User talk:Adam12901/Archive 3

Архивы

1 - Discussions 1 - 10 2 - Discussions 11 - 20 3 - Discussions 21 - 30 4 Discussions 31 - present

[edit] Civ-Online speedy deletion

Hello there. Please could you elaborate on your decision to tag my article Civ-Online with speedy deletion. I fail to see why it shows no significance to its subject. Thanks. Civ-online 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article has already been deleted. I tag many articles each day, and do not remember the reasons why unless I am able to go back and look at them. Most likely was because the article was not notable per WP:N. I am sorry that I cannot provide an exact reason, but like I said, without seeing the exact article, I am unable to know why I tagged it myself. --Адам12901 ^Talk 07:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I created the page Civ-Online which is a mmorpg as have many people who have created them. I believe you tagged by article about 5-10 minutes ago. Could you please consider why you tagged it? I have saved the source of the article. Would you like to view it and give suggestions as to why it doesn't meet the notable criteria? Thanks. Civ-online 07:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I can't consider why I tagged it, because the article has since been deleted, and I cannot view it. I realise it was only 5-10 minutes ago, but I have been tagging articles for the past hour, and they all merge together into one. You are welcome to try to create the page again, or you can ask the administrator who deleted it why, since they have access to deleted articles (I am not an administrator so I am unable to do that). You can find out who the administrator was by clicking on the deletion log here. I am sorry I cannot be of more assistance to you. --Адам12901 ^Talk 07:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting your comment about your placement of a speedy tag on the Vitarroz article

Hi, I have disputed your placement of a speedy tag on the Vitarroz article, I would appreciate if you provide a comment there. Dionyseus 08:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] b

visit /b/ much?--WhereAmI 08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

nm you'd know. Anyway unitinu just wont go away.--WhereAmI 08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the article was protected to prevent recreation, it obviously did go away. --Адам12901 ^Talk 08:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah but I was talkin in 5 minute timeframes...things just move faster for me...--WhereAmI 08:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of 'Association of radical Midwives' article.

Why did you Tag this article please- the organisation is a charity providing information, and one which the UK government regularly liases with on maternity issues- I fail to see why you deemed it as non- notable!
--Greenwoman 08:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I make it a policy not to get involved in each individual article. You are welcome to contest the speedy deletion by placing {{hangon}} onto the article (but do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and write a reason why it should not be deleted on the talk page. An administrator will take this into account when deciding what to do with the article. If the article has been deleted, you are welcome to request a deletion review. --Адам12901 ^Talk 08:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Tulsa alumni

I noticed that you moved the University of Tulsa alumni page I created to List of University of Tulsa alumni. My creation of the orginal page was inadvertant, as I was trying to create a category of the same name, which I later successfully accomplished. I was wondering what course of action would be appropriate to remedy this situation, nominating the page for deletion, or simply redirecting the page to the University of Tulsa article, which already contains a list of alumni. Please feel free to contact me regarding this matter. --TommyBoy 09:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You would most likely want to replace the text (basically blank it) with {{db-author}} and hit save. --Адам12901 ^Talk 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly, I just nominated it for deletion per your instructions.--TommyBoy 10:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-latin characters

The thing is, that policy does not prohibit non latin script usernames. It merely says that editors are urged to not solely go by non latin usernames (and do something like provide a transliteration) (and explicitly says that no action is "required"). Thus, it is unclear how I can be blocked for not following a policy that itself makes clear that it is non-mandatory. Александр гомосексуально 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yello!

Hi I am User:Trampton, wishing you a GREAT time at Wikipedia.I,like you, a vegetarian,I hope great editing here to you as well as your family! Trampton 10:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Plattsburghcityhall.gif

• In addition, Template:PD-NYGov-OAG and Template:StateGov-NY are under discussion. --Iamunknown 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frontenac Axis

Hi - I've just reverted your edit to Frontenac Axis. As a specifically geological feature, it receives a geology-stub template. It does not, however, receive a plain {{geo-stub}} template, as it is already in two subcategories of Cat:Geography stubs, via its {[tl|EasternOntario-geo-stub}} and {{NewYork-geo-stub}}. The only articles which should receive geo-stub are those which have not yet been subclassified by nation or subnational region, or those which cover more than one continent (it is for that reason Cat:Geography stubs is permanently close to empty). If all geography stub article received geo-stub in addition to their more specific region-geo-stub templates, the main geography stubs category would have over 100,000 stubs! Also, i've removed the topography-stub, since that is for specific topographical terms (e.g., watercourse, promontory, and mudflat), not individual topographical locations Grutness...wha? 10:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SmartCall and TelefonIP

I understand that you have strong feelings against these two VoIP providers. Could you elaborate why these two companies are less important than any of the other 20 or so already present in Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luci Sandor (talk • contribs) 05:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

• Well, for starters, notability hasn't been established on it. These are VoIP providers like all the rest, but a lot of the rest like Vonage and Time Warner Digital Phone are large companies with large shares of the market. Secondly, these articles were written in the style of an advertisement. I can understand how you may feel about these articles (why should mine be deleted, when there are others), but if there is any article that you have questions about notability, please let me know, and I can try to explain it for you (or list it for deletion). --Адам12901 ^Talk 05:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Adam12901, you've violated WP policy. You jumped on User:Luci_Sandor articles when they were two minutes old, with a very questionable db-spam. What were you thinking? Speedy-delete is not the appropriate remedy. Stub-status is more appropriate. Special:Contributions/Luci_Sandor has now db-spammed a LOT of pages. This must be resolved per WP policy, without retaliation. --Lexein 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Luci Sandor is welcome to contest the speedy deletion as per the instructions I left on his/her talk page. I did not retaliate on this person, they retaliated on me by tagging every VoIP article in sight. I do not see any policy that I violated by tagging articles that seemed like advertising in my opinion, and if you show me the exact policy I violated, then I will apologise, but until then I feel as though I did nothing wrong. I am not to blame for the actions of another, and I find it rather insulting that you consider me to do so. I am not even sure why you are still going on about this, as the senseless tagging has stopped several hours ago. --Адам12901 ^Talk 07:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat what I already said on my discussion page. I created those two pages when I noticed they were missing form the list of VoIP providers. Adam thought that minor VoIP providers don't meet WP notability criteria, so I went back to that list and picked those other ones that appeared minor to me. I just left Adam's assessment to the scrutiny of the community. There is no randomness in my action, no "all VoIP related articles", just all minor VoIP providers. Actually I always dislike the marketing garbage on Wengo, I spent some time in the past trying to clean it and I always wondered if we can get rid of the article altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luci Sandor (talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I notice that you went stalking me and placed a hangon tag on all my edits, although most of those pages were tagged as unreferenced, advertisement and so on. Besides, my work has been deleted, speedy deleted, over night, without any debate, exactly the way you wanted, although you tagged it wrongly. I used to think that is possible to explain to some users that stuff that do not exist in their county are still important for thousands of people, but I am getting sick of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luci Sandor (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

You are more than welcome to recreate those articles, but keep in mind that a newpage patroller can tag something for speedy deletion at any time. I tagged those two articles because you didn't assess notability on any of them (the biggest provider in the country, fastest growing, etc). I feel you were going off on making a WP:POINT, because you tagged articles that did assess notability. For example, you tagged Telio, the first commercial VoIP provider in Norway. You even tagged Ignite Studios which is a media consultancy firm. I specifically told you in the articles that I tagged how to contest the deletion, and you did not follow any steps, not even placing a {{hangon}} tag onto the articles. That is why there was no discussion. Notice that I placed {{hangon}} tags onto the majority of the articles (please take note that there were a few articles that I did not contest, because I felt that they were worthy of being deleted), along with reasonings onto the talk pages, and they were kept. If you had done the same thing, you may have had a shot at it. Yes, Newpage patrollers do make mistakes and tag articles that we didn't think should be tagged. If you honestly feel that these articles were notable enough to belong on Wikipedia, please feel free to recreate them. As far as this goes, I'm not going to discuss it any farther, because I feel that this is a mute point, and I get complaints like this from others that I tag as well (as do most newpage patrollers), and cannot argue like this with every person. I invite you to take a look at WP:I, which will explain more about creating articles, and WP:N, which discusses notability criteria for articles. --Адам12901 ^Talk 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You or the individual who delete the pages should recreate them. If you understand that you made a mistake, you will do that. If you don't, I couldn't care less about those pages; what will be upsetting will be your attitude. I prefer to go on and chat here with you for the next century rather than typing the same thing again and again. I have had enough of this kind of Backspace professionals, who can't write a phrase, but are always busy to destroy other peoples' work, so I will try to refrain from writing in Wikipedia. Coming from a marginal culture is not an easy thing on the Americano Wikipedia and I don't think if I should bear this sisific task.

I don't know of they're the first and the largest companies (it's very hard to get to CC even for easier questions), but maybe those were stubs that needed improvement. And then you had your chance to contribute. And what a contribution you can make!

It is the tenth time you are pointing me to the notability page, without being able to point where it was the mistake. All the stubs, especially in their first hour miss multiplicity. Most of them also miss substantiality, that's why we call them stubs. You should know better, since your hobby is to delete stubs. It was reliable work, it wasn't advertising, it was work published on their websites and not original content. Next day, I would probably include a few links from the local newspapers tat you won't understand anyway, but there was no article. Your excuse is then baseless.

Having a life, is hard to believe that I have to know all the jargon that Wikipedia employs. Tagging hangon by the original author is a non-sense that would probably not hold even on an Americano-centric article. If there is a custom that an author has to both write content and then immediately tag "hangon" just to be sure people like you don't ruin his work, than it is a stupid custom. I wrote the article, of course I want the world to hang on and not delete my work. If you are better with this jargon, next time you should do the "spam" tag that makes you feel so good and the obvious, implied, "hangon" on behalf of the author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luci Sandor (talk • contribs).

It is not the job of the administrator or the newpage patroller to recreate these articles. If you want the articles back, you have several options. You can request a deletion review, talk to the administrator who deleted the article (I did not delete it, and am not an administrator, so that is not me), or write it yourself. It's also not my job to place {{hangon}} onto the articles. Keep in mind that hangon is just a placeholder, and is only half of contesting the speedy deletion. You also need to explain why it's being contested on the talk page of the article. I cannot speak for others, nor would I even if I were able to do so. I am a newpage patroller. I do not fix articles, I make sure that articles created are held to a specific standard. It's not my job to fix articles for you, and it's not my job to do research for you, especially since it's on a company which I do not know anything about. It kind of bothers me how you assume because it's not an "american" article, I deleted it. That is entirely not the case. If it were, I would have deleted articles like Martin Lemay (which is actually an article that I created), Serov, or Non-Aligned Movement. I'm sorry that you created an article that was deleted, and I wish you luck in the future. There is nothing left to say about this. If you have further problems about this, you are welcome to take further measures under Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, as I do not have any intention on continuing this discussion any further. --Адам12901 ^Talk 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am missing something. The job of the newpage patroller, your job, is to place spam tags most of the time, especially on stuff that he has no knowledge about. It is not his job to place hangons, but he surely does that when he has a personal POV to prove. In addition, because I don't have a wiki-job, my articles don't live up to your personal standards, my spam tags are not as good as yours because they don't come from a person with this "job" (so you can stalk me instead of letting the admins do what they have to do), my reasons for writing an article are not obvious so I still need to place a hangon tag. Oh, and my work is wasted down the drain just because "the community" (you and some other person) felt like it and now you are telling me that I have to do it again. You, the one who knows all the tags that we, the mortals, don't, you, who can apply your standards to everything in Wikipedia, should know better than me how to retrieve the old content. Rather than fixing those articles, I would prefer to improve your attitude towards fellow wikipedians and their pitiful articles. Maybe you can get a "job" that suits you and the whole community better.-User:Luci Sandor

Look, I've had it. Leave me the hell alone. I don't care that your article was deleted, and it's not my problem anymore. If you have a problem, you can take it up over at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The fact that the article was deleted is out of my hands as I'm not an administrator. You have given me more problems than any single person who's article I've tagged, and that includes the person that kept creating the same article several times before they got banned. I am officially finished with you. --Адам12901 ^Talk 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)