User talk:86.20.169.102

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (86.20.169.102) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Closedmouth (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not remove prod tags without an explanation or at least a good faith effort to greatly improve an article. Benjiboi 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I now see that you did indeed add two "further reading" entries. As a suggestion it would have been more clear if you had stated "adding books" or something besides "This is the correct tag". Benjiboi 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanations aren't mandatory for the removal of PROD tags. That's not how the system is intended to work. The removal of the tag by anyone is an implicit contest of the deletion. What you should be thinking about is not putting PROD tags on stubs in the first place. That's not how stubs grow. And this edit by you is completely unacceptable. You're obviously one of the many Wikipedians who erroneously thinks that anything at all done by anyone without an account is automatically bad faith. I suggest that you stop misguidedly asking other people to cease hindering your efforts to delete the encyclopaedia and that you take your own advice and start making an effort to improve articles yourself. Because it's you whose actions aren't bettering Wikipedia. You seem to think that tagging stubs for deletion, repeatedly, somehow magically improves them. The edit summary was the right one. It was the correct kind of tag. The next time that you happen upon a stub, tag it as a stub, or expand it. That is what improves Wikipedia. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I reverted myself as soon as I saw that I had indeed reverted content and not vandalism. It was an error on my part, I apologize. Secondly, I hardly am about deleting the encyclopedia and my track record easily attests to that. As my prod tag stated there was only two sentences, I felt (and still do) that both sentences and your two additional books under "further reading" can be incorporated into an existing article. If the material grows from there into its own article then great. Also I hardly have been "tagging stubs for deletion, repeatedly" if you have evidence to support that assertion please enlighten me. I stand by my statement that removing a tag with your edit summary didn't help as you actually weren't adding a more correct tag as your summary suggested and this wouldn't have become an issue had you simply noted you were adding books or content. Happy editing. Benjiboi 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish! I added a tag. It was more correct. Look at the edit properly. The edit summary was quite correct, and the reason that this is an issue is actually nothing to do with me at all. It's your incorrect grasp of how to develop articles that is the problem. This would never have become an issue if you had not been tagging stubs for deletion, repeatedly, in the first place. Deletion isn't the way to merge articles in any case. You don't have a good grasp of how to merge articles, either. Moreover, if you think that the article can be incorporated into an existing article, then you've clearly made no effort to see what more can be written about the subject, to think about what the stub can be grown into. The further reading is there for you to read further. You're also supposed to go and find out by yourself what more stuff can be added. Articles such as these are stubs, for heaven's sake! They aren't complete articles, yet. You need to learn what a stub is, you need to learn how articles grow, and you need to stop being a house inspector. You're going around knocking down articles before they are built and assuming that every edit made by someone without an account is vandalism. People doing what you are doing are bad for Wikipedia. They stifle article growth and they drive away those who, according to most surveys, actually do most of the real work of writing the encyclopaedia. Correct your behaviour and correct your approach to people who don't use accounts. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations are duly noted. Benjiboi 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Arbonne International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arbonne International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbonne International. Thank you. Argyriou (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Parliamentary inquiries by the Belgian Federal Parliament

An article that you have been involved in editing, Parliamentary inquiries by the Belgian Federal Parliament, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliamentary inquiries by the Belgian Federal Parliament. Thank you. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Royal progress

An article that you have been involved in editing, Royal progress, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal progress. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)