Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) →Stephania Bell: history restored |
→Stephania Bell: new section |
||
Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
Thanks for the prod warning on [[Stephania Bell]]. I think I've accidentally become the "creator" of this document because I made a dumb mistake -- long story, but I speedied the article then thought better of it and restored it, because it wasn't really copyvio, and when I restored it I forgot to restore the entire history. I'm sure this will all work out, but I'll see if I can track down the article's true creator and inform him/her. In the meantime, thanks for your courtesy in informing me, and I'll take it from here. [[User:Accounting4Taste|Accounting4Taste]]:<small>[[User talk:Accounting4Taste|talk]]</small> 17:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for the prod warning on [[Stephania Bell]]. I think I've accidentally become the "creator" of this document because I made a dumb mistake -- long story, but I speedied the article then thought better of it and restored it, because it wasn't really copyvio, and when I restored it I forgot to restore the entire history. I'm sure this will all work out, but I'll see if I can track down the article's true creator and inform him/her. In the meantime, thanks for your courtesy in informing me, and I'll take it from here. [[User:Accounting4Taste|Accounting4Taste]]:<small>[[User talk:Accounting4Taste|talk]]</small> 17:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I restored the entire history of the article and put the prodwarning on the creator's talk page. Apologies for the confusion and I think everything's on track now. [[User:Accounting4Taste|Accounting4Taste]]:<small>[[User talk:Accounting4Taste|talk]]</small> 17:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
:I restored the entire history of the article and put the prodwarning on the creator's talk page. Apologies for the confusion and I think everything's on track now. [[User:Accounting4Taste|Accounting4Taste]]:<small>[[User talk:Accounting4Taste|talk]]</small> 17:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Stephania Bell == |
|||
People just need to be aware that the article exists. Ask a bunch of people to go to [[SportsNation]] tomorrow and flood messages with it. Try and get it noticed and maybe it'll get some hits. I don't care if it gets deleted, and frankly I'm kinda for it. Just wait 5 days. Thanx. --[[User:HPJoker|HPJoker]] ([[User talk:HPJoker|talk]]) 19:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:54, 15 December 2007
Hi, This is just my page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Prosper article edits
Hi,
I saw your edit to the Prosper article, and thought you might be interested to know that there is a pending Mediation Cabal process regarding Hu12's repeated deletions of much of this article. It is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-28_Prosper_%28web_site%29. If you want to take a look and add your comments, it would be appreciated. Ira01 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Mbisanz: I don't think the Prosper edit matter is settled. Ira may have been banned, but the issue remains that Hu12 is deleting good with the bad. Further, I'm concerned that he may not be doing due diligence on all of his revisions (entirely understandable as it seems this case has been going on for some time and I'm sure he's a bit fed up with it.) Why do I suspect this? I had reverted the last link removal, and he reverted that in turn, stating the following: "20:29, 29 November 2007 Hu12 (Undid trolling by banned user. rvt per policy) (undo)". Now I wasn't logged in at the time, but I'm also not Ira, and afaik, I'm not banned. So why would Hu12 comment that trolling was being done by a banned user. Furthermore, why did he not review the discussion on the page before the next revision? In that discussion, I've pointed out that at least two of the links in question are statistical in nature, derived from data pulled from Prosper's own source feeds.
I've no problem with dropping links that don't conform, but shouldn't the admins who delete said links be checking them first to ensure that the links being deleted really are inappropriate?
Respectfully - chaeberle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaeberle (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can we unlock the page now that the dispute has been settled?Chaeberle (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The List issue
For the first three years of Wikipedia, there were no categories. Early on it was decided that even though normal encyclopedias don't have lists, there needed to be a way to categorize things so that people could find things they were interested in easily. The first article I worked on when I came here in September 2003 was List of assassinated people. It was already large when I got here, it got even bigger while it was active there, and now it is huge, probably even with several related pages, and involves lots of categories. When the category system was developed in 2004, it caught on fairly quickly, but some people still felt that the lists were useful as another form of categorization. Lists can, among other things, take extra information to briefly summarize the importance of an article to the topic. I am sure that there have been lots of policy discussions and attempts to delete the lists, but they remain popular, and there is even a Featured List Candidate page as you know from reading the Signpost. I am sure that the lists you mention have related categories which their articles are in. However, I think that people enjoy reading the lists also and they are not harming anything. Perhaps at some point some of them will go, but I would not recommend that you try to start that process now. The most important thing is to add categories to articles that don't have them, which I am starting to work on now after a long time of not concentrating on that area. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Imag restored
Image:1970 SimpsonsSears Logo.gif has been restored as you requested. Please add the source information, if possible. Otherwise, the image will be deleted around the 14th December. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, MBisanz ... what do you make of the edits to Diane Garnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made by the WP:SPA anon 12.30.60.194 (talk · contribs)? Do you think that they need an additional warning by Some Other Editor? Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
High Rock?
What the hell did you do to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Rock. It got smudged into the split article. Bit odd eh?TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The Template Barnstar | ||
For making some useful Recent Changes Newlinecinema (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
Civility issue
Sorry I'm not on here more often, I am busy with visiting family right now. Basically it's better to ignore things like that. I've seen a lot worse comments in Wikipedia discussion. Academic Challenger (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sophal Ear
I can't figure out why you placed a speedy deletion tag on Sophal Ear's page. It's not there anymore, but i have added a {{hangon}} tag just the same.
Sandstorm Enterprises
I did a cleanup pass on Sandstorm Enterprises; it's substantially smaller. I read the discussion on the page, and the previous AfD, and frankly I'm really disappointed; it looks like the original nom was a casual, exploratory effort.
Do you have either (a) any opinions or advice on the cleanup I did, or (b) an opinion on whether it'd be reasonable to AfD this article again? I'm getting fed up with people spamming WP, especially in computer security.
--- tqbf 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that you did a good job on the cleanup. It was longer than it should have been. Sandstorm seemed more notable back when the original entry was created. Simsong (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for handling it so well, sorry for using the word "spam". It is a problem here, but you're clearly not a part of it. --- tqbf 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
COI, notification
As you can see from the templates, it's actually not disallowed to edit an article where you have COI issues; you may want to cite specific instances of POV edits, instead of telling Garfinkel not to edit at all. Note also, FWIW (in case you don't work in the space), Garfinkel is for better or worse genuinely notable --- though his previous company may not be.
Just a friendly heads-up.
--- tqbf 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input!
Thank you very much for your input on my page, the Sandstorm page, and the Sophal Ear page. I always learn by participating in these Wikipedia discussions. It's very interesting to see how this community is evolving with its norms and practices. Simsong (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Step-
Step-son, step-father etc isn't really a typo, just a variant spelling. I don't think it really warrants "correcting". David Underdown (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is possibly slightly old-fashioned British English, but it's perfectly recognisable. It's probably just something that someone's recently added to the regexes without realsiing the hyphenated version is perfectly acceptable. David Underdown (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
All Olympic athletes are notable
This is a long-established convention. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia by disputing it. Alex Middleton (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
binomial names
please note that the genus of a binomial is always capitalised, and the species never is, so it's Gavia arctica Jimfbleak (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Pulley AfD
Yikes. There are definitely some heartstrings there. I'll read over it and put together a response today. On a separate note, I noticed you're on "editor review". Whenever I come into contact with a user with that on their userpage, I usually snoop into contrib, hope you don't mind! (The assumption that I make here is that if you minded, you wouldn't be on review)...cheers. Keeper | 76 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, ...I've responded. We'll see. Keeper | 76 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's only as good of a response as the response it generates from the intended audience, but I appreciate your kind words (and saw your userpage update - very flattered)... We'll see how DonnPulley reacts, I get disturbed when I see a "new user's page", trying to make a legitimate contribution, slapped with template-spam, especially when they haven't even been given a welcome template. Don't take that critically (or "themindseye" for that matter) I've done it quite often myself. Lately though, I've been trying to actually type my thoughts instead of "subst.'ing" them with someone elses. Hope he responds well to a real note. Anyway, I digress. I'm off to check your contribs, any closet stuff to be watching for? :-) Keeper | 76 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please be somewhat cautious with speedy deletions
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.
Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) (or the applicable related pages) before you nominate articles for deletion. In this case, you tagged an article that met all three minimal criteria of the applicable policy:
- The text of an article included information to explain why the person is notable: She won an international award.
- the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy has been followed
- The person was the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject: With a simple Google check, I found several articles by well-known sources, such as BBC and Straits Times, reporting about this person.
Next time, instead of going through this unnecessary bureaucracy and putting well-intended people under pressure, please assume good faith and help less experienced users, e.g. by doing a Google search and adding references. — Sebastian 21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up on speedying. My usual google search criteria turned up this [1] which seemed to confirm a lack of notability. I don't speak vietnamese, but I'd expect "some" english coverage of a notable person. And I didn't know how seriously to treat an award from Transparency International (seemed like a rip from Amnesty International). And the phrase "She has been repeatedly threatened by many involved persons but keeps on her actions" seemed to indicate a poor quality (non-neutral) source. Still, you found the sources, so thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nice reply! You're right. Now I remember that I got that first, too. I'll create a redirect at Le Hien Duc.
- BTW, it's nothing personal. I was part of the team that created CSD in the first place (I invented the codes like "A7"), but I now find that it often backfires, especially at newbies who come here because they care about an issue, but then get so bitten that they never get a chance to develop into good contributors. It's just sad. — Sebastian 22:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please also remember that A7 is for articles that do not even assert a minimal degree of notability. Saying someone was music director of a significant production is an assertion of notability, even when unproven. When you just doubt the notability, as for Ian McFarland use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. But you are checking google, which is a lot better than many people. DGG (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- since you asked me for advice--only 50% that are eventually deleted means you are tagging way too much. You should aim at at least 90%--and more like 98%. (I scan CSD mainly to try to pick up articles that perhaps should be kept, and even looking at only those where there might be a chance, i delete 9/10 of them.) The idea at WP is not to speedy unless it is absolutely certain--when not, to use a Prod or AfD. Don't assume the original author will place a hangon, since most speedies are deleted within a few minutes before people have a chance to respond. Every time it gets declined means more work for others, and anxiety for the author (many inexperienced authors simply leave when that happens and we lose them & we need all the potentially good people we can get) and if the admin is a little tired or careless, sometime even an unjustified speedy gets deleted.
- Prod is for when you hope the creator wont respond, either because he wont be around, won't care, or will recognize his mistake. (If it is clear there is going to be an argument, it save time to go to AfD directly.) Expect that a good many prods will be removed, often without justification. Don't be bothered when people do that. You are perfectly in the right, when a prod of yours gets removed, to examine if the article is improved enough, and if not to send it to AfD--that's what AfD is there for. You are in fact expected to follow them up, not ignore them. Since there';s no automatic way to do it, most people keep a listAt Afd when a really bad article gets there, there's a quick closing there. It's good to have public attention on anything disputable--that way, you learn what the general feeling is about such articles. DGG (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to bring a computer to the meetup--we talk, not compare edits. anyway, someone from nearby will have one. See you there. DGG (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Single song AfDs
My experiences with mass-nominations have been poor, and, from experience, although all the articles look the same, I often find that there will be one or two songs among them that are notable- maybe one charted, one was a theme song, or one was significant for the band (the first time a certain member did something they became known for, for example) so I prefer to nominate individually so that anything that could be kept is more likely to be. Thanks for the advice! J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion protocols
Hello again, MBisanz ... I would appreciate your comments on my four step deletion warning protocols (such as Warn-bio, Warn-fiction, and others listed on my User page), and the templates I created for talk pages ... a few months ago, User:DGG "raised my consciousness" about choosing PRODs over CSDs (which can sometimes be closed Too Quickly), and the latest versions reflect this new POV ... I had placed {{Warn-article}}
tags on the talk pages of some of the articles listed in this AfD for a bunch of fictional soap opera characters.
I know that the template is rather verbose, but it's based on the assumption that it's "new information" to the editor seeing it for the first time, and may change their opinions about the existing procedures and the way they apply them ... besides, if the article is deleted, its size doesn't matter :-) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: User:Abbie15
The article does seem like copy and paste job. Although it's poorly written, I actually think Conservation security program has potential and that Abbie is doing it in good faith. It's probably better if the editor just made a stub with some references. If the prod is removed without explanation, I'll take it to AfD. It probably deserves an article though if it's better written. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for speedy deletion of Public Financial Management
Mbisanz,
I would like to add some constructive criticism to your requesting the speedy deletion of Public Financial Management.
As was noted by the editor who cancelled your request, the page contained a designation of notability by means of the specification of transcation values for PFM. These, as you should be able to see, are quite substantial, and along with the ranking awarded to the company by SDI should be enough to prevent exclusionists like you to add a corp request.
Imagine if the page had been SD'd without someone checking whether your request was valid or not? We would lose another article containing valuable information. Please be more careful in the future when you judge criteria for SD, and make sure you match it up with the wiki guidelines.
Also, I'm not affiliated with the company in any way.
Best regards, Astrochris (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prod warning on Stephania Bell. I think I've accidentally become the "creator" of this document because I made a dumb mistake -- long story, but I speedied the article then thought better of it and restored it, because it wasn't really copyvio, and when I restored it I forgot to restore the entire history. I'm sure this will all work out, but I'll see if I can track down the article's true creator and inform him/her. In the meantime, thanks for your courtesy in informing me, and I'll take it from here. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I restored the entire history of the article and put the prodwarning on the creator's talk page. Apologies for the confusion and I think everything's on track now. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Stephania Bell
People just need to be aware that the article exists. Ask a bunch of people to go to SportsNation tomorrow and flood messages with it. Try and get it noticed and maybe it'll get some hits. I don't care if it gets deleted, and frankly I'm kinda for it. Just wait 5 days. Thanx. --HPJoker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)