Robpinion

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Robpinion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarissa ECMAscript Library article

A tag has been placed on Sarissa ECMAscript Library, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Fourohfour 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I'd apologise for taking so long to reply (I've been away from WP for a while.) Since you jumped down my throat and started throwing insults about, let's skip the politeness and get down to business. From your comment at my talk page

I don't appreciate your flagging the the stub I created "Sarissa ECMAScript Library" for removal. I edited it according to what you thought was necessary, and you still got it removed.

No; I don't the power to do that myself- it needs an administrator. I assume that after I tagged the article, you edited it and an admin decided that you still hadn't shown why it was notable. Did you use the {{hangon}} facility?

Why don't you write the damn article yourself then, bigshot.

Because the problem wasn't with how the article was written, the problem was that it didn't explain why the subject was notable enough to warrant an article in the first place.

If I'd known any reason why the subject was notable, I would have added it to the existing article instead of nominating it for deletion.

That was a good stub and you have done a disservice. Who are you to determine what is good material when it concerns something you don't know about?

I only have the power to tag articles, not delete them. So it requires an administrator to read the tagged article and agree with me before they delete it.

I see you have a history of getting these type of comments.

I don't see that many in my history, personally.

You know, dude, when there's no article on something, and someone starts to share knowledge about it, it's very easy for you to go in and squash it. Perhaps you will experience the joy of having that done to your articles, too.

It happens very rarely. Know why? Because I read the criteria for what is and isn't a suitable subject for an article.

I believe in community edits, but removing the ONLY reference to a topic from the Wiki doesn't help anyone unless you, yourself want to replace it with a better version.

Wikipedia is *not* meant to include every piece of information in existence. See WP:NOTABLE- it's a fundamental part of how things work.

I imagine you live for causing this type of crap. I can tell by your responses to other criticism of this nature that you certainly take delight in removing other people's work.

On the contrary, my answers are more than reasonable in the light of cheap accusations like this that don't deserve the time and effort.

Please do us all a favor and go find a wet, smelly toy to occupy your time with and leave those of us who are trying to CONTRIBUTE alone.

I'm not wasting time replying to your third-rate insults (although you should read WP:CIVIL), but in response to your self-righteous implication, maintaining standards and keeping things tidy is as much a contribution to Wikipedia as writing is. Arguably more so, because it's one of the less "fun" jobs, more like picking up litter.

Just because WP is easy to edit, doesn't mean that there aren't rules (which I didn't write). If you'd read them, you'd know what is and isn't a suitable subject, and why your article had been deleted. Of course, you're free to skip this, but please don't start complaining when stuff is removed because you couldn't be bothered finding out the most basic stuff about WP.

Let's make this clear...

- I didn't delete your article. I tagged it, and someone else came along and independently checked that the article failed to meet the notability guidelines before deleting it.

- You didn't explain why the article was notable. The fact that it was deleted so quickly implies that the article didn't even make a half-hearted case for notability. Believe me, chances are someone else would have speedied it if I hadn't.

- You didn't even bother reading the linked articles in the tag explaining why the article had been nominated for deletion. I know you didn't read them because you assumed (above) that the article had been deleted for quality reasons.

Fourohfour 10:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Response from Robpinion

I appreciate your responding.

You are wrong about a couple of things. First, I did use the hangon feature and then some anonymous editor deleted it. Not only had I used hangon, but I also attempted to explain why the Sarissa library is important so that you could reconsider it. Whether or not you deleted the article yourself, you were still the root cause of making it get deleted. Contrary to what you write, I did not assume the article was deleted for "quality" reasons.

Of course WP can't be expected to house every piece of information. But you, not immediately understanding the import of the subject, did not just ask me to state its importance first and then mark it for speedy deletion later. Rather, you took the easy way out and just marked it for speedy deletion, which caused me to attempt to state its importance. Then some anonymous person came behind you and deleted it, I assume by clicking a button. There was no comment by the editor after you, or any attempt at all to get me to further clarify why it was a significant topic, though I had attempted to do so. In my opinion, that's not how the community of sharing information should work.

Sure you don't write the rules, but you enforce them against people who are actually trying to comply. I'm not one of the myriad of people out there who are writing junk and causing vandalism. In fact, I help correct that.

Concerning your sad task of "keeping things tidy," merely deleting articles that someone is attempting to post right is not the same thing as keeping things tidy but rather discouraging input and not helping people attempt to get better at it. Just how many articles have you marked for speedy deletion?

You are quite arrogant to say, "Believe me, chances are someone else would have speedied it if I hadn't." I don't get you at all dude. That said, I do have some respect for you for at least leaving my comment up on your talk page. Perhaps it will console someone who is subject to your tidying-up work.

Robpinion 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourohfour's response:

You wrote:-

You are wrong about a couple of things. First, I did use the hangon feature and then some anonymous editor deleted it. Not only had I used hangon, but I also attempted to explain why the Sarissa library is important so that you could reconsider it.

Not having seen your changes after I tagged it, I can't say whether that admin acted too hastily, or whether some time after you'd made the changes they looked at it and decided the article still hadn't asserted its notability. "Hangon" is just a way to let admins know you're in the process of rewriting the article to correct the faults that led to its nomination. It's not a long-term stay of execution.

Whether or not you deleted the article yourself, you were still the root cause of making it get deleted.

That's technically correct, but contains the clear implication that I'm to blame for someone else's (supposedly) unfair deletion. IMHO, there was nothing wrong with my actions since I don't believe that admins are in the general habit of making unfair decisions, nor that the process is generally flawed. If you want to feel animosity towards me for someone else's action, then go ahead- just don't expect me to care.

Contrary to what you write, I did not assume the article was deleted for "quality" reasons.

Then I doesn't make sense for you to ask me to "write the damn article yourself then, bigshot" if you knew that the problem was the notability of the subject instead of the quality of the writing.

Of course WP can't be expected to house every piece of information. But you, not immediately understanding the import of the subject did not just ask me to state its importance first and then mark it for speedy deletion later. Rather, you took the easy way out and just marked it for speedy deletion, which caused me to attempt to state its importance.

Then you had the opportunity to correct it. And it's your responsibility to state the importance of the subject in the first place, not mine to guess it.

Then some anonymous person came behind you and deleted it, I assume by clicking a button.

What relevance does their doing this by "clicking a button" have, unless you're trying to conjur up the image of some incompetent and/or lazy admin thoughtlessly deleting articles with one *easy* click of their mouse?

There was no comment by the editor after you, or any attempt at all to get me to further clarify why it was a significant topic, though I had attempted to do so. In my opinion, that's not how the community of sharing information should work.

Perhaps not, but don't take it out on me. Personally, I'd have notified the person who wrote the article about the problems on their talk page.

Sure you don't write the rules, but you enforce them

I have no more power of "enforcement" than you do.

against people who are actually trying to comply. I'm not one of the myriad of people out there who are writing junk and causing vandalism. In fact, I help correct that.

Many of the people writing "junk" aren't doing so intentionally. I'm not implying that your article was junk, but in the state I saw it, it failed to assert notability to Wikipedia's standards.

Concerning your sad task of "keeping things tidy," merely deleting articles

I didn't delete your article. You already know that.

that someone is attempting to post right is not the same thing as keeping things tidy but rather discouraging input and not helping people attempt to get better at it. Just how many articles have you marked for speedy deletion?

Probably quite a few. Mainly blatant junk articles, some vanity articles and others that have made no attempt to state their importance.

You are quite arrogant to say, "Believe me, chances are someone else would have speedied it if I hadn't." I don't get you at all dude.

Because the version of the article that I came across failed to anything approaching sufficient notability, and there was nothing there to hint that the subject was notable. It may have been, but again, it is your responsibility to assert notability.

That said, I do have some respect for you for at least leaving my comment up on your talk page.

Talk isn't the same as articles, and I'm not in the habit of removing talk page content unless it's blatant vandalism. Fourohfour 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Theology of the body was the catechesis of JOhn Paul II

I reverted your cuts in Sexual intercourse. Theology of the body was the catechesis of JOhn Paul II. Please see the footnote.

Take note that this part covers both religion and philosophy. So it is not long. Philosophy per se should cover one section. Kleinbell (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"but was disallowed to link to ref site"

Please give the URL of the site you were going to link to. If it's blacklisted, it's probably blacklisted for a good reason and therefore is as good as no reference at all ... however if its a mistake, the site should be removed from the blacklist so that it can be used. —Soap— 12:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Robpinion! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Bonnie McElveen-Hunter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Kitchen gadget for deletion

The article Kitchen gadget is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitchen gadget until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bonnie McElveen-Hunter

The article Bonnie McElveen-Hunter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable biography

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stormbay (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Worley.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nouniquenames (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Worley concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Worley, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Charles Worley

Hello Robpinion. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Charles Worley.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Worley}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

April 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Apollo 13, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

What would be a reliable source for an opera that is about to be performed but has not been performed yet? I am helping with it myself. It hasn’t been announced in a local paper but I don’t have a copy of it. I’m afraid that by deleting this info you have made it difficult for people who might be interested in seeing this opera performed to do so, though admittedly not many people will read the article changes before this weekend. I do not know of any other plans for it to ever be performed again, though I hope it will.

Apollo 13

What would be a reliable source for an opera that is about to be performed but has not been performed yet? I am helping with it myself. It hasn’t been announced in a local paper but I don’t have a copy of it. I’m afraid that by deleting this info you have made it difficult for people who might be interested in seeing this opera performed to do so, though admittedly not many people will read the article changes before this weekend. I do not know of any other plans for it to ever be performed again, though I hope it will. Robpinion (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like it's not suitable to include. TJRC (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)