This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ironholds (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 6 June 2010 (→Three revert rule: point). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:35, 6 June 2010 by Ironholds (talk | contribs) (→Three revert rule: point)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Psychotronic (mind control)
AfD nomination of Psychotronic (mind control)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Psychotronic (mind control), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. GDallimore (Talk) 11:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Eleven
81.18.55.224 gave no explanation for removing the prod on the page Eleven (Serbian band), did not give an opinion on the article's talk page, did not expand the article, did not notify me about prod removing. I strongly believe this article should be deleted. By the way, if you're from Serbia (I guess you might be, as mostly people from Serbia are interested in articles about Serbian rock bands), please let me know. Ostalocutanje (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit that you made to the page Trevor Farley has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Notability
Hi. I'm not sure if you are aware that there is a notability policy that rather carefully sets forth the criteria of notability. I've noticed from many of your recent edits that you are removing the {{prod}} template from articles, claiming that the subject is notable, and often sourcing it to something like a search hit on Allmusic.com. Just because a band exists or has an album doesn't mean that it is notable according to WP:BAND. At least some of the prod tags you have removed were added by editors that certainly know these policies quite well. I'd like to ask that you familiarize yourself with the policies before continuing to remove these tags. Thanks and happy editing, Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have familiarized myself with WP:N. I'd like to ask that you familiarize yourself with WP:PROD before telling to not remove PROD tags. Inniverse (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am familiar with that policy. But it seems strange for a new editor to be removing prod tags systematically from large numbers of articles—tags that were added in some cases by quite established editors who certainly know the policy. It might be a good idea for you to "learn the ropes" a bit more before continuing to do this. Nearly all of the articles that you have removed the prod tag from are of fairly questionable notability, and some of them are pretty clearly not notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be using a mistaken standard for PRODing articles. The test for a PROD deletion is not that the article has fairly questionable notability (which is a subjective test). A closer reading of WP:PROD will remind you that the PROD tag is to be used for cases where articles are uncontestably deletable. Inniverse (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the articles look "uncontestably deletable" to me. At any rate, when removing the prod tag, please don't just say "subject notable". Instead say something like "subject notable per (relevant policy)". E.g., "subject notable per WP:BAND#C6". Your bald assertion of notability doesn't go far with me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Inniverse (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the articles look "uncontestably deletable" to me. At any rate, when removing the prod tag, please don't just say "subject notable". Instead say something like "subject notable per (relevant policy)". E.g., "subject notable per WP:BAND#C6". Your bald assertion of notability doesn't go far with me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be using a mistaken standard for PRODing articles. The test for a PROD deletion is not that the article has fairly questionable notability (which is a subjective test). A closer reading of WP:PROD will remind you that the PROD tag is to be used for cases where articles are uncontestably deletable. Inniverse (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am familiar with that policy. But it seems strange for a new editor to be removing prod tags systematically from large numbers of articles—tags that were added in some cases by quite established editors who certainly know the policy. It might be a good idea for you to "learn the ropes" a bit more before continuing to do this. Nearly all of the articles that you have removed the prod tag from are of fairly questionable notability, and some of them are pretty clearly not notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Dates
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Misplaced Pages has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
In particular, please don't change the date format in articles without good reason. In many cases you are making the style within the articles inconsistent. There is also no reason to replace perfectly good en dashes with the HTML code. Deor (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Brianna Bragg
Hi- do you think Brianna Bragg can meet WP:BIO or (more likely) WP:PORNBIO? I'm not sure. tedder (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If the original claim that she has appeared in over 100 films can be verified, then she can meet WP:PORNBIO. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Inniverse (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm familiar with AFD- I just wanted to ask you because you seemed to have a better sense than I did about it. tedder (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Removal of PRODs
While I understand it is in your every right to remove proposed deletion notices, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines (through WP:N, as quite a few of the articles you dePRODed have been clearly deletable. I've sent them over to WP:AFD, so no worries. Regards. Claritas § 08:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded. It is your prerogative to remove prods, and no one is going to stop you, but with all respect I think you're doing a disservice to the community by extending the time that these deletions take without affecting the ultimate outcome. - Mgcsinc (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- PRODs should not be used to side-step AfD discussions for articles that an editor may wish to keep. In the vast majority of situations where I have contested a PROD the final outcome has been to not delete. If you believe an article still needs to be deleted, then take it to AfD and let the community have their say. Your point has been made, and I have replied. Please do not continue this discussion on my talk page. Inniverse (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- My closing comment - The deletion discussion cocerning Melanie Shatner, which is an article that I deproded but Claritas sent to AfD because it was "clearly deletable", has been closed as a Speedy Keep, so no worries. Inniverse (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- PRODs should not be used to side-step AfD discussions for articles that an editor may wish to keep. In the vast majority of situations where I have contested a PROD the final outcome has been to not delete. If you believe an article still needs to be deleted, then take it to AfD and let the community have their say. Your point has been made, and I have replied. Please do not continue this discussion on my talk page. Inniverse (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, in the case of DVD-Handycam, you contested the prod with the comment "notable product" but did not add any reliable sources that might indicate notability, or comment on the article talk page as to why you thought the article asserted notability. Please consider explaining your objections or improving the articles, as requested at WP:PROD. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seconded - Mgcsinc (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- It takes but a moment to PROD an article for deletion. To research, edit and improve articles takes much more time. I try my best to add references and content to articles when if I feel that the article should or could be saved, but it is time consuming and I can only do so much. I believe that the DVD-Handycam is a notable product. I am confident that independent product reviews exist in significant detail to demonstrate the notability of this product. No, I did not add such reviews and references into this article - I did not have the time. If you take the time to search, but cannot find any sources to support keeping the article, then please take it to AfD. I will not take offense.
- It takes but a moment to remove a prod tag, too. If there's any evidence that you're doing significant research before doing so, and carefully considering WP notability guidelines in relation to the articles you're deprodding, it's not immediately apparent. Deor (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have fully explained myself. Please stop bringing this debate to my talk page. You have made your positions known, so please go out there and prod and argue for deletion to your hearts content. I do not take offense. Do you? Inniverse (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- May I ask what other accounts, if any, you've used to edit Misplaced Pages? Deor (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm curious as well. Do share...Jezebel'sPonyo 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is my only account. It doesn't take long to get sucked into discussions when other editors start sending links on this talk page. I have read and studied the policy pages, and all of my editing conforms to policy. Why am I feeling all of this hostility? Are my edits contrary to some wiki-rule I am not yet aware of, or is it just politics? Inniverse (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- A new editor who starts out-of-the-gate performing redirects, page moves and quoting policies in fluent "wikispeak" raises flags. An editor who does all of these things and responds in the fashion you have done when people have kindly requested you may be misinterpreting notability criteria while editing from an extreme inclusionist viewpoint raises red flags with images of neon socks. As you contend that this is your first account I will of course assume that you are being honest; however please don't be surprised if others raise the same questions regarding possible previous accounts based on your editing pattern. Jezebel'sPonyo 16:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is my only account. It doesn't take long to get sucked into discussions when other editors start sending links on this talk page. I have read and studied the policy pages, and all of my editing conforms to policy. Why am I feeling all of this hostility? Are my edits contrary to some wiki-rule I am not yet aware of, or is it just politics? Inniverse (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm curious as well. Do share...Jezebel'sPonyo 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- May I ask what other accounts, if any, you've used to edit Misplaced Pages? Deor (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have fully explained myself. Please stop bringing this debate to my talk page. You have made your positions known, so please go out there and prod and argue for deletion to your hearts content. I do not take offense. Do you? Inniverse (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- It takes but a moment to remove a prod tag, too. If there's any evidence that you're doing significant research before doing so, and carefully considering WP notability guidelines in relation to the articles you're deprodding, it's not immediately apparent. Deor (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- It takes but a moment to PROD an article for deletion. To research, edit and improve articles takes much more time. I try my best to add references and content to articles when if I feel that the article should or could be saved, but it is time consuming and I can only do so much. I believe that the DVD-Handycam is a notable product. I am confident that independent product reviews exist in significant detail to demonstrate the notability of this product. No, I did not add such reviews and references into this article - I did not have the time. If you take the time to search, but cannot find any sources to support keeping the article, then please take it to AfD. I will not take offense.
- Hey Inniverse, thanks for "joining" wikipedia. I guess my concern is whether you legitimately have an a strong inclusionist view (and are OK knowing that consensus may make some of your efforts futile if you don't choose your battles carefully--there ARE articles worth rescue everyday, but The Cat Master may not be one of them) OR you're just yanking our chains a bit.--Milowent (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Bonnie Pemberton
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bonnie Pemberton, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Pemberton. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
BabyCenter
this reversion to BabyCenter should have been discussed on the talk page. You should be aware that just because something is referenced, doesn't mean it can't be removed. Codf1977 (talk · contribs) explained his/her actions in this edit summary. As it is, your reasoning seems flawed. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello Inniverse, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:
- Learn the basics by reading the introduction and taking the tutorial.
- Remember to sign messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically insert your username and the date.
- Enjoy editing to improve articles, but try to leave an edit summary to explain what you are doing.
- Create your first article using the Article Wizard to help avoid common mistakes, which may lead to article deletion.
- Although you don't need to be familiar with all of Misplaced Pages's policies, try to keep to the core principles and basic guidelines.
- When dealing with fellow Wikipedians, please remain polite, solve problems calmly, and remember that no-one is out to get you.
- Get involved with the community by joining a WikiProject.
- Make any test edits in the sandbox or click here and create a sandbox of your own.
- If you are having difficulty, consider finding a mentor to give you more personal advice.
- If in doubt, be bold. If you make a mistake, it can easily be reverted.
If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Misplaced Pages:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of The Cat Master
I have nominated The Cat Master, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Cat Master. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Equitana
Thanks for creating the article Equitana (best to create the article before adding the links when possible, though) , you may want to consider adding to the article a note on the versions that occur in other nations besides Germany, there is a US version also and many readers may be looking for the American one when searching. Montanabw 04:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Equitana
Thanks for creating the article Equitana (best to create the article before adding the links when possible, though) , you may want to consider noting the versions that occur in other nations besides Germany, there is a US version also and many readers may be looking for the American one when searching. Montanabw 04:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Equitana
Thanks for creating the article Equitana (best to create the article before adding the links when possible, though) , you may want to consider noting the versions that occur in other nations besides Germany, there is a US version also and many readers may be looking for the American one when searching. Montanabw 05:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Jason Scerri
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jason Scerri, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jason Scerri. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Buck Humphrey
An article that you have been involved in editing, Buck Humphrey, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buck Humphrey. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Misplaced Pages. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jminthorne (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Three revert rule
Please study the Misplaced Pages page Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, especially the section on the three revert rule (3RR). Your edits , , constitute three reverts within 24 houra and hence put you on the verge of breaching that rule. Please take particular note of the comment that "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page". If you object to these tags, explain why on the talk page, or, better still, improve the article to address the concerns. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buck Humphrey
I've replied to your points here. Ironholds (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)