TreacherousWays
There is nothing to discuss.
Paternity Testing Corporation edit
Just to let you know, I've removed your speedy deletion tag from Paternity Testing Corporation because it isn't "Blatant spam" and contains a sufficient claim of importance to pass WP:A7. If you still believe that the page should be deleted then by all means take it to WP:AfD because I guarantee that deletion of this page will be too controversial for a PROD.--Mrmatiko (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I may follow through, though I think I'm done with patrolling for a while. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, I can appreciate that there is quite a bit of ambiguity in the CSD criteria and several strange seeming exceptions (particularly within the importance criteria) so it isn't really a big problem. The only issue with getting it wrong is that it can scare some new contributors off. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that I misinterpreted the criteria or that I got it wrong; I'm as confident of my assessment as you are of yours, and I still feel that the article could have been deleted for either spam or notability without issue. It was a new article on a for-profit organization that emerged fully-formed from a SPA. I think that it is part of a group of articles that are mutually supporting and placed on wikipedia for promotional purposes. Unless, that is, you assert that a "newcomer" threw together an infobox and formatted wikilinks, bulleted lists, references, and external links on their first try. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- They submitted it through Articles for Creation and it was approved by another editor. They received a fair amount of assistance from multiple people from the AfC project. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was uanaware of the assistance, and might have hesistated asserting speedy had I known. Nonetheless, and with all due respect to your opinion and those of the reviewers and the article creator, I stand by my assertion. As with other things, I know it when I see it. It doesn't mean that I'm right, merely that I know my opinion. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- A brief review of the AfC process suggests to me that the other editor wasn't too impressed by the subject of the article, either " ... (Declining submission: subject appears to be a non-notable company or organization) ... edit history TreacherousWays (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is indeed true, the article was rejected twice after which User:DNATESTER improved it with the help of AfC project members. I'm not denying that appears to be a conflict of interest on the part of the editor, or that this article needs some work (including with neutral point of view. I'm not even denying that it could be a candidate for deletion. However "blatant spam" it is not because it wouldn't have passed the review; and there is a credible claim of importance: "collection center network of over 2500 centers in the United States, and more worldwide" preventing WP:A7 from applying. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- A brief review of the AfC process suggests to me that the other editor wasn't too impressed by the subject of the article, either " ... (Declining submission: subject appears to be a non-notable company or organization) ... edit history TreacherousWays (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was uanaware of the assistance, and might have hesistated asserting speedy had I known. Nonetheless, and with all due respect to your opinion and those of the reviewers and the article creator, I stand by my assertion. As with other things, I know it when I see it. It doesn't mean that I'm right, merely that I know my opinion. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- They submitted it through Articles for Creation and it was approved by another editor. They received a fair amount of assistance from multiple people from the AfC project. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that I misinterpreted the criteria or that I got it wrong; I'm as confident of my assessment as you are of yours, and I still feel that the article could have been deleted for either spam or notability without issue. It was a new article on a for-profit organization that emerged fully-formed from a SPA. I think that it is part of a group of articles that are mutually supporting and placed on wikipedia for promotional purposes. Unless, that is, you assert that a "newcomer" threw together an infobox and formatted wikilinks, bulleted lists, references, and external links on their first try. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, I can appreciate that there is quite a bit of ambiguity in the CSD criteria and several strange seeming exceptions (particularly within the importance criteria) so it isn't really a big problem. The only issue with getting it wrong is that it can scare some new contributors off. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I may follow through, though I think I'm done with patrolling for a while. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposed merge edit
Please see the discussion at Talk:Straight_pride#Proposed_merge. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice; your good faith does not go unremarked. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Complaint edit
Someone forgot to tell you that they were complaining about you in a venue. [1], so I thought I would let you know. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:The Plants Music/sandbox edit
A tag has been placed on User:The Plants Music/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)