User talk:KingNewbs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Speedy deletion
As Shadowmoon told you, please stop adding speedy delete tags where they don't belong. I've removed yours from Daydream Island — the information on there comes from reputable sources and is not advertising. If you disagree, take it to AFD, but please be more careful with these tags. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Where they don't belong? That's not how editing works. You're free to delete them just as I'm free to add them. If there's no consensus (as in this case) then it might go to AfD, but this particular page has never been up for deletion, I checked. It looks like an ad to me. You disagree, so now maybe I take another look, or maybe I don't worry about it at all, but there's certainly nothing prohibiting me from bringing up the option in the first place -- I don't care how long the page has been around or how reputable the source might be. Shadowmoon's removal of the speedy tags was a clear violation of the speedy delete guidelines. He could have contested it with holdon or put up the inuse tag. I'll worry about being more careful when you can demonstrate I've gone off mission somehow. -- KingNewbs (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you have that wrong, KingNewbs. You are abusing the twinkle application, and run the risk of either having your privilege of using it revoked, or being blocked for abuse. Slow down. You have 200 edits, and about half of them are from today. Jeffpw (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your edit to Jonathan Gruber has been mentioned in a discussion of Twinkle usage at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You are welcome to join the discussion and add your opinion there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you have that wrong, KingNewbs. You are abusing the twinkle application, and run the risk of either having your privilege of using it revoked, or being blocked for abuse. Slow down. You have 200 edits, and about half of them are from today. Jeffpw (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Overtagging
Just a friendly note about overtagging. {{unreferenced}}, {{primarysources}}, and {{refimprove}} are all variations of the same problem, and rarely should all three be used in the same article as you did in Custom safety signs. It might be best to just pick the one that best describes the problem (in this case, {{unreferenced}} describes the problem perfectly), and go with just that one. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Jonathan Gruber
Hello KingNewbs. Can you please removed Speedy deletion tag from the biography of Jonathan Gruber? He is one of the raising economist in the World and a professor at MIT. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Another admin then myself already removed it--like all admins she knew that such an article even the way it was when you tagged it [1] is not conceivably a speedy. Saying someone is a full professor at MIT is an assertion of notability. It just has to be an assertion to escape speedy. When you doubt notability, use PROD or AfD. But I would advise you not to do it here because there is not a chance that he would not be found notable almost immediately by WP:SNOW. If you had checked the CV you would have found he is a member of the Institute of Medicine, part of the US National Academies, and therefore unquestionably notable. and, about your comment on the article talk page: a full professor at MIT is not a mere "employee" of the university. Before you do more speedy tagging, read WP:CSD. Any assertion of notability passes speedy. It doesn't even have to be documented. DGG (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe my own efforts to establish notability speak for themselves with regard to this page. My idea of notability was a little bit different than what some others consider notable for this article, and based on this lack of consensus I've modified how I tag articles. My personal opinion is: being an employee of any university, regardless of its prestige, is not necessarily criteria for notability, but this is obviously a minority view. And there is sufficient external evidence for Mr. Gruber, anyway, which makes my opinion a non-issue in this case. I did not realize the {{notability}} tag (I'm assuming this is what you referred to, Masterpiece2000, since my earlier speedy delete tag was removed a day before your post) was also part of the speedy delete process; I'll be more discerning in my usage of it in the future. Thanks! -- KingNewbs (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another admin then myself already removed it--like all admins she knew that such an article even the way it was when you tagged it [1] is not conceivably a speedy. Saying someone is a full professor at MIT is an assertion of notability. It just has to be an assertion to escape speedy. When you doubt notability, use PROD or AfD. But I would advise you not to do it here because there is not a chance that he would not be found notable almost immediately by WP:SNOW. If you had checked the CV you would have found he is a member of the Institute of Medicine, part of the US National Academies, and therefore unquestionably notable. and, about your comment on the article talk page: a full professor at MIT is not a mere "employee" of the university. Before you do more speedy tagging, read WP:CSD. Any assertion of notability passes speedy. It doesn't even have to be documented. DGG (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Xmas Ham
I reverted changes made to Christmas ham article. There is a new user who has very definite opinions about ham, who made some radical changes to text of article, which I assume is why you tagged it with OR tag. If thats not the case, please feel free to retag (as I do not have opinions about holiday related pork). I hope this makes sense. Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
