User talk:Wmjuntunen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Detroit Focus Quarterly

Hello -- thanks for leaving a message. First, let me remind you to please sign all messages with your Wikipedia username by typing four tildes in a row ~~~~. Otherwise a person has to look back through the history of their talk page to see who to answer. Okay, formalities out of the way, as to your concern over the deletion of DFQ. Wikipedia works through consensus in all decisions, and the consensus of editors who voted whether or not to delete DFQ was unanimous to delete. It was not, you see, my decision; all I did was carry out the will of the community in physically deleting the page. Even if you had voted to keep the article, your vote would not have been enough to sway the result because otherwise it was unanimous. I hope this makes sense. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

On your points -- you're right, in some ways Wikipedia is not a democray, and in cases where there is no apparent consensus articles nominated for deletion may be kept, since generally Wikipedia errs on the side of keeping where there is a question. But in the case of this article, there was no question, no quibbling, no equivocation; the vote, in all cases, was to delete, the voters feeling that there was no chance for an article on this entity to ever have encyclopedic merit. I don't say that to be harsh as it's clear you're of a different opinion, I am only summarizing the fact of the matter. As for your entreaty about not having been notified that the article was up for deletion -- with all due respect, that is what watchlists are for. When an article is on your watchlist, it's flagged when changed, and it would've been easy to have seen that it was nominated for deletion. It is unreasonable to expect someone to notify you -- beyond the watchlist, which is what that feature is expressly for -- every time someone changed an article, or, yes, even nominated it for deletion. That you were not logging on often enough to see the deletion notice, or weren't checking your watchlist, is unfortunate but is noone else's fault. Continuing to try to convince me that DFQ is a worthy article is fairly fruitless; I have no special power in this instance, save to help you understand Wikipedia's policies. I'm very sorry you got caught off guard. You should know that you are not preluded from re-creating the article at a later date, PROVIDED it is significantly different and significantly expanded from the first version. If it is not, and instead is significantly the similar to the article that was deleted, it may be deleted on sight by any administrator. Best of luck · Katefan0(scribble) 15:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not reverse the deletion; the community's consensus was unambiguously unanimous that it should have been deleted. There has been some discussion of other means of notifying people of various changes to articles, but none have borne fruit. You might like to visit Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to discuss those sorts of issues further. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
You can request undeletion at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. However I must caution you that the VFU process is intended to be deliberative only of whether the process of deleting an article was proper, not for judging whether content itself was encyclopedia-worthy. Good luck · Katefan0(scribble) 16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

Hi/hei there - you've expended a lot of work on articles, but I am concerned that a number of them are about subjects who simply may not meet the generally accepted guidelines for inclusion. (You can find these at WP:BIO). The guidelines agree that inclusion should cover: painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field

Those articles which document or relate closely to your personal exploration of arts and culture probably belong on your own personal website rather than on Wikipedia. Humansdorpie 15:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your reply. I am sorry if you felt patronised by my message above - that was not my intention. I agree with you that there is a need for emergent, often regional, artists to be criticised and documented. However, I don't agree that Wikipedia is the place to do it. Regards, Humansdorpie 15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your message. With the greatest respect, it might be helpful for you to reconsider what you are trying to accomplish. There is an important official policy of long standing that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own research, thoughts or critical analyses, and I repeat that articles which document or relate closely to your personal exploration of arts and culture probably belong on your personal website rather than on Wikipedia. On a related matter, don't forget that the deletion process involves not only the three or four people who actively vote to delete a nominated article; it also includes the people (twenty individuals? Fifty? 100?) who view the nomination for an article and decide not to vote to keep it. Regards, Humansdorpie 10:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gretchen Kramp

I nominated an article that you created, Gretchen Kramp, for deletion. If you think that the article is salvagable, or that I'm mistaken, please comment on its talk page. Please see the Guide to deletion and proposed deletion guidelines if you have any questions about Wikipedia's deletion process. --Thatcher131 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water Works Theatre Company

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Water Works Theatre Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Swpb talk contribs 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Inzero johnny.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Inzero johnny.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] various articles

Ive seen your comments at AfD, and I in general agree very much, and I appreciate your persistence. But I do have a suggestion. I've got a similar problem with science or humanities researcher's articles getting deleted, which is mainly why Im there. They tend to write too much, or too little, and don't pay much attention to the way the WP style is. Some of them I can coax into adequate attention, but often I just take one or two a week and simply rewrite them to the accepted style with the accepted type of documentation. It looks like many of the artists--visual artists and classical musicians alike--do something similar. They write one long paragraph the way hey would write it for a bio at a show or performance, and actively resist putting in straightforward links to reviews or catalogs. They'll link to the MOMA home page, when they could have linked to their artwork. You might want to do similarly. I've found it's easier and more rewarding than defending them at AfD. DGG 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Marelcostello.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marelcostello.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/m/j/User_talk%7EWmjuntunen_b04b.html"