Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

/Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please review the talk page for this article

• New Content*

Hey there. Thanks for the polite response and explanation. Also i will take into account your suggestion. Thank you! Weslem27 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, first I think you are doing a great job patrolling new pages. However as a fellow new page patroller can I offer a couple of suggestions? First, after you patrol a page click "mark as patrolled" so others will know you have patrolled it (Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages). Also, a couple of the pages you marked for "notability" I think were really candidates for speedy deletion (e.g. Subkips, freequal) Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Anyway that's just my opinion, have a great day!! laurap414 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten what the link to the new template was. I Googled the text and it came back as having belonged to a record company; I threw on that speedy just as a temporary measure. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help on this Voodoo page issue? I think a bot has gone into over drive and I am not entirely sure what is necessary to do.

I created a disambiguation page and sort out some links.

Thanks --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this would save you time and effort, by all means, I'll sign off on it. I can't say that this one comes up frequently in my experience of pages tagged for speedy deletion, but it does come up every couple of days -- and probably the reason why I don't experience it personally more often is that I lazily tend to pick the low-hanging fruit of obvious pages to delete. At any rate, it seems logical, useful and time-saving; I'm for it. If there's something I can do to help you with this process any further, or a specific place for me to register my approval, just let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology and consider this the end of the matter. On the other topic (copyright), I know copyright can be tricky, but the Wiki project does have some fairly decent pages explaining it. Let me know if you want help finding anything. Cbdorsett (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted my article without giving me any way of improving it based on another users false claims about reasons why it should be deleted. Many other articles are currently and have been in far worse violation of wikipedia's requirements, yet they remain untouched. --Shaddyz (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I listed for deletion an article that contained only a deletion tag and had no edit history. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was the one who originally added the speedy tag, and was in the process of replacing it with a PROD tag. However, the article got deleted in the meantime, so my edit ended up re-creating the article, with only the tag. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do not know who deleted it nor can I access any history. Luckily I copied the contents to a file on my computer. What can be done at this point? --Shaddyz (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user: Oli Filth seems to be targeting me, he is also trying to remove a logo I uploaded. And why aren't he administrators thoroughly reading the discussion and providing the author with feedback before deleting articles? --Shaddyz (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Targetting" you? You mean, by nominating the now-orphaned image for deletion?

As for what to do with the article, you could try re-creating it once you've located appropriate sources that demonstrate the subject's notability (see the Wiki policies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N). Alternatively, you can work on it in your user-space (see WP:UP#SUB) until it's ready to be reintroduced to the article space. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo you uploaded is listed for deletion for a very simple reason: the page does not say who owns the copyright of that image.

As for deciding whether or not you should recreate the page, may I direct you to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Spam.

My article should not have been deleted while articles such as this are acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claroline and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KEWL.nextgen. As for the logo, the page did say copyright 2007-2008 Learning.net, the fact that you are not looking is no reason for deletion, the copyright notice is also listed on the website from where it came. Furthermore, deletion is not the solution, the solution is to solve the issue. --Shaddyz (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My bad. The logo is listed for deletion because it is an orphaned non-free image. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, that brings me back to the beginning that the article should not have been so quickly deleted when the person who tagged it admits that it just needed better sources. And there are hundreds if not thousands of articles here with absolutely no sources that are not being removed. Why not remove them all? --Shaddyz (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did the article have no independent sources, it didn't in any way assert the notability of the subject. A Google search revealed practically nothing, indicating that a verifiable assertion of notability would have been hard to achieve.

Incidentally, "similar stuff exists" isn't a justification for an article's existence (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It's true that the articles you cited above are equally unreferenced, but that's a matter for their respective talk pages. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not justifying my article. My point is to show to you that you have ignored other articles, but insist on removing mine even though I was making much more of an attempt to be factual and unbiased in the article in the intention of informing interested people about the software. I would really appreciate you helping rather than inhibiting my contributions. What benefit do you get from my article being deleted? --Shaddyz (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article because Learning management system was on my WP:Watchlist. I nominated it for deletion because I was fairly sure that no verifiable reference for notability would be found. Oli Filth^(talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, for the sake of your integrity, you are obligated to request that every other article about a learning management system which does not meet wikipedia requirements be deleted. --Shaddyz (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]