→Deletion of Dan Roman: new section |
→Deletion of Dan Roman: more incorrect tagging |
||
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
I declined [[Dan Roman]] for speedy deletion under G10, as it was not an attack page. If you believe it to be a candidate for speedy deletion, please tag it appropriately. Thanks, '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' <sup><small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming...]]''</small></sup> 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
I declined [[Dan Roman]] for speedy deletion under G10, as it was not an attack page. If you believe it to be a candidate for speedy deletion, please tag it appropriately. Thanks, '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' <sup><small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming...]]''</small></sup> 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Looking through the [[C:ATT]] list, I see you have nomintated a number of articles for speedy deletion as attack pages: [[Dan Roman]], [[Costi Ioniţă]], [[Mihai Stoica]] and [[Victor Pădureanu]]. None of these are attack pages. Please review the requirements of [[WP:CSD]] and ensure you tag articles correctly. If you have any questions, please drop me a note on my talk page. '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' <sup><small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming...]]''</small></sup> 10:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:31, 22 January 2010
No worries
You win some, you lose some. There’s deletion review, there’s other wikis, and since the content is CC-BY-SA, it can be mirrored on other pages. Nothing to get upset over. Just to let you know, I deleted your comment from my talk page because it had a negative vibe to it; I appreciate your edits, but I like keeping things as positive as possible. Have a wonderful day! Samboy (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- You don't seem to realize that with the arguments you and Lulu raise you just antagonize the closing admins, most of which are pretty deletionist, in that they want to see sources. Pcap ping 05:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- You seem kind of negative and bitter. I hope whatever is going on in your life to make you so negative and bitter gets better. Since the Wikipedia is an anonymous place (which I think isn’t ideal, but oh well), whatever that may be is none of my business. Have a good one. Samboy (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is pretty bad. Pages like that have indeed influenced my conclusion that only businesses with household-name brands or genuine importance in technical developments really rank encyclopedia articles. Services businesses that serve other businesses should seldom or never qualify. I used to count myself as a fairly fervent inclusionist, but this stuff ... not only is it badly written and "accentuates the positive", but the only thing that makes some of these businesses get articles and others not is the diligence of their marketing people.
Bad writing is what really tees me off, even more than spam. I am unlikely to find these articles unless they toss around phrases like "management solution". And I wonder how much is genuinely intended to deceive, and how much is by non-native English speakers tossing around the buzzwords from bad prose they have read and are using as models. Even that English is always going to be more fluent than my Kannada. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
New ANI created.
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
- --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No consensus
Just a quick word. no consensus at AfD does not mean the article has to be kept as it is. As Juliancolton states the keep arguments were weak. Merges/redirects can still go ahead but best to seek consensus on the article talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the edit on the Solid (Object Oriented Design) article; I was going to remove that section next, but you beat me to it. The article was/is pretty awkward, but has potential… Thanks again! —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 06:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not yet convinced that it's widely used. The initial article of Uncle Bob had all the principles, but not the SOLID acronym, so it appeared to be that the blogger coined it. Thanks for clearing that up. Pcap ping 06:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going through material; that said, I am only on page two of Google results and I have no more time left tonight to work on the article on WP, so I will have to come back to it. But there is stuff out there that builds on “Uncle Bob”’s work (which of course itself builds on many others). I think it is just a very young article that has not caught anyone’s attention yet, myself. —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 08:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I restored the article because it wasn't substantially identical to the article that was deleted under the prior AfD, and therefore didn't qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. If you feel the new article has some of the same problems as the old article, feel free to PROD it or nominate it at AfD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome message
As you proposed, I have a question regarding Wikipedia editing. Each time I sign an edit summary on a page (with 4~), the edit is signed with my login, but I have 4~ in the text. What is wrong in my way of doing edits ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captone (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- The four tildes (~) are to be used on talk pages, such as this page. (Because you didn't sign above, a WP:BOT did it). The edit summaries are not normally signed, and the four tildas do not get expanded to a signature in edit summaries. Pcap ping 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Your unsubstantiated claims
Could you please retract them? To say an administrator's action was based on "vote counting" is very offensive, especially when I explained my rationale very clearly. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- That how I read it. Sorry. Pcap ping 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do explain. Where did I say I engaged in "nose counting"? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed the proposed deletion tag from Hermitech Laboratory.
Hello, I removed the prod tag from the article because it seemed too controversial; the author had objected to a prior speedy deletion by stating that the article shouldn't be deleted for lack of notability, a sentiment shared by another editor who removed the tag. While that wasn't a prod tag, it still seems to be controversial to me. You might want to bring the article to AFD instead, personally I think that you were correct about it not meeting WP:CORP. I thought I would let you know, thanks! -- Atama頭 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I was about to tell you the same thing (that a prior CSD, not a prod was contested there), but I agree that it's probably better to AfD this. Pcap ping 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
giFT
Feel free to make a better list, if you do ill try to find the info to flush it out. MrMacMan Talk 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Taelus (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
AfDs
"I assume that guidelines which have been enacted and confirmed by over WP:100 editors in the last RfC have more consensus than particular AfDs, most of which see only a handful of votes." Actually, I agree with you—I explained my position in some detail in my answers to the questions. Basically, I believe that consensus should be interpreted according to the outcome of the discussion, but that interpretation should take place within the framework of the broader consensus developed by the community at large. It is the responsibility of an admin to uphold consensus even if they disagree with it. But I know some people still have concerns about the issue, so I've pledged to refrain from ever closing an AfD—which doesn't trouble me since I know I'd never want to close an AfD anyway. I can back that up with history: in my previous 2.5 years as an admin, I never closed a single AfD. Everyking (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Is there a reason
Yes, I did notice that. But I don't want to run the risk of screwing up the bot since you may never know how it will perform when someone made accidental changes to it. The newbie also broke the signature and the timestamp of the bot update. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the bot seems to have regular hiccups that are fixed by manual editing by multiple users. This did not appear out of the ordinary. Pcap ping 17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Reply
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2#Pcap's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Romania articles
Here are the Romania articles I found. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Monica Anghel - Mircea Albulescu -
Radu Vasile- Radu Marian - Dana Macsim - Argentina Menis - Christian Badea - Claudiu Bleonţ - Dan Alexandrescu - Elena Gaja - Gabriel Cotabiţă - Horia Crişan - Ionuţ Pavel - Luc Deacu - Marcel Pavel - Marius Moga - Mihaela Miroiu - Mihnea Motoc - Tiberiu Bărbuleţiu - Stana Izbaşa - George V. Grigore - Vlad Vanca - Gheorghe Megelea - Mihai Stoica - Valeriu Stoica - Francis Kish - Bogdan Olteanu - Dan Bittman - Eugen Bejinariu - Florin Fabian - Florina Kendrick - Gavril Dejeu - George Maior - Gheorghe Nichita - Ghervazen Longher - Ioan Condruc - Margareta Keszeg - Mihai Olteanu - Petre Budean - Tudor Gheorghe - Sandu Tăbârcă - Beatrice Bleonţ - Costi Ioniţă - Daniel Cristescu - Daniel Iftimie - Dragoş Băjenaru - Fiţa Lovin - Ilie Bărbulescu - Marian Petre Miluţ - Mircea Ciugudean - Mircea Vintilă - Octavian Guţu - Şerban Ciochină - Florin Fizeşan - Gabriel Liiceanu - Ileana Silai - Ana Maria Brânză - Ionela Târlea - Mihai Covaliu - Valery Oişteanu - Tudor Popa - Dumitru Dragomir - Petru Filip - Dan Roman - Victor Pădureanu
Thank you! Pcap ping 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
On voting
I'm sorry but I am unable to do as you requested, for it would be to game the system to merely vote in opposition to the fact that they are voicing delete votes. I do agree that such policies are incorrect, however to counter them in a WP:POINT method is counter-productive. Also, see WP:NOTVOTEηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- If WP:Notability (software) were to become a guideline or policy, I believe we would have sufficient reason to warn exploiters of WP:Software notability as Notability software specifically states that editors should do research before hand. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't ask you to just vote based on some bogus reason. I asked to participate in AfD and !vote based on the current guidelines. Pcap ping 06:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake, the wording seemed to imply that. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Dan Roman
I declined Dan Roman for speedy deletion under G10, as it was not an attack page. If you believe it to be a candidate for speedy deletion, please tag it appropriately. Thanks, Stephen! Coming... 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looking through the C:ATT list, I see you have nomintated a number of articles for speedy deletion as attack pages: Dan Roman, Costi Ioniţă, Mihai Stoica and Victor Pădureanu. None of these are attack pages. Please review the requirements of WP:CSD and ensure you tag articles correctly. If you have any questions, please drop me a note on my talk page. Stephen! Coming... 10:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)