User talk:Davidmwilliams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newcastle Meetup
Customs House, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia Newcastle Meetup
Next: TBA
Last: 16/06/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] user:Davidmwilliams

User Peripitus, having more power than his reasoning abilities merit, posted this:

Hi David, I've moved your autobiographical article to your user page as in the main article space it would be soon deleted. Checkout the above links or drop me a note about why this would happen... hope you stay here and happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 10:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Next, user Snowball came and criticised some edits before realising they were Peripitus failing to clean up his spurious deletions:

ok i see some-one else did it? we're not generally supposed to edit other users talk pages, but those categories and the stub are only supposed to be for articles. my apologies, ben  ⇒ bsnowball  14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked:

Peripitus and Snowball, I wish you guys would actually explain why you modify and delete my stuff rather than just doing it and leaving cryptic messages.

Peripitus replied:

Can do... I moved your article on yourself out of the main space (where all encyclopedia articles live) to your user page which is where you are encouraged (within limits) to talk about yourself. If I'd left the article in the main space it would have been deleted quickly under the speedy deletion criteria as not asserting any particular notability. This is not to say that you are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article to be written but, as written, the article would have joined the hundreds per day that get deleted. Snowball's comment is about removing categories (like [[Category:Living people|Williams, David M.]]) as these are only used in the main article space. Wikipedia:Notability (people) - is a good page to read through as to the type of biography articles that are kept.... and the type that are not. I hope this explains enough - Peripitus (Talk) 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied:

6-April-2007: Thank you for the clarification but I am disappointed. The article I was contributing does meet criteria listed on that page. Unfortunately one of you just simply decided to delete it before I could really put much detail on there.

[edit] SKILLED Group

6-April-2007: Moderators at it again ..... I created an article on SKILLED Group, Australia's largest player in the recruitment industry. No sooner had I made it than someone decides to flag it for deletion because it doesn't contain enough information yet. WTF? I'm trying to contribute to the body of knowledge but moderators keep making knee-jerk decisions. (Mind you, the talk page for the person in question - Brichcja - seems to have a history of doing this, based on their talk page.

Is the key to Wikipedia to write the whole damn thing in Notepad and only then load it onto the site? I believed the idea was to get the article started and then build it up, allowing others to contribute? I feel very disappointed with my recent experiences with Wikipedia. It seems moderators are trigger happy when they see a new article with just a paragraph or two and don't even care the person is still online making edits.

Yep, I apologise for being a bit speedy with the speedy tag. Don't worry about it; just keep editing the article and you'll be fine. If they're as major as you say, it'll fail the speedy test. Chris 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
David - I've fixed the reference for this one. The speedy tag appears to be a misunderstanding of the criteria. $1.4Billion, 2000 employees is hardly no assertion of importance. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Above Peripitus acknowledges the entity has a claim to importance, but I believe it has more importance due to it being the market leader in its field. Nevertheless, obviously, there is more text to come. I find it remarkable moderators think unless the very first line is some sort of subjective evidence of importance that the piece will be deleted immediately. We're talking about a major Australian employer here which brought about the rise of casual blue-collar labour within the country and has been significant in many unionised labour debates. In actuality there are some 15,000 field employees in addition to the 2,000 staff. You'll see Brichcja flagged the article for deletion within 16 minutes of my creating it. Additionally, if that article should be flagged for deletion then you should delete Kelly Services and Manpower Inc. too. Indeed, you should also delete David M. Williams (Canadian) and Adelaide High School. The criteria seem completely subjective and arbitrary and unjust.

Frankly, I'm finding Wikipedia's moderators quite unconduicive to building a comprehensive user-contributed knowledge base which is what I had mistakenly presumed Wikipedia to be. This is contrary to The Wikipedia policy on perfection. Perhaps Peripitus and Brichcja might like to re-familiarise themselves with this policy.

[edit] Newcastle Wikipedia meetup?

There's only four of us. Do we want to get together sometime? Please reply at my talk page ==One Salient Oversight 07:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date for Meetup needed

Can you please go back to Wikipedia:Meetup/Newcastle and indicate in the relevant section a preferred date. If you haven't done so already, could you also suggest a meeting place like a restaurant or cafe?

--One Salient Oversight 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newc Meet One

Hi David, can you just confirm here whether you can come or not? Thanks. --One Salient Oversight 00:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: It's on. --One Salient Oversight 11:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2clix.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2clix.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)