| Revision as of 09:59, 6 July 2009 editFrei Hans (talk | contribs)743 edits →Verbal's disruption← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:41, 6 July 2009 edit undoDangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits →A Bit of Advice: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| I am happy to userfy the page for you for further work if you like. You can then show someone that substantial improvements have been made before returning to mainspace. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | I am happy to userfy the page for you for further work if you like. You can then show someone that substantial improvements have been made before returning to mainspace. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | ::Thanks. ] (]) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == A Bit of Advice == | |||
| From some of the concerns of other users, and a quick review of some of your edits, I would like to give some advice ... otherwise, I expect an ] will be filed against you shortly by a number of editors. | |||
| * ] is the most important tenet of Misplaced Pages. Failure do AGF is considered ] | |||
| * An approved definition of ] has been accepted by the community. Only edits/actions that specifically meet the meanings provided in that definition can ever be called vandalism. You should note that content disputes do '''not''' fall in this category. Calling something vandalism that is not vandalism is considered ]. | |||
| * Accusing someone of being a ] is a violation of ]. The general rule is to either ] or shut up | |||
| * Misplaced Pages has a clear ]. Acting in a one-sided manner is not working collaboratively, which is contrary to the goals of this project. | |||
| If you believe that you have a failure to be able to work within these guidelines, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not for you...all of the above violations could result in blocks. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:41, 6 July 2009
Welcome!
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Frei Hans! I am Call me Bubba and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Call me Bubba (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Theodore Kowal
I have restored the former article to User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal for your improvement.--Aervanath (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Within an hour or so of moving the material back to Theodore Kowal it was deleted again. Is it usual to restore content to a user page? It might have been better to restore it to the main page with an admin note to avoid such a speedy second deletion. Frei Hans (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is quite normal to move material that is not yet suitable for use as an encyclopaedia article to user space so that a user can improve it. See Misplaced Pages:Userfication for details. The article in its previous form was deleted after a week long discussion. It cannot simply be moved back into the main encyclopaedia until all the issues have been resolved. See the speedy deletion criteria for an explanation of why it was deleted again. Papa November (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok but I was not the user who created the article - I only questioned the article's deletion. Now the article has been deleted again, after I moved it from my user space back to Theodore Kowal where I thought more users would be able to access and improve it. If the person exists or existed, and if he did not create the article about himself, then in my opinion the article is valid. Also, why are you and Verbal hanging around every time I login? Frei Hans (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Once an article has been deleted, then recreation isn't permitted until the issues have been addressed. Any user (not just the original author) can request a copy of the deleted content and work on it in their own user space. After the improvements have been made, then it can be moved back into the main encyclopaedia. Admins are allowed to delete recreated articles on sight unless the improvements have already been made. Papa November (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok but I was not the user who created the article - I only questioned the article's deletion. Now the article has been deleted again, after I moved it from my user space back to Theodore Kowal where I thought more users would be able to access and improve it. If the person exists or existed, and if he did not create the article about himself, then in my opinion the article is valid. Also, why are you and Verbal hanging around every time I login? Frei Hans (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is quite normal to move material that is not yet suitable for use as an encyclopaedia article to user space so that a user can improve it. See Misplaced Pages:Userfication for details. The article in its previous form was deleted after a week long discussion. It cannot simply be moved back into the main encyclopaedia until all the issues have been resolved. See the speedy deletion criteria for an explanation of why it was deleted again. Papa November (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Userfying pages
Hans Frei, I am happy to userfy the page for you for further work if you like. You can then show someone that substantial improvements have been made before returning to mainspace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Frei Hans (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A Bit of Advice
From some of the concerns of other users, and a quick review of some of your edits, I would like to give some advice ... otherwise, I expect an WP:RFC/U will be filed against you shortly by a number of editors.
- Assume good faith is the most important tenet of Misplaced Pages. Failure do AGF is considered disruptive
- An approved definition of vandalism has been accepted by the community. Only edits/actions that specifically meet the meanings provided in that definition can ever be called vandalism. You should note that content disputes do not fall in this category. Calling something vandalism that is not vandalism is considered disruptive.
- Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is a violation of the no public attacks policy. The general rule is to either put up or shut up
- Misplaced Pages has a clear dispute resolution process. Acting in a one-sided manner is not working collaboratively, which is contrary to the goals of this project.
If you believe that you have a failure to be able to work within these guidelines, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not for you...all of the above violations could result in blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)