Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Mattghali, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of IBM Secure Blue, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A previous version of the page exists which is not unambiguous promotion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Thank you for the incredibly quick response on IBM_Secure_Blue. While the previous version has less blatant advertising copy on it, the copy that remains, and the references are both clearly promotional. As it is, wouldn't the article be a candidate for deletion anyway based on a lack of information? I'm not partial either way on this subject at all, but curious in the process and criteria in content evaluations. (And I hope I've put my reply into the right place!) Mattghali (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi there! First, discussions are easier to read when they're properly 'threaded', and this involves putting a colon : in front of your paragraph(s) when replying to someone. If they respond to you, they'll add an additional colon in their reply, and so on down as the replies progress. That way, if someone else joins the conversation, you'll know who they're replying to based on the position of their reply. I've fixed this section so you know what I mean. Second, I've left you a "welcome" message below which has a bunch of useful links you can follow to help make your participation easier.
Regarding your question about the article, it looks like someone else has already taken a try at improving it. At the moment, it certainly doesn't look promotional to me -- just because an article is about a product doesn't make it promotional, as long as the wording is neutral and free of "peacock terms".
Please feel free to ask if you have any additional questions! —Darkwind (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for the patience and pointers to where I can get started learning more. I generally try to familiarize myself a bit more with a site before jumping in; but the breadth of information here is a bit overwhelming - definitely a situation where tons of answers are available; as soon as one figures out which questions to ask. :) I think that aside from the great beginner's links you've shared, I'm going to start paying much more attention to Talk pages, to get a better feel for how everyone works together (or tries to!). Thanks again and have a great day. Mattghali (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good idea! Just don't be surprised if you encounter a lot of article talk pages that don't have much or any activity on them; not every article is either contentious enough or busy enough to require discussion.
As for your use of the {{talkback}} template, you've got the concept right, but the execution is a little off. Generally, just add a new one as a new section at the bottom of the target editor's talk page, so they can tell it's a new message and not someone tinkering with the last one. I had to go look at the diff to figure out where you'd made the change on my talk page today. Not a big deal, but since you asked... —Darkwind (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Darkwind (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Generally, just add a new one as a new section at the bottom of the target editor's talk page, so they can tell it's a new message and not someone tinkering with the last one. I had to go look at the diff to figure out where you'd made the change on my talk page today. Not a big deal, but since you asked... 
—Darkwind (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
