User talk:72.75.73.158

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is 72.75.73.158's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to 72.75.73.158.

[edit] Don't say I have to register ...

“ I'm here to repair it, not to defend it. ”
 
— Anonymous WikiGnome

My reasons for not registering are not a topic for conversation ... I'll let my edits speak for themselves, and besides, having an identity like NoneOfYourBusiness (talk · contribs) would not make me any less anonymous ... so please, just cut a "recovering Wikipediholic" some slack. —72.75.73.158 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The right to edit anonymously, without registering, is considered a core principle of the Wikimedia foundation and is beyond debate or reproach. See here. aliasd·U·T 08:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thnx fer the endorsement, aliasd (talk · contribs) ... I've added this not a topic for conversation sandbox essay to elaborate on the point, and to document the events that unfolded on this talk page with this IP account six months ago ... Happy Editing! —72.75.79.128 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents


[edit] Correction

Thanks for the correction on the "list of 56 zip codes" page. That was a screw up on my part. That is what happens when you try and Wiki while sleepy. - SVRTVDude (VT) 10:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I received this: (see User talk:SatinNSilk#Notability of Hoofmaster)

So I am leaving you a note to talk about this. There was a holdon tag placed and very shortly thereafter the page was gone. There wasn't even time to find out why. 'Hoofmaster' aka Andrew Mulholland is the author of 4 programming books which were noted and cataloged with ISBN numbers for verification. He is also a programmer of several internet games, namely MMORPG ones which are in high demand. We were not trying to advertise the games we were only noting an author that is interesting. Its a success story as well. There was some about a newspaper article that was written in Scotland about him as well, so I'm failing to see how he would not be of interest to some. As far as I could tell, there was no discussion either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatinNSilk (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 May 2007

I am not an admin, so I cannot delete articles ... I merely notified you of it's impending deletion after it had already been previously deleted twice by different admins and then recreated once again by you ... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoofmaster as further proof that my opinion about the need for this article's deletion is not unique. —72.75.73.158 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That is NOT correct. It had NOT been recreated twice. It had been restored by an admin as it should not have been deleted without discussion in the first place. KathrineS 00:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My mistake ... the deletion log showed two CSD A7 deletions (which I noticed after I saw the previous nn-warn tags when I was about to add one after I did a db-bio) and I assumed that you were doing an ill-advised recreate after reading User_talk:KathrineS#Warnings about the subject's software business ... OTOH, the AfD agreed that even after working on it for a week, the subject was NN, and the article was deleted ... so my CSD may have been hasty, and my 'tude may have been nasty, but my judgment was not mistaken ... it matched the consensus of other editors. —68.239.79.82 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tetris Zone

Why was the Tetris Zone article speedily deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlienRage (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Ask the admin who deleted it, not the editor who tagged it, but it probably failed WP:WEB. —72.75.73.158 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manisha mepani

I've watchlisted it, and I will warn the user. If it comes up again, I will salt. J Milburn 19:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaiku.com

Hello ... you did the CSD of Jaiku ... would you please zap Jaiku.com as well? Please note User talk:Laaabaseball for further background ... note the time stamps ... see the history for their attempt to hide their previously deleted contributions in a "cleanup" edit between these postings. Thnx! —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi 72!
It looks like the new article is up for deletion on this page. I think I'd like to let this process run its course. You can weigh in on the AFD page. Cheers, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey! I'm a newcomer to wikipedia and do not know all the WP's. Instead of biting me in the back and deleting what i said on my talk page, why don't you haelp to improve the Jaiku article so that it meets WP:Notability
The jaiku.com page now has more legitimate sources and I deleted those that were from blogs, except for Leo Laporte's because it is an event, not a source. jaiku has a lot of the same characteristics of Twitter, yet that article has stayed. I am hoping to find sources for the use of RSS, "web presence", and more about Jaiku's technology. In an interview with TWiT, the co-founder said that they had prieviously worked for Nokia and had access to the Nokia N60 API. If people can help find the sourcces for this, it would be much appredciated. Laaabaseball (talk · contribs) 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Replied at User talk:Laaabaseball#WP:BITE. —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zamias Services Inc

Hello. I wrote this article as a "work in progress" in order to have an entry for a company that owns and operates malls in the eastern US. I noticed that there are LOTS of real estate developers that have articles on Wikipedia and I thought it would be a good idea to write about this company's history, particularly because of their history as one of America's first shopping mall developers, starting back in the 1950's. Because of their contribution to US history, I thought they deserved an entry on Wikipedia. I did not intend to write it as a way to promote the company, as I have no connections to the company whatsoever.

Based on Wikipedia Spam Policy, this article should be allowed based on the following statement taken from the policy:

"However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." Pghpghpgh 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Take this up with the admin who deleted it, not the editor who tagged it. —72.75.73.158 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you shouldn't be tagging things just based on your own whim. You should be researching the history of the topic you are considering before just tagging an article for deletion, which only took you a day. It should take several days to research these types of articles. Pghpghpgh 05:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And if you had spent more time finding reliable source citations to establish Notability (organizations and companies) before creating it, then I would not have tagged it, and the admin would not have deleted it ... I waited a day after creation before tagging it (and {{db-inc}} would have had the same result as {{db-spam}} in this case, BTW) in order to give you time to add them ... it is your responsibility as the author to do the research, not mine or any other editor's ... use your own sandbox next time, instead of creating a "work in progress," and this kind of thing won't happen. —72.75.73.158 06:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your comments

In response to [1], I just wanted to let you know that some administrators do contact users by e-mail, especially those who don't frequently use Wikipedia, or are new to the website. Also, please exercise a little more caution in your tone with new users, since I'm getting the impression of a little newbie biting. Remember, they're new to Wikipedia and most probably have not read Wikipedia policy. Please be forgiving when users forget to sign their comments, or when they make wild claims of abuse because you tagged their article for deletion. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh!> My evil twin (can you say, "Schizoaffective Disorder?") is one of the reasons why I don't use a registered account ... after Too Many consecutive hours at the keyboard, he inevitably wears out my welcome (neither of us is known to "suffer fools gladly", as they say) ... but my DSL provider will change my IP address after a few days, and I will get a Fresh Start ... I really should put "WP:DBTN!" on a Post-It note above my monitor. :-) —72.75.73.158 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Russell (author)

First, nice user name mate. Second, why did you get rid of my article? I don't understand why Mr Russell wasn't notable, he wrote a book, as stated in the article. I know if he was a contestant in a reality show, he would be more notable, but in this modern age, I thought writing a book still counted as being notable. If you don't believe the book exists, Google it and I'm sure it'll pop up somewhere, as I own a copy of this book. I think someone's getting a little overzealous in their defending, I mean repairing, of Wikipedia. MetaphysicalNihilist3 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Take this up with the admin who deleted it, not the editor who tagged it ... the reason they gave was CSD A7, so it must not have satisfied Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ... having written a single book does not satisfy notability, and you probably did not cite any published sources about him, but I honestly do not remember this article. —72.75.73.158 08:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain more fully

Please explain more fully how http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mora_memo_july_2004.pdf fails to satisfy the requirement for a reliable, authoritative source for Kevin Sandkuhler's position and involvement in early discussions of the legality of the "extended interrogation techniques"?

For the same reason that any PDF document on a website as the sole "published source" about the subject fails to satisfy WP:N for why the subject should have an article, even if it's from the American Civil Liberties Union website ... would you take a PDF of the Majestic-12 documents as a WP:RS just because it came from the Wikipedia website? —72.75.73.158 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address traces to Verizon. Is there a reason you haven't chosen to create a wiki-id? The wikipedia, unlike other similar, smaller wikis, allows contributors to make most edits from anonymous IP addresses. Other wikis find anonymous contributions to be problematic. Most vandalism comes from anonymous IP addresses. Other bad edits come from anonymous IP addresses when new contributors are merely experimenting.

As stated at the top of this page, "My reasons for not (creating a wiki-id) are not a topic for conversation." —72.75.73.158 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

AIUI the wikipedia continues to allow contributions from anonymous IP addresses so that people who live in totalitarian countries can still make contributions.

If you are not a citizen of a totalitarian country, who faces political repression over your contributions, then I would encourage you, in he strongest possible terms, to establish a wiki-id, and do all you editing from that wiki-id.

We are all asked to assume good faith on the part of other wikipedia contributors. And, in my opinion, this implies an obligation for all of us to take active steps to illustrate our own good faith.

In my opinion if you don't have a reason to remain anonymous, one of the actives steps you can take to illustrate your good faith is to establish a wiki-id.

There are a couple of other steps I am going to encourage you to take. You nominated a couple of articles I created for speedy-deletion — without showing me the courtesy of a "heads-up" on my talk page. The guidelines on speedy deletion recommend the heads-up. So, why this lapse of collegiality?

You did place heads-ups on my talk page, after other contributers reverted your speedy deletions, and you placed the notability tag on those articles.

I am going to remind you that WP:NOT includes a section WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battlefield. I am going to encourage you, in the strongest possible terms, to consider that other wikipedian's contributions that have triggered a concern on your part may hold merit that you have overlooked.

Neither of the speedy deletions I am aware of you placing on my contributions seemed to come anywhere near matching the criteria for speedy deletion.

And, speedy deletion has proven to be a flawed procedure, providing insufficient review. I am going to encourage you to use less extreme ways to raise your concern over other's contributions. Why not consider using {{prod}} in place of {{db}}? Why not consider raising your concern on the article's talk page? Why not consider leaving a note on the other contributor's own talk page?

I think the problem is timing ... sometimes, an admin does a speedy before I get a chance to post a nn-warn .. please see my edits of 2007-05-03, and there are a slew of warning posts for articles that have been CSD'd ... and my most recent edits have been adding citation templates and IMDb links to new articles I found on the same Newpage Patrol that led to my flagging your unfinished stub and some overzealous administrator zapping it before I could warn you. —72.75.73.158 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Without regard to whether you choose to use {{db}} or {{prod}} I encourage you to show that you respect other wikipedian's contributions by leaving them a heads-up on their talk pages when you apply these tags.

Candidly Geo Swan 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm anal about nn-warn tags, but sometimes I'll get drawn away from the keyboard for too long ... the CSD/PROD thing is also timing ... when a CSD is rejected and I still think it's bogus, I put a "Lack's WP:A to establish WP:N" message on the article's talk page ... excuse me if I don't put a message on the author's talk page when there has been no response in 24 hours and I put a PROD on the same article. —72.75.73.158 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll also admit to jumping the gun sometimes ... here's an example of what looked like a nonsense vanity bio at first glance because the author didn't use their sandbox ... "A boisterous hothead unlike his even-temperd father, Randy quicly became involved in student activism, akbeit usually as the voice of moderation to the more radical Josh Kittiling." ... I didn't recognize Randy Robertson as a fictional Spiderman supporting character, so I tagged it and put a nn-warn on the author's page, and I was accused of being a disruptive editor ... damned if I do and damned if I don't ... <Sigh!>. —72.75.73.158 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your explanation for why you choose not to use a wiki-id

Okay, I see you have provided an explanation, of sorts, for choosing not to use a wiki-id.

Do you realize that your explanation could be interpreted as, "I don't choose to use a wiki-id because I am unwilling or unable to comply with the wikipedia's policy on civility?"

I can't be responsible for the interpretations of others. —72.75.73.158 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care if you continue to make your contributions from anonymous IP addresses, so long as you can comply with the important wikipedia policies the rest of us comply with. But, if you choose not to register so you can get away with breaching the wikipedia's policies, I see that as a very serious problem. Geo Swan 15:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what part of "Schizoaffective Disorder" do you not understand? Please see ...
You want a formal apology, too? Does that look like someone trying to "get away with breaching the wikipedia's policies"?
Go talk to User:Zillionaire about being WP:CIVIL! (Anal about warnings, remember?) ... and please note from the history that I made improvements to Manhattan Mini Storage even after I re-tagged it. —72.75.73.158 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What responsibility do you have for the interpretations of others? What steps should you take to make sure what you really meant is properly understood? IMO, plenty.
When I read your note about Schizoaffective Disorder -- a disorder I had never heard of before, I thought you were joking. If you seriously want people to cut you a break because you have a psychiatric disorder, then you should not phrase your request in a joking manner.
I continue to think that you share with the rest of us a responsibility to do your best to comply with the wikipedia's plicieis, without regard to whether you have a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. Geo Swan 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You've never heard of Manic-Depression? You've never seen Adrian Monk on TV? Humor is just another way of managing and coping with it ... like fiddling around in Wikipedia instead of doing something physically dangerous ... this helps on the days when the only reason I can think of to get out of bed is to jump out the window.
I could just ignore all messages, and never bother with courtesy warnings, but that would also be "uncivil" behavior ... how does trying to get frustrated users the help that they need in an abrupt tone of voice (like my "RTFM" explanation of WP:CORP in Talk:Manhattan Mini Storage, or in User:Zillionaire's response to my {{nn-warn}} tag on their talk page) violate WP:CIVIL?
We all make mistakes ... at least I try to take responsibility for mine by posting warnings and making replies ... that is, if it's possible for me to do it in a timely manner. —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
We all make mistakes. I made a couple — small ones. I mis-read the order of events for Zalmay. You complied with the recommendation that taggers give the article's creator a heads-up when they applied a {{db}}. I mis-read the order of events, and thought you gave me the heads-up for the second, related, similarly questionable tag you applied. My apologies for this error.
Am I expecting you to apologize? Most people can't apologize worth beans. And when coerced or bullied into giving an apology
  1. end up giving an apology that I find so inadequate I would rather they hadn't bothered;
  2. they find apologizing so difficult and emotionally challenging that it triggers fallout that makes those apologies counter-productive.
If, on the other hand, you would like to like to offer me a sincere apology, please go right ahead. But if I had to choose between an apology, and a sincere effort to avoid repeating the mistake I would choose the sincere effort to avoid repeating the mistake.
Yes, I have heard of manic-depressive disorder. No, I had not heard of schizoaffective disorder under that name. You seem to be implying they are the same thing. I am not unsympathetic to your account of having a psychiatric disorder. But I think, at the end of the day, we have to expect wikipedia contributors with mental problems to fully comply with all the same policies, as everyone else.
Candidly Geo Swan 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What would be Really Kewl is if you would provide some feedback on my essay about "What to do when a speedy delete tag is removed" ... it's in my current sandbox, and I'd like to offer it to New pages patrol as a recommended protocol ... I'm sure that you and I would have gotten off to a better start if I had stuck to it more closely ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 07:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using anonymity to evade the consequences of breaches of wp:civ?

After looking at User:72.75.73.158 I decided to leave this note on WP:AN/I.

Your User Page disturbs me. Your confidence that closing admins always take a close enough look at articles nominated for speedy deltion is entirely misplaced. In the last few months I had to waste well over a dozen articles to get allegations that tabligh jamaat has ties to terrorism restored. Speedy tag applied within minutes of creation of the first draft. I applied a {{hangon}} tag, only to find a careless admin had completed the deletion anyhow, in spite of the {{hangon}} tag. I had to waste hours, justifying the undeletion of ththis article, and then I had to waste further hours justifying its merits, because the undeleting admin did not undleted it, but they undeleted it, and sent it to {{afd}}, at the same time.

The only reason that the User page exists is because a registered editor blanked the comments of another editor ... since it had already been created, I took the opportunity to post a message so that I would not have to keep saying "I don't remember what was wrong with your article" to every "Why did you delete my article?" post on the Talk page ... bear in mind that if I had not left a {{nn-warn}} on their page, they wouldn't be trying to contact me in the first place. —72.75.73.158 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way I could agree that the person who placed the tag has no responsibility for the tag, or for deletions that did not comply with policy.

I have had articles nominated for speedy deletion, and actually deleted when neither the person who placed the speedy tag, or the closing admin, bothered to check the page history, and didn't realize that a perfectly valid article had been blanked by a vandal. The closing admin trusted that the tag placer would have checked the history.

Unfortunately the ranks of closing admins contain individuals who do not take their responsibilities sufficiently seriously. Consequently, the rest of us have to exercise more responsibility for our actions.

Sorry about your bad experiences with speedy deletes ... using your sandbox first would help avoid the Newpage Patrol ... posting {{nn-warn}} tags demonstrates my willingness to assume my shared responsibility for Speedy deletions, not evade or avoid it ... if more editors used their sandbox to create better crafted articles before posting them, some zealots wouldn't tag and other zealots wouldn't delete them. —72.75.73.158 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, if you are placing so many {{db}} tags that you can't remember why you placed them, you are placing too many tags. You could, of course, make notes as to why you placed each tag.

I am going to repeat my suggestion that you exercise more caution, and respect for the efforts of others, and use less extreme methods to express your concerns -- like {{prod}}. I think this would be far better for the wikipedia than you continuing your current strategy of placing {{db}} tags -- which I feel is reckless.

The reckless application of {{db}} degrades the trust and collegiality that has, so far, contributed to the wikipedia's success. You wrote that you don't suffer fools gladly? How do you know that it is the other person who is the fool? This is why civility is important. If you think the other person is an idiot, but you confined yourself to civil language, it will be far less embarrassing for you, in those cases wher you later realize that you were in the wrong, and they were in the right. Geo Swan 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

“ For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. ”
 
— II Corinthians 11:19
A manager once wrote "He does not suffer fools gladly" on the same annual performance appraisal in which he recommended my promotion to the next grade ... it's an admission of my lack of patience with what I consider to be anal orifice behavior, and the fact that I often act rude when confronted with what I consider rude behavior.
Please see User talk:Nwilson123 for an example of what I'd call a "fool" ... I put a {{db-nonsense}} on a new page, and an admin deleted it even before I had a chance to put a {{nn-warn}} on the author's talk page (or was it while I was editing the article to add a {{db-repost}} tag?) ... as it turns out, I was not the only one who thought that they were being disruptive, since that user created the same nonsense article under three different names before they were indefinitely blocked.
Yeah, I see so many of those in a 24 hour period that I don't bother to try to remember them, especially considering that over half of them are first-timers (or sockpuppets) who never show up again! —72.75.73.158 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh ... that was pointless ...

Gee, blocked for a week in less than six hours from the complaint ... and not even a warning or a notice on my Talk page!

Now I feel the frustration of victims of a Speedy delete ... like I said, I'll try to keep my Evil Twin away from the keyboard ... now I'll just go back to looking up ISBNs on Amazon, adding {{cite book}} tags, and just stay away from Newpage Patrol ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion with David Gerard (talk · contribs), he decided to unblock you. Please exercise more caution during CSD tagging, and please let new users know about their articles that you have tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thnx to all my supporters for lifting the block ... here's my new IP, and if you'd like, I'll keep the edit trail linked with messages like this for anyone who cares to wikistalk me. Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newbies I have warned

Here is a partial list from my edit history as User:72.75.73.158 on 5 May 2007 ... these are User Talk pages on which I placed {{nn-warn}} tags after placing a {{db}} or {{prod}} on their article ... all but one of them have been deleted ... note that the log starts at 11:18 and ends at 12:22 ... round 64 minutes to one hour ... a "nooner" on Newpage Patrol that I refer to as the Dirty Dozen ...

12:22, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Dufour nathan ({{nn-warn}})
12:05, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Jeff101 ({{nonsensepages}})
12:00, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Ghyfsdjv ({{nn-warn}})
11:58, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Alejandro Dekauve ({{nonsensepages}})
11:57, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Lukeey ({{nonsensepages}})
11:40, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Pmboogie ({{nn-warn}})
11:38, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Hbg1968 ({{nn-warn}})
11:31, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Patrick Lee-Thorp ({{nn-warn}})
11:26, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Alexmok ({{spam-warn}})
11:20, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Paul 1953 ({{empty-warn}})
11:18, 5 May 2007 - User talk:Havereric1 ({{nn-warn-reason}})

I have to explain why some edits are only one minute apart ... I was in the habit of doing 3-5 DB tags, then look at my own edit history in a second browse tab to find the author talk pages and post 3-5 nn-warn tags ... but sometimes, an article would be delete before I could leave the courtesy warning ... now I always (a) check the author's talk page, (b) add the {{db}}, (c) add the {{nn-warn}} ... it kind breaks my rhythm when I'm following a vandal's trail, but it's safer and avoids confusion.

Look at the edit histories of the Dirty Dozen, and you'll see that nearly all of them made no other edits than the deleted article, nor have they returned with that same wiki-id ... that's 12 in a little over an hour, or one every five minutes without a break ... that's only 8 hours to do nearly 100 in a day ... but even if these 12 were the only ones I did that day, why should I remember any of them, and why should I keep track of them? That's one component of OCD ... do it, then move on to the next one as quickly as possible ... what's done is done.

I'll admit it ... if it takes more that three minutes to decide if an article's subject meets WP:A for WP:N, or if it's not obvious WP:SPAM or Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day nonsense, then I leave it alone ... otherwise I start tagging.

If it's a no-brainer, then it takes me less than two minutes to tag it, notify the author, and move on ... a {{db-author}} takes even less time to flag (don't have to warn the author), but often the blanking is the author's response to my previous warning tag on their talk page, so count it as double-time. —68.239.79.82 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

  • Hbg1968 created the same article twice ... Shayne Hayne was CSD tagged by two different editors within an hour of each other (10:57 and 11:38) ... Hbg1968 never replied, and they haven't been heard from since.
  • Paul 1953 created Maxi dial, which I CSD tagged at 11:20 .. another editor did a PROD on Paul 1953's Lorlek at 11:43 ... both were deleted, and Paul 1953 remains silent.
  • Jeff101 speaks for itself ... The nutter party of the united kingdom ... yer basic db-nonsense no-brainer ... 'Nuff Said!
  • Havereric1 created a stub for his college campus paper, The Duquesne Duke ... I tagged it as being {{Unreferenced}} (it didn't even have a URL for the paper's website), put a note in the talk page that the article lacks WP:A to satisfy WP:N, and then waited the same five days that a PROD would have taken to expire ... when I finally did a CSD with the reason:

    No attempt at Attribution to satisfy Notability ... author has made no edits to this article since creation several days ago.

    it was gone within 24 hours, probably because the admin saw my boiler plate courtesy warning about WP:A for WP:N, and compared the dates of the edits ... I never heard from Havereric1.
  • User talk:Patrick Lee-Thorp was a Hasty Mistake on my part ... I saw this version and thought it was just WP:NFT (like so many I'd just tagged) ... I wouldn't have touched Goema if I stumbled across it today ... fortunately, another editor reverted my CSD with the edit comment, "removing speedy tag - A7 does not apply to musical instruments" ... Oops! My bad! ... what a difference a little formatting and the right {{stub}} templates can make!
  • Nwilson123 created National Clapping Association, National Clappers Association, and The National Clapping Association, the last one having been salted to prevent recreation ... this is the kind of behavior that editors and admins assume when they see multiple nn-warns for the same article on a user's talk page ... sometimes that indicates that a DB was removed, and then another editor tagged it a few hours later, unaware of the previous DB and nn-warn because they didn't check the author's talk page first ... in this example, the names were close enough to each other that at first glance it appears to be multiple nn-warns for the same article ... the delete log for the one that was salted shows four incidents between 2007-05-03T18:42:52 ({{db-group}}{{db-repost}}) and 2007-05-04T11:11:21 (CSD G1: Patent Nonsense) ... that's 18 hours between the first speedy delete, salting the page, and giving Nwilson123 an indefinitely block.
  • Zillionaire took Extreme Umbrage with the language of the {{nn-warn}} I put on their talk page after putting {{db-inc}} on Manhattan Mini Storage ...

    I don't like your language young man. Please eject yourself from this website. Zillionaire 12:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    I tried to voice my argument for deletion on Talk:Manhattan Mini Storage instead of Zillionaire's talk page ... I restored a db-inc after they deleted it, and later, when the author had added more links, another editor removed the db-inc, so I just added some {{cite book}} replacements and ISBNs, and Moved On.
  • Backpack45scb did not participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Alcorn (author), probably because they weren't notified ... OTOH, I did a nn-warn for the prods I put on the 3 book articles that had been created ... there were serious WP:COI issues about the subject and the author being the same, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camino Chronicle combined the three in one debate, and revealed that Backpack45scb was the Susan Alcorn's husband and publisher, not Susan Alcorn herself as suspected ... anyway, we went from prod to AfD within days of the original closure, so five articles (there was a disambiguation page to zap) in 2 AfDs ... but did it happen Too Fast? Would more time have made a difference? Will the author create a new article that integrates the four that were deleted?
Re the Susan Alcorn example. Yes it did happen too fast. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. I felt that whoever made the final decision to delete did not read all the articles and their associated talk pages, or they would have at least waited until the PMA awards were presented. As far as a consolidated Susan Alcorn article, at this point I truly don't know if this would be considered some sort of repeat offense, or as I think, a valid contribution. --Backpack45scb 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
All I can do is suggest that you create a sandbox (read WP:User page#How do I create a user subpage?), take a stab at it, and ask other editors for comments/suggestions before you try posting it again as a work-in-progress that the new pages patrol will tag for deletion before you can finish it ... be sure to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Plot summary, and Wikipedia:Notability (books) before you start ... you could ask one of the admins involved in the deletion to restore them as subpages under your account so that you'll have them and their citations to use in creating the merged article ... leave messages on several of their Talk pages asking if they think it would be a Bad Idea or not.
BTW, User talk:68.239.79.97#alcorn's books may have escaped your notice (that's the IP account that I was using a month ago) ... after this 72.75. account was blocked for WP:NPP activities, I have tried to develop some protocols to make the speedy deletion process a bit less hasty, which is why this section of examples is here in the first place ... at the moment, I'm up to my cojones in a situation documented at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich (you'll have to scroll down to near the end of the TOC to find a direct link to it) involving an editor who created articles about himself, his wife, the novel he wrote, and his publisher <Heavy Sigh!> ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 17:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing db-nouser tag

Fascinating ... 65.219.235.164 (talk · contribs) placed a {{db-nouser}} on User:72.75.73.158 without any edit summary at 07:24, 10 May 2007.

Well, since I did not create the page (see the edit history), then I guess I can remove the CSD tag ... especially in light of the fact that there are still active discussions occurring on this talk page. —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Hi 72,

I'm not sure what's going on, but please remain civil at all times. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)