User talk:Megacz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).


I've nominated the article Gateware for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but I personally don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateware. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Gateware during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. --Brouhaha 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Gateware

Please do not recreate deleted content. There is no point in updating the original AFD it has a big notice on it saying not to add further comments, but that is just what you have done. If you think the deletion was not conducted properly, you want Deletion review, I have restored a copy of the previous deleted version as User:Megacz/Gateware. Thanks --pgk(talk) 09:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gateware

I've undeleted per your email and left a note not to G4 (recreated) it, you might want to update it fairly fast, as chances are someone would G4 it again :( -- Tawker 15:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gateware

There is no need to request a new afd (but if there were modifying the previous one is not the way to do it, you need to read the relevant pages.). Deletion of an article via AFD doesn't mean one can never be created or needs some sort of permission. However creating a substanially similar article to the deleted one does come under the speedy deletion criteria. So if you want to write a more substantial article which cites it sources to demonstrate its validity do so, but it's best to do it in one go (or on a subpage of your user space and then copy it over) so people don't think you are just recreating the deleted content. --pgk(talk) 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

PGK, that's what I did yesterday, and it got deleted again by some admin who apparently isn't checking for this. There really needs to be another formal review.
There doesn't need to be another formal review. The original AfD was based on the term Gateware being a protologism, which is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. You had the AfD reviewed, and the consensus was to uphold the deletion. You recreated it despite the AfD and review; even though the content was different, it was STILL a protologism, hence the CSD. And after it was properly CSD'd, you created the article a third time, STILL as a protologism. It went through a CSD a second time, was properly deleted, and is locked. Another formal review is not going to reach a different conclusion.
I respectfully suggest that any appropriate content either be added to FPGA or FPGA bitstream, as the latter is a widely used term in industry and academia, unlike "gateware". --Brouhaha 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateware

You inappropriately labeled my reversion of your edits as vandalism. Please don't edit historical archives. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do it again and you will be blocked from editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can