| Revision as of 17:40, 3 November 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 31d) to User talk:Moogwrench/Archive 1.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:48, 28 November 2011 edit undoEriena lee (talk | contribs)2 edits →Speedy deletion taggingNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :I understand what you are saying, especially from a ] perspective, but at the same time, I think a few hours is too long to wait to tag something, perhaps an hour would okay... if the case is indeterminate. Each page has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, if something looks like it has potential, sure... why not give it time, eh? But if we are talking about some dinky free online flash game, why are we going to waste a lot of time dealing with something like that? It was readily apparent that it wasn't going to pass A7 from the get go. ] (]) 06:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC) | :I understand what you are saying, especially from a ] perspective, but at the same time, I think a few hours is too long to wait to tag something, perhaps an hour would okay... if the case is indeterminate. Each page has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, if something looks like it has potential, sure... why not give it time, eh? But if we are talking about some dinky free online flash game, why are we going to waste a lot of time dealing with something like that? It was readily apparent that it wasn't going to pass A7 from the get go. ] (]) 06:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::What if the "dinky free online flash game" won some sort of award for "Best new online game of 2010?" What if it became so popular that it were talked about in regular newspapers or tech journals? I agreed that in that case, that article wasn't going to pass, but that was only after I went searching around online for other sources. I guess to me, it's that there's really no harm in keeping things up for an hour or two. However, there is a counter argument based on "trying to catch the editor while they're still here"; I've raised a discussion about this (not this specific deletion, but about whether we should codify more specific "rules" about timing) at ]. ] (]) 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | ::What if the "dinky free online flash game" won some sort of award for "Best new online game of 2010?" What if it became so popular that it were talked about in regular newspapers or tech journals? I agreed that in that case, that article wasn't going to pass, but that was only after I went searching around online for other sources. I guess to me, it's that there's really no harm in keeping things up for an hour or two. However, there is a counter argument based on "trying to catch the editor while they're still here"; I've raised a discussion about this (not this specific deletion, but about whether we should codify more specific "rules" about timing) at ]. ] (]) 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| i didn't i just thought it ok i sweare on my life i didn't cheat off a nother person iswear | |||
| == re: your message == | == re: your message == | ||
Revision as of 14:48, 28 November 2011
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogwrench. |
.jpg)
.png)
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Speedy deletion tagging
When you're looking at new pages, it's generally recommended that you not tag articles for A7 deletion so quickly. You tagged Game of Nerds only 3 minutes after it was created. Now, I did go ahead and delete the page, as it was clear to me (after a little online research) that no amount of work would make the article pass A7, but it's better to give new articles a few hours in case the article creator is still in the middle of the creation process and is intending to add more info that would be a credible claim of significance or importance. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, especially from a WP:BITE perspective, but at the same time, I think a few hours is too long to wait to tag something, perhaps an hour would okay... if the case is indeterminate. Each page has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, if something looks like it has potential, sure... why not give it time, eh? But if we are talking about some dinky free online flash game, why are we going to waste a lot of time dealing with something like that? It was readily apparent that it wasn't going to pass A7 from the get go. Moogwrench (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- What if the "dinky free online flash game" won some sort of award for "Best new online game of 2010?" What if it became so popular that it were talked about in regular newspapers or tech journals? I agreed that in that case, that article wasn't going to pass, but that was only after I went searching around online for other sources. I guess to me, it's that there's really no harm in keeping things up for an hour or two. However, there is a counter argument based on "trying to catch the editor while they're still here"; I've raised a discussion about this (not this specific deletion, but about whether we should codify more specific "rules" about timing) at WT:NPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
i didn't i just thought it ok i sweare on my life i didn't cheat off a nother person iswear
re: your message
Hi Moogwrench, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTNOW?
Hi,
please have a look at Misplaced Pages:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW -- the WP:NOTNOW essay is intended for very new editors starting an RfA, not for an editor with 4000+ edits over 2.5 years like Ankitbhatt.
Cheers, Amalthea 08:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Moogwrench! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |