Some cookies to welcome you!  

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mission fleg! I am Triwbe and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! 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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! triwbe (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of GeoSmartEdit

You've added a speedy deletion tag to GeoSmart within seconds of me creating the article, and while I am actually still editing it. I'd appreciate a little more time to flesh it out before you try to delete it for not being notable. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry about that.  Maybe use the {{underconstruction}} template till its ready ?
   See also, [Construction]

Mission Fleg (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Xbox Live ProductionsEdit

You can't be serious, can you? Literally two seconds after I create a page you've tagged it for deletion. I doubt you could've even read the page in such a short amount of time. It's clearly not a vandalized page and Microsoft is obviously a notable company so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Before you start deleting pages, at least give the editors more than two seconds to expand the content. People like you make me not want to even bother contributing to Wikipedia anymore. SeanMooney (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"two seconds" - if its under construction the help pages say to use the underconstruction template or to create it in your sandbox first dont they? "doubt you can read a page" - if its only 4 lines long, then yes i can. as to microsoft being "notable" i didnt think that was enough to justify it, given there werent any refs or anything. so i tagged it, if you disagree then (as it says) add a holdon template and let the process continue on its merry way. Mission Fleg (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion patrol.Edit

Please slow down and give the users time to develop their articles. For example, have a look at this. You tagged an article the instant it was created. Please look over the speedy deletion policy before continuing. Best, Steve Crossin Contact/24 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the problem with slowing down is that you end up wasting your time cos someone will always beat you to it, at least thats what happens to me. i started off slowly, indeed, before i had twinkle privileges i tried adding the templates by hand but i was always too slow, someone always got there first. even now, using twinkle, i'm still often not fast enough. if new pages really should be given longer before being patrolled then the solution is to delay the new pages feed by an hour or a day or whatever, cos at the moment its setup so that you basically have to be fast in responding. take a look at the log, pages are constantly being tagged within seconds. or have i misinterpreted whats going on? Mission Fleg (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletion patrol is never a race. Don't look at it that way. Here's how I look at things. If you're doing a task such as CSD patrol, or recent changes patrol, you will get "beaten" a lot. The fact that new articles that are created, that their notability is in question, you should generally give them a grace period for the article to assert notability. Tagging an article for deletion instantly after it is created is most discouraging to new users who create articles, and does often drive these new contributors away. I'm also concerned that you aren't fully familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion policy, schools are not deletable under the speedy deletion policy, but they may be sent to AFD, yet I noticed yesterday you tagged one for deletion. It was deleted anyway, but the point is, the fact that something has been done wrong by others does not make it correct. Two wrongs don't make it right, as they say. It might benefit you if you started an article, you generally get the feeling of how others feel, and just how hard it is to write an article from scratch (its hard). Best, Steve Crossin Contact/24 03:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, my suggestion is that you try WRITING an article instead of your "contribution" being the deletion of other's articles. Continuation of this pattern of activity will certainly result in a vandalism warning. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
my contribution is not the "deleting" of articles, i merely propose candidates for deletion, someone else does the deleting. i am using the process as its described and set up, i didnt invent it. if you want to propose that people can not do this until they have written a certain number of articles, go right ahead i wont object. Mission Fleg (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Steve. Quite annoying to create a page and get pounced on literally the very second I press submit. Why would anyone want to create a new page if they're going to get harassed right away? What a joke. SeanMooney (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thats how the sytem is set up and its happening all the time. take a look at the logs, pages get tagged within sconds constantly. Mission Fleg (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point completely. As per the two suggestions above, try creating an article to see the other side of the fence. Your activities are highly annoying/discouraging to others at least, or vandalistic at worst. There is no policy that says new articles need to deleted as soon as possible, so your hair trigger is inappropriate and contrary to the spirit of contribution at Wikipedia. So please reconsider, as your actions are currently causing conflict with other users and will be brought to Administrator's attention if you persist. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Mission Fleg, you might want to take a look at WP:BITE. Tagging articles for speedy deletion so soon after their creation is very bitey. Try expanding Special:Newpages to 500 and working up from the bottom on unpatrolled (yellow) pages. What other users are doing does not effect what you should be doing.
I think the misconception you're having is the name of the process. "Speedy" deletion doesn't refer to the amount of time the page nominated has existed, it refers to the length of the process itself and the low amount of administrative overhead involved. Most articles which qualify for speedy deletion can be left sitting for a few minutes or hours before deletion, with the exceptions of copyright violations and attack pages. Let me know if there's anything else about the process you'd like explained, and I'll be happy to. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
even better,try paging down to 5000 and catching the ones the other people miss. Much more challenging. and remember that if you canthink of anyw ayto improve an article so it passes speedy, you should do it, rather than nominate for deletion. DGG (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)`.
I really don't care if other editors do the same, they're wrong too as far as I'm concerned. It says right on the criteria page that "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." Two seconds is way too soon, period. Not to mention my page clearly wasn't vandalism and had all of the structure in place - infobox, categories, etc (I'm also wondering how Microsoft, one of the largest companies in the world isn't notable). The article simply needed to be expanded, which I was doing immediately after submitting when I noticed your tag placed on it already. There's dozens of other tags you could've used on the page - {{expand}} being one of them. SeanMooney (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. Microsoft is certainly notable. Geosmart might or might not be. That said, it was clearly not an A7 candidate, as A7 only applies to persons, bands and organizations. And not their products, software or similar. Taemyr (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Mission, telling experienced editors that "you basically have to be fast in responding" or that "thats how the sytem is set up" is not very effective. You've had this account for less than two weeks, that is NOT how it works. This is not a race and many of the other people are simply wrong (and they will eventually get told so too), a few know what they are doing fairly well and are just fast. Speedy deletion tags are only efficient if you tag articles with the appropriate tag so the admin doesn't have to spend a long time deciding whether it fits in some other category or none at all. Otherwise, we would just go through every single new article to see if it was worthy of deletion under some speedy criterion - which is effectively what you and any others who may mistakenly believe it's some sort of race to tag new articles would seem to have us do. I strongly urge you to reconsider your actions and stop this practice now. If you choose to ignore our warnings you will most certainly end up being blocked or at least losing the privilege of using Twinkle. If you need help understanding the deletion criteria, the nomination processes, the tools available, just let us know. If you need suggestions for other areas you could contribute, again please ask, there are plenty. As DGG alludes to, it is far better for the encyclopedia to find an article someone else has tagged and fix it so it survives, rather than to simply tag articles because they are new. I challenge you to try. In fact, I would be up for a race to do that any time you like, I'm pretty good at it so watch out. :-) --Doug.(talk contribs) 04:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Our Mother of Good Counsel (school)Edit

I've reverted your tagging of this article. School articles are not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD-A7 Mayalld (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the info i wont do that again. Mission Fleg (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion patrol - white flag!Edit

ok, ok, i give in, i'll stop. mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! :)

i'd like to note tho that i expect others will fall into the same trap i did so something somewhere needs fixing, here are the steps i went thru...

1/ looked someone up on wikipedia, she didnt have an entry so i created one (and incidently was impressed at the speed with which feedback was given).

2/ having done that i looked around for something i could do to help out.

3/ found the new pages patrol, read the articles about CSD, monitored the page for a while to see how others did it.

4/ acting on the "Be Bold" thing, i then dove right in, fully expecting to get some stuff wrong but figuring i'd learn as i went along.

so it seems to me that if you dont want to have to keep telling people to slow down, the real fix is just to delay the new pages feed by whatever amount seems necessary, then this whole issue would go away.

anyhoo, thanks for clueing me in :) Mission Fleg (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New pagesEdit

I can patroll new pages, what is happened? Excuse me, my English isn't very good.--Vatrena ptica 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you cant find the place to patrol new pages? If so go here NewPages. -- Mission Fleg (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I can check new pages.--Vatrena ptica 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatrena ptica (talkcontribs)
Ok, good. If you need any more help, feel free to ask me :) -- Mission Fleg (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Artichoke (creative company)Edit

I hope I have added enough material to show why this company is notable. I haven't removed the tag. Roisterdoister (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

the guardian AND the observer!? i should say you have! :) Mission Fleg (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

newpage patrolEdit

You know, you could do a lot of good if you worked on the articles that are further in the backlog.

Articles only stay patrollable for 720 hours. Try the articles that are still in the newpages queue after a few weeks. DS (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, i'll give it a shot.
do you know if theres an easier way of getting the oldest than by changing the offset on the newpages page? the technique works fine, its just a bit hit'n'miss. thanks Mission Fleg (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Click "earliest". DS (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks! i hadnt noticed that before. cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

burroughs and bomb the bassEdit

Nope, needs a source compliant with WP:V/WP:RS at the article itself, see Citing sources for some help with that. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what you describe is actually something called Original Research on Wikipedia, which is a no-no. But good luck finding sources. Cirt (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


The article survived AfD but read like a PR release so I stubbed it. I plan on adding back some of the basic information when I can find sources. BJTalk 04:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ah ok, that'll learn me to check the history first! :) thanks Mission Fleg (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

New page patrol / replyEdit

Hi Mission Fleg . . . good point. I usually don't mark the ones I tag as potentially worthy of deletion, but you are right that I haven't been marking the ones that look OK. I also skip over a large swath of ones that I know I see no merit in but that there seems to be a consensus (at least among zealots) to keep (like every place name no matter how trivial, and every football player who ever touched leather). Will try to remember . . . and thanks for the note. Bongomatic (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of West Bank School of Art and CultureEdit

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article West Bank School of Art and Culture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Eastmain (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced template applied to Softonic.comEdit

I note that you applied the unreferenced template to the Softonic.com entry, despite the fact that the website's statistics are referenced properly (albeit in a Spanish language website). As I understand Unreferenced, it should be applied only to entries that "have no sources at all". As this is not the case with the article in question, I propose that the Unreferenced template be removed.

Notability is a separate issue and I will do some work to get that fixed. Cheers. Tomclarke (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

yup, you're right, i missed the pointer the the website. cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Hey there, I thought (because of your participation in the conversation here) that you would like to know that I coded a bot to mark CSDed AFDed and PRODed new-pages as patrolled. See the bot's discussion for approval here]. I would appreciate your comment. NOTE: I am not trying to canvas you, I just wanted some input. Tim1357 (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)