My reconstruction of my talk page is almost complete, all that remains is to find out how to get a link with alternate text for display to link to the page which creates a new section in a talk page (i.e. does the same thing as clicking the "new section" button on the top of the talk page). The link must be able to work from multiple subdirectories and still lead back to creating a new section on the main talk page. If you can help please leave a comment/message.
These are my responses to your comments on this page (I will most often respond on this talk page rather than leave a reply on yours). They will begin with @namehere where namehere is the name of the person I am responding to. They are in order from newest to oldest so new ones will be added at the beginning.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Mod mmg. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Matt Duffie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of notability. Member of a professional team. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, you may still be seeing the page because you have an older version of the page stored on your computer. Purge your cache and then refresh the page by pressing ctrl-F5. In the future, you should only tag a page with speedy deletion if it is blatant vandalism or nonsense. -download׀sign! 18:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you explain your notice on my talk page. I neither created nor edited that page. And btw it is not recommended to inform a bot about it. Greetings Xqt (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
You tagged an article with a WP:PROD notice, but said it qualified for WP:CSD - they are different processes. CSD could have been almost immediate removal, whereas PROD is a 7-day process. You might want to read up on the two, and see how to tag them accordingly. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
You may wish to rethink your last message on my talkpage. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok, let me clarify: there are rules that cannot be ignored when it comes to deletion. PROD has a clear process, CSD has a clear process. Both have been held by the community to be immune to the ignore all rules concept, and can NEVER be mixed. Administrators such as myself are required to decline improperly tagged articles. Indeed, improperly tagging too many of them incorrectly, and then not changing when it's brought to your attention is a sure path to a block for disruption.
I gave you a polite, friendly nudge so that you would continue in your new page patrolling, but to make sure you were doing it the right way - it's a vital task, but it must be done right. Quoting a bunch of rules (some of which I have even been involved in editing) to justify your actions is not needed (especially because they may never apply) - I was merely trying to solve you a whole whack of problems later, and make your Wikipedia career easier and more fulfilling - and save a lot of people from the deletion review process.
Note - I have moved your comments on my talkpage together - it's customary to keep discussions in the same section. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You tagged Mullaghmore (marilyn) with a speedy deletion request giving the reason as "section A7 clearly states pages like this must go!". However, WP:CSD#A7 is limited in scope. It applies only to "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content". It does not apply to articles about mountains, towns or other geographic features. I have there fore declined the speedy request and removed the tag.
You also tagged this article with {{notability}}. But articles on verifiable geographic features are usually considered notable. I have therefore removed the tag. DES(talk) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I can see that you are a keen, enthusiastic and well meaning new contributor. Welcome to Wikipedia. It has been drawn to my attention that you are making a few mistakes, and a glance at your edit history shows that you are causing a little bit of discomfort for other users with your edits, especially when you repeat something that has been corrected (such as when you moved an article to an incorrect spelling). I can see, however, that the more experienced users are not always fully explaining the principles behind why some of your edits are being changed. This is a shame, as having some explanation, and links to the appropriate guidelines and essays will speed up and reinforce your learning process, and lead to fewer conflicts all round. There are a number of experienced users who are willing to assist new users in the most appropriate and trouble free ways of editing Wikipedia. Take a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. There are some areas of Wikipedia where assistance is required which doesn't require that much knowledge or experience, and you can build up your knowledge and experience as you go along. Take a look at the backlog on Category:Articles needing cleanup. You can work your way through those articles and see if there are any that you can improve. Or work though Category:Wikipedia articles with missing information to see if you can supply the missing information. This work would be very valuable, and if correctly done would assist in the building of the encyclopedia and in reducing the backlog of work to be done. Any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *YES! 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
After reading your comments on my talkpage I have many things which I wish to say to you. I will not say them all as I would like to keep this brief. I will agree with you in that I am a well meaning contributor. I also understand that your post on my talkpage was made with good intentions. I will also seriously consider accepting your help in making myself a better editor. However, there is one big issue I would like to get off my chest. I shall type it in all capitals so just ignore it if you don't like it. YOU HAVE BEEN GOING TO MY CONTRIBUTIONS LOG AND LOOKING FOR EVERY INSTANCE WHERE I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SOME DISAGREEMENT FROM OTHER USERS AND JOINING IN ON EVERY INSTANCE ON THEIR SIDE! O.K. the rant is off my chest. On a more serious note: I must inform you that, yes I admit my modification to the WP:BEANS policy was unneeded, I shal let that drop. However: You say that my possiblevandalism tamplate is redundant and yet point to a template with a completely different intended purpose. My tag is for new pages which are not-noteable absolutely rubbish, vandalism- possibly, but must be deleted regardless. The tag you point to is for pages which are obvious and clear cases of hate-vandalism or spam-vandalism. Now I would like to draw your attention to the robot animation you decided needs deleting if the uploader dosen't explain quick. Regardless of copyright, this animation is used in countless talkpages (not just my own!) throughout the wikimedia family. It is even the primary image on one article! So keeping in mind how widely used this animation is, it would make more sense to just change the copyright status of the image and not just delete it. Now for my final point. I am planning a moderate change to the Ensemble_Studios page. Check the talkpage of the article for my proposed change, under the heading "update". I would like you to give your opinion on this (i.e. whether it will get reverted 5 mins after editing). Also, I have not yet decided whether I will participate in the editor development projects you refered me to. Can you please reply to all this on my talkpage. Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 08:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your response.
No problems regarding the rant - there are times when people need to get things off their chest. A number of people find editing Wikipedia to be quite stressful, and will sometimes get frustrated. Some editors used to use Wiki stress meters to show they were finding editing Wikipedia difficult - this has declined over the years, as the focus is now more on creating the encyclopedia rather than personal feelings, though some people still use them, see: Wikipedia:Stress alerts. While some people find difficulties dealing with the largely impersonal and functional manner of Wikipedia, where the focus is on creating an encyclopedia, rather than social networking and being nice to people, a possible outlet that some editors find useful is to type out their rant, click "Show preview", read it through, then delete it. If they still feel like making a comment on an issue, they carefully consider how best to present their grievance in a neutral, factual manner, with an aim in mind for the resolution. If their intention is just to say - "Your edit was appropriate, but it has made me personally unhappy", then they may consider how helpful to the project as a whole it would be to let other people know their personal feelings. On the whole the Wikipedia community frowns upon editors who create discord by venting their personal feelings rather than assisting in building the encyclopedia in a co-operative collegiate manner.
I am not quite clear on what you want me to do about the template and image discussions. If you would like me to give you some personal feedback on the guidelines and policies regarding those issues, I will do. However, if you are making the comments here as part of the debate into deleting those items, then that discussion is better off taking place on the relevant deletion discussion pages.
I've had a look at Talk:Ensemble_Studios#Update. It does look as though the article on Ensemble Studios needs updating. You have found some information on a forum about a game that a successor to Ensemble, Newtoy Inc., has released. Now then - how to proceed? The questions are:
Is the source you have found, a reliable source? See: WP:RS
Should a new article be created for Newtoy Inc? See: WP:COMPANY
As the statement "In May 2009, a fourth studio called Newtoy was created by several developers from Ensemble. Newtoy is already working on its first game for the iPhone." is seen to be out of date, it will need editing - see WP:DATED. How might it be better worded?
Have a look though the above and let me know your response to those questions. Also, let me know if you wish to have some input on the relevant guidelines and policies related to the deletion discussions you mentioned. SilkTork *YES! 10:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Mod mmg/archives. You tagged "Rhye's and Fall of Civilization" for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. Mephistophelian (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is the third occasion on which you've tagged Rhye's and Fall of Civilization for deletion, even though it's already passed the test twice. Your reasons for wanting it deleted have been shown to be invalid. Please stop. Mephistophelian (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Mod, though well intentioned, your Prod of the Mather Zickel article was inappropriate. There are a good number of references which were easy to find with a Google search. I have added cites and cleaned up the article. Please contact me if you feel an article is not notable, and we can look at it together. Sometimes an article may appear to be non-notable because there are no sources, and it's worth doing a little bit of research first. I can show you how to research. Regards SilkTork *YES! 10:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A Google search for "Part 91 operator" delivered 36,500 hits and mentioned in 22 books. Before Prodding an article it is worth doing a Google search first. SilkTork *YES! 10:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You cannot Prod an article that has previously had a Prod tag that was declined. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. As pointed out in the edit summaries, Matt Duffie is notable as the article meets WP:Athlete criteria. SilkTork *YES! 10:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I understand your desire to clean up Wikipedia and ensure that our articles are notable. Your intentions are well meaning. However, our notability guidelines are quite complex and difficult - it is easy to misunderstand them. All five articles you recently Prodded were done inappropriately. That an article has no references doesn't necessarily mean it is not notable - it can mean that nobody has yet placed cites on the article. Read WP:Before. I would strongly urge you not to prod any more articles without first consulting with someone else. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it eventually. The trick is to take it more slowly, and to seek out more advice, and to read more guidelines. If you continue to inappropriately Prod articles after it has been pointed out to you that you are doing it incorrectly, then it might be considered that you are being disruptive. I am ready and willing to help you edit Wikipedia constructively. I understand the difficulties that new users encounter - I was a new user myself once, and I made mistakes! Indeed, it is very rare for any new user to edit without making mistakes. The key is communication. Please get in touch with me or another editor before Prodding again. SilkTork *YES! 10:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
