating to Obama is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. If there were such articles then there would be thousands of them relating to all sort of topics. We need to continue to focus on improving content. I hope that you will continue to edit Wikipedia and perhaps start a new article relating to Obama that fits with the notability criteria. -- Vince ( talk) 08:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, take a look at What Wikipedia is Not. You really shouldn't be posting these links for folks to "check out". As the policy I just pointed out says, we're not a soapbox, a link farm or a blog.
We're looking for good, neutral, well-referenced content. We're just an encyclopaedia.
--
A. B. (
talk •
contribs)
22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You need to stop using Wikipedia as a forum or metworking connection. The links you added are unrelated to building Wikipedia. Thanks Dloh cierekim 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
same thing. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote your own agenda. Dloh cierekim 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Once again, spamming outside links to network your political activism is not appropriate. Dloh cierekim 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks for you note. This is not a social network. Wikipedia user pages are for editing Wikipedia. Not serving as political meet-up points. Not for promoting your political agendas. Not for providing you with a soapbox. For for leaving external links for off wikipeida. Not for you to tell others of new places to find a soapbox. Edits in which you add externa links will probably always get reverted. Why don't you try building Wikipedia in other areas. There are thousands of article that need improvement. If your purpose here is to build the Encyclopedia? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 16:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a second opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion please on edits by User:Yartett. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Libertarian Wiki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
Libertarian Wiki and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
David (
talk)
19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
>
Yartett (
talk)
19:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well Beeblebrox,
I'm having a real crappy day here at Wikipedia.
Just check out my talk page;
and it's been only about a week since I started editing
---or attempting to edit.
So why should an article of Libertarian Wiki stay?
Why should there be an Wikipedia article of another obviously driven site like
Conservapedia:
complete with quotes of Jimbo Wales kinda praising it.
You tell me why there should be an article on
Conservapedia;
and why such an argument would have nothing to do with any possible arguments in keeping this stub.
In the meantime, I re-evaluate whether I should continue the bother of attempting to be a Wikipedia editor.
Yartett ( talk) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Libertarian Wiki 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 that has been nominated for deletion (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.
Booglamay (
talk) -
19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Notability alone -- or lack thereof -- drives this deletion pursuit. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Gets 100 Google news hits. The article lists like 70 references. As I mentioned before, the Libertarian wiki had none. I've requested before that you read our guidelines concerning notability, reliable sources and verifiable sources. If you were to read and understand these guidelines, it would help you a good deal. Please.
As I mentioned before, it would be better to have sources lined up and listed in the article before posting. For what it's worth, my first article got deleted too. Now I always have sources before creating articles.
Also, this business of wanting to keep articles and posts up till after the election makes it look like you are continuing to try to use Wikipedia as a sopabox. Please read WP:SOAPBOX. Those of us who have a strong long term commitment to the project have a great deal of concern when they see that happening.
Yes, if you can follow our policies and guidelines, you should stay. You've a lot of energy and you are tenacious. If we could channel that in a good way, you could be a great benefit to the project. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for
advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Kraftlos (
Talk |
Contrib)
04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)