User talk:Nastajus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] radioshack
I rolled back the stuff you removed from the Talk page of RadioShack. Talk page material (unlike article material) should be left in perpetuity as a permanent record of what was done and why - otherwise we tend to go around in circles, repeating ourselves! - DavidWBrooks 12:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure which was more appropriate, to clean up the talk page, or leave for an unspecified time, or forever. So I was bold. To me this means our topic should be integrated into article itself, if it's of value...Nastajus 23:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edits by Dakese
Dakese appears to have made an edit to your userpage. I beleive that it is best that you are informed of this and may decide to revert his edit if you so wish. You may remove this message at any time. 
The Neokid 
Talk 19:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. I like it. :) Nastajus 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National Sleep Alert
Hi Ian! The article as it stood as I was on New Pages patrol last night was lacking in content (CSD-A3: "Any article whose contents consist only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.") and also lacking in context (CSD-A1: "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.").").
More than that, it was verging on the nonsensical - the first sentence read: "There was a National Sleep Alert and America in a 1993 from the National Commission on Sleep Disorders Research." And American in a 1993 from? What?
In amongst the several hundred articles created last night, this was one of 50 or so of a similar pattern that I deleted within a few seconds of it going up.
The article has since been recreated as Wake Up America: A National Sleep Alert. Whilst I still don't think this is very notable a subject for an encyclopedia, the article itself is of much higher quality. It is now has content, context and makes sense - the three things generally essential to any article.
You ask: How am I supposed to contribute information if I have to contend with that?. There are a few tips I can offer, if I may. The first thing I would suggest is to select your stub tag before you start writing. An article created with a stub tag already in place flags to the New Pages patroller that more is to be done and that the writer knows what s/he's doing. Second, I'd suggest wikilinks in the body of the article - again, it suggests to the patroller that something is going on and the article is "real" - a deadend article, or one with just a "See also" link, looks like the type of rambling the patroller will have deleted 49 times already that evening even if it isn't!
If those two options don't appeal, you can place an {{underconstruction}} tag at that top of the article. Then the patroller is likely to Watchlist the article and give the writer a few days to do something with it - it doesn't make the article immune from speedy deletion, but it does slow the process down.
I'm really sorry if I caused you wikistress. I assure you that was not my intention at all and I truly apologise for doing so. I hope you will accept the attached cup of tea (I'm British) as a peace offering. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 09:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Converstaion status
Are dolphins endangered?--Are they stable? This needs to be in the little box of summary information like other animals Nastajus 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
