Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wifione (talk | contribs) at 11:18, 8 November 2010 (→Only warning with respect to your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Timneu22/reply here

Archives

Archive 1

Trilegal

One would imagine that you would Google the subject of the page atleast once as a courtesy to your fellow editors before slapping a CSD tag on the page. Telco (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell me, how would that help this article about an unremarkable company? — Timneu22 · talk 11:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and hey, looks like your 20 edits really makes you an expert around here. — Timneu22 · talk 11:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate you 'cause you put that notice on my RadComic page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob191 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources available for this firm. I suggest that you remove the tag while I expand the article and make those reliable and independently verifiable sources available. Then you can decide for yourself whether the article deserves to be speedily deleted. Telco (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional info: Law firms based in India are not permitted by the Bar Council to advertise or solicit clients, and that is why most of them do not have a fully functional website. Telco (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article does not assert any significance or importance and lacks reliable sources. It clearly qualifies under A7. It's not my job "to google" new articles. Even if I did, show me where there's any indication that this company is significant or important. — Timneu22 · talk 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you are the one who is patrolling the website for speedy-deletion candidates it is clearly your job to check whether reliable sources exist or not before tagging the page. A simple Google search yields over 21,000 hits and a large number of them lead to reliable news websites and links to websites like Legal500, ILFR and Who's Who Legal.

And since I am the n00b here, aren't you supposed to give me some time before tagging the page for speedy deletion? How will I ever get to "assert any significance or importance" and add "reliable sources" if busybodies like yourself are too quick to tag my work? I have wasted enough time here and I request you once again to remove the tag for a few hours. Please feel free to add it back if you feel that the subject firm still should not have an article on Misplaced Pages. Telco (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was already deleted, and properly. If you actually think that company is significant, work on the article in your userspace, then ask someone for help before posting it. Just because someone thinks a company is notable does not make the company notable. — Timneu22 · talk 12:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Slow down please. I speedy deleted the article as you have seen. The original editor provided some more information and sources that may assert notability. Moving a new article back to user space just because you do not agree is not the way. If you see problems with an article you can try to fix them, or tag the article for enhancement, or if warranted tag it for speedy deletion, proposed Deletion or Articles for Deletion listing. Having an edit or a move war and biting new editors is not the way. Please assume good faith and try to help or guide the newcomer. Thanks for your attention. -- Alexf 19:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked the user to get another opinion before posting. He did not. — Timneu22 · talk 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. If he does not respond to your satisfaction, tag the article. It does not help anybody, least of all the encyclopedia to have an edit war. -- Alexf 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no edit war. I simply moved the page back, hoping that it can be made better before posting. I didn't want to tag with AfD right away, because that's not as nice. — Timneu22 · talk 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop revert-warring, Timneu22. Discuss your edits on the talk page of the article first. Telco (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wuds

I have removed the speedy deletion tag on Wuds as the article does make a "credible assertion of notability" as "the first -- and most influential -- punk rock bands in the Philippines." You may not agree with the assertion, and are therefore free to take the article to AFD, but the assertion is made, which disqualifies the article for speedy deletion. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem credible. I could write about my uncle and say "he's the most influential american of all time." Is that credible? — Timneu22 · talk 12:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you wrote that "<insert unknown name here> was the most influential American of all time", then no, that would not be credible because it is fairly likely that the readers of the English Misplaced Pages would recognize the name of the most famous American of all time. However, if I write that "<insert unknown name here> was the most influential American ethnographer of all time" that is a credible assertion because the general population probably does not have a great deal of knowledge about notable ethnographers. Similarly in this case, the general English-speaking population does not have a great deal of knowledge about the Philippine punk rock music scene, so it is not fair to simply dismiss such an assertion based on our own lack of knowledge of the field. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deeproute

re: Speedy Deletion. Do you approve of the changes so far? Do you have input so I can continue to improve to meet standards? Thanks! q (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Element 173

Actually not a hoax, as shown in the article to which I have redirected Element 173. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess. I'm aware of the periodic table's current status (around 117) and the island of stability, but this article seemed to be worded in a nonsensical way to me. I had not heard about 173 before, oddly. Not a problem, thanks for the fix. — Timneu22 · talk 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bernard codd

Hello Timneu22. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bernard codd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD/Jan Goossenaerts

If you honestly think I seem to care about my image far more than you do, I mentioned your image only in passing. It's your choice if you don't care about your image; I can't force you, I'm not your mother. No need to get hot-headed over this. Kindly take the time to read this, this, and this.

Your remarks were extremely disrespectful and disruptive to those who are sensitive to the use of vulgarities. You may feel that the use of such language makes you look cool and fit in, but on Misplaced Pages, it sure as hell doesn't. You said, "what's the damn big deal?" It is you who is making a mountain out of a molehill here. I already requested you stop and you are here, overreacting and getting hot-headed over a mere typo. Instead of being defensive, you should learn to keep your head down and accept what others tell you. Everybody makes mistakes, that's all right; however, it's a mistake in itself for those who are clearly in the wrong to start getting defensive and hot-headed.

If you have anything to say, take it to my talk page.Brendan (talk, contribs) 07:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We've never met before but you're my new hero. I hereby award you 1000 non-redeemable, nontransferrable points. Offer may not be available in all jurisdictions. Void where prohibited by law. Some settling may have occurred during shipmnent. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but it seems I don't know any jurisdictions where it hasn't been prohibited by law. :) — Timneu22 · talk 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Only warning with respect to your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts

Calling Sarah Palin an idiot as you did at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts goes against our BLP policy. Kindly consider this as your only warning as you may be blocked if you continue making uncivil comments against living persons. Kindly refrain from making such comments on living persons, unless properly referenced and in context. Regards. Wifione _.......

I have requested for a peer review of this warning at the Admin noticeboard . Kindly address the issues clearly before deleting this warning. Regards. Wifione _....... 11:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem is with "only warning" as opposed to a general warning. It's incredibly over the top. — Timneu22 · talk 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly ok with rescinding the warning (BLP issues cause and generate such only warnings) as long as you do assure me that you will attempt to refrain using such humour to refer to living persons. Regards. Wifione _....... 11:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Since no harm was intended, and I'm obviously a long-time user with a history of patrolling vandalism and new pages, your warning was waaay over the top. It was a one-time comment, and I don't appreciate your reaction to it. — Timneu22 · talk 11:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'll assume good faith here and trust you will not make such statements again. Feel free to remove the warning note from this page. Please do note that now and in the near future, being an involved administrator, I personally will not take any administrative action against you (one reason for the Peer review) but will involve other administrators (which I believe will not be required given your general neutral behaviour). Regards Wifione _....... 11:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)