| Revision as of 00:21, 22 January 2010 editVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits →Warning: response← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:42, 22 January 2010 edit undoDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 edits →Warning: rmv fear mongering and wikilawyeringNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| ::Sure, it'd probably get deleted at AFD if someone removes the tag. Speedies only get approved if they meet one of the criteria at ], otherwise an admin will turn it down. For notability, you can only get articles speedy deleted if they make (1) no statement of significance at all, or (2) if the statement isn't credible, like an article on some schoolkid claiming he's the President. Anything that ''looks'' like a statement of significance will get the speedy turned down, because the single admin deleting as a speedy can't really be relied on to judge whether "3rd woman remaining at WSOP" means she's notable in poker terms, and it has to go to a deletion discussion. The speedies are only for uncontroversial deletions, where a single admin can be trusted to make the call. ] (]) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | ::Sure, it'd probably get deleted at AFD if someone removes the tag. Speedies only get approved if they meet one of the criteria at ], otherwise an admin will turn it down. For notability, you can only get articles speedy deleted if they make (1) no statement of significance at all, or (2) if the statement isn't credible, like an article on some schoolkid claiming he's the President. Anything that ''looks'' like a statement of significance will get the speedy turned down, because the single admin deleting as a speedy can't really be relied on to judge whether "3rd woman remaining at WSOP" means she's notable in poker terms, and it has to go to a deletion discussion. The speedies are only for uncontroversial deletions, where a single admin can be trusted to make the call. ] (]) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::I didn't know that, thanks. ] (]) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | :::I didn't know that, thanks. ] (]) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Warning == | |||
| I'm not going to cite any rules to you. I will make this plain. If you engage in disruptive behavior, you will be blocked to prevent the disruption. Please heed the general spirit of the feedback that you have received about your conduct. If you fail to do so, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing until such a time as you agree to act within the boundaries of the community norms and constructive contributions. Please take this last chance to reconsider your approach to this project. ] (]) 02:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm sorry, what exactly are you referring to? I made changes to ] that it appears have consensus according to the talk page and even my suggestions have now been implemented. I made one edit to ] that an editor reverted and I did not revert back nor discuss anywhere - the editor cited a policy I was unaware of and I left it alone. I don't see how any of that is disruptive nor have I made any other edits since I was unblocked. ] (]) 06:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :*This is about a long-term pattern of behavior, not about any particular incident. You've engaged in ongoing disruptive behavior around BLPs in the past. Your response to the block and the declining comments of the administrators gives me every reason to believe that you intend to continue with the same mode of conduct. Other recent conversations also leave me with doubt about your intentions going forward. You have continually scoffed at and talked down feedback about your conduct. Your intention to act despite prohibitions and warnings is quite clear. | |||
| :*"Ignore all rules" is intended to prevent the ''letter'' of the rules from impeding the principles underpinning them. You seem to interpret it as a license to reject the fundamental principles of the project. "Ignore all rules" is not a pass for disruption. It is not a pass the broader principles of the community. This is not an invitation to debate. This is a warning that declaring "ignore all rules" will not shield you from the consequences of your conduct. | |||
| :*You will be indefinitely blocked if you again engage in disruptive actions, especially to make a point, in rejection of feedback (whether from individuals or noticeboards), in offense to another person (whether an article subject or another editor), or in protest of extant policy. You have been given ample feedback about your actions. Whether or not you will be indefinitely blocked is entirely in your hands. ] (]) 00:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:42, 22 January 2010
I acknowledge only one Misplaced Pages rule, WP:IAR. If you would like to speak to me in general terms, using real words, please leave your comments here. If you are here to do some WP:WIKILAWYERING or otherwise cite WP:RULES or WP:POLICIES to me, of any kind, I will likely remove your comment with no response. DegenFarang (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. |
|---|
hi mr farang
thank you for your comment!
RobinHood2010xx (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)RobinHood2010xx
RobinHood2010xx (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)RobinHood
Chaleo Yoovidhya
I wanted to let you know that Chaleo Yoovidhya has been rewritten and is no longer a copyvio. If you encounter any other articles that need to be rewritten, you can add the {{rewrite}} tag at the top of the article.
I know that "Farang" is Thai for foreigner. Are you fluent in Thai? Perhaps the article on Chaleo Yoovidhya could be expanded with information from the Thai Misplaced Pages at http:th.wikipedia.org , or the Thai article expanded with information from the English Misplaced Pages. - Eastmain (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Soon after doing that I realized there was probably a different tag I should have added instead of recommending it for deletion. I am nowhere near fluent in Thai and can't read or write it at all, sorry. DegenFarang (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
January 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to SitNGo Wizard. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Vandalism? The article is completely spam. If you'd like to remove all of the peacock terms, salesmanship and other non-neutral information, I will consider not bringing it to AFD DegenFarang (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article uses a variety of neutral sources and is highly informative about the product.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is not written in a neutral way. It is written like a sales pitch. Either you agree to re-word it, or I am nominating it for deletion. DegenFarang (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how little you have forgotten about poker, but you should learn how to write a decent article. As far as poker knowledge goes maybe you were a better beginner than me, but I am the best beginner I know (so I doubt you held a candle to me. Keep dreaming though. I will be better than you ever were, are or hope to be, but that is not relevant to the quality of the article). I will match my first 100,000 hands results with anyone's when I have completed them. Your half-arsed CardRunners article is no model. Even my Template:GAstar PokerTracker article is better and it is about the 100th best article I have written on WP. I know what a quality article is. Your deleted content is necessary to explain why the product is worth using to people who are not experts on poker.
- It is not written in a neutral way. It is written like a sales pitch. Either you agree to re-word it, or I am nominating it for deletion. DegenFarang (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article uses a variety of neutral sources and is highly informative about the product.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- We do not write for experts.
- This is a tertiary resource. If the secondary sources that we are summarizing mention topics, that is what we are summarizing. We are not summarizing what you need to know about poker. We are summarizing what the poker software reviewers discuss about the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have lost all passion for improving at poker so you may well get better than me or better than I was- but if you classify yourself as a beginner now, even a very 'good' beginner, I know far more than you about the game - and especially about SNG's. I have played tens of thousands of them and well over 1,000,000 hands of poker. I wish you luck in your quest but making a comment like 'if you don't know enough about poker to...' does not apply to me. The article should not be explaining to people why they should use the product - that is what advertising is for. The PokerTracker article does not explain to people why they should use PokerTracker, it just explains what PokerTracker is. Going into in-depth discussion about the nature of an SNG is not relevant to that article. As I said, that is what internal links are for. If you keep reverting my edits I'm going to report you for a 3rr violation. You should leave your submissions to that article alone and let other editors handle them - especially considering you were paid to create it. DegenFarang (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SitNGo Wizard
It appears that you began the process to create an AFD for SitNGo Wizard, but didn't finish it. I've completed the process for you. If this isn't what you wanted, you'll need to make the appropriate changes. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! DegenFarang (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Erin Ness
I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article because it didn't specify one of the deletion categories at WP:CSD. You mention notability in the edit summary, so perhaps speedy category A7, "no indication of importance" is the closest fit, but it also says, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance". In this case, the article makes the claim that she's significant because of her "third highest woman at the WSOP" ranking. I've put a "proposed deletion" tag on it, so if no-one objects it'll be deleted in 7 days, but if someone removes that tag it'll need to be taken to WP:AFD. Holly25 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not good with wiki procedure but I know that being the 3rd woman remaining in one single poker tournament certainly doesn't qualify you for inclusion. I believe it is something along the lines of 'notability because of one event and not likely to be notable again' or something - but thanks. I'll address this later if somebody removes the tag. DegenFarang (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, it'd probably get deleted at AFD if someone removes the tag. Speedies only get approved if they meet one of the criteria at WP:CSD, otherwise an admin will turn it down. For notability, you can only get articles speedy deleted if they make (1) no statement of significance at all, or (2) if the statement isn't credible, like an article on some schoolkid claiming he's the President. Anything that looks like a statement of significance will get the speedy turned down, because the single admin deleting as a speedy can't really be relied on to judge whether "3rd woman remaining at WSOP" means she's notable in poker terms, and it has to go to a deletion discussion. The speedies are only for uncontroversial deletions, where a single admin can be trusted to make the call. Holly25 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know that, thanks. DegenFarang (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, it'd probably get deleted at AFD if someone removes the tag. Speedies only get approved if they meet one of the criteria at WP:CSD, otherwise an admin will turn it down. For notability, you can only get articles speedy deleted if they make (1) no statement of significance at all, or (2) if the statement isn't credible, like an article on some schoolkid claiming he's the President. Anything that looks like a statement of significance will get the speedy turned down, because the single admin deleting as a speedy can't really be relied on to judge whether "3rd woman remaining at WSOP" means she's notable in poker terms, and it has to go to a deletion discussion. The speedies are only for uncontroversial deletions, where a single admin can be trusted to make the call. Holly25 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)