User talk:Kevin McE: Difference between revisions
→AFD nominations: making an ass of U |
→Your AFD nominations: as stated |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
::Please search for references before wasting other editors' time. Cleverly choosing your words does not get you out of this. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 17:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
::Please search for references before wasting other editors' time. Cleverly choosing your words does not get you out of this. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 17:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::Please explain what steps you have taken to have [[WP:DEL-REASON]]#1 and [[WP:A7]] withdrawn. If you haven't, then your words are inconsistent with your actions, so I'll ignore them. [[User:Kevin McE|Kevin McE]] ([[User talk:Kevin McE#top|talk]]) 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
:::Please explain what steps you have taken to have [[WP:DEL-REASON]]#1 and [[WP:A7]] withdrawn. If you haven't, then your words are inconsistent with your actions, so I'll ignore them. [[User:Kevin McE|Kevin McE]] ([[User talk:Kevin McE#top|talk]]) 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::Before you start ignoring people, read the criteria you're citing: "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 17:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== AFD nominations == |
== AFD nominations == |
Revision as of 18:07, 16 September 2014
April 2006-March 2008 * Mar-Dec 2008 * 2009 * 2010 * 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
so talk to me...
The Signpost: 13 August 2014
- Special report: Twitter bots catalogue government edits to Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Disease, decimation and distraction
- Wikimedia in education: Global Education: WMF's Perspective
- Wikimania: Promised the moon, settled for the stars
- News and notes: Media Viewer controversy spreads to German Wikipedia
- In the media: Monkey selfie, net neutrality, and hoaxes
- Featured content: Cambridge got a lot of attention this week
The Signpost: 20 August 2014
- Traffic report: Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero
- WikiProject report: Bats and gloves
- Op-ed: A new metric for Wikimedia
- Featured content: English Wikipedia departs for Japan
The Signpost: 27 August 2014
- In the media: Plagiarism and vandalism dominate Wikipedia news
- News and notes: Media Viewer—Wikimedia's emotional roller-coaster
- Traffic report: Viral
- Featured content: Cheats at Featured Pictures!
The Signpost: 03 September 2014
- Arbitration report: Media viewer case is suspended
- Featured content: 1882 × 5 in gold, and thruppence more
- Traffic report: Holding Pattern
- WikiProject report: Gray's Anatomy (v. 2)
The Signpost: 10 September 2014
- Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity
- Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue
- WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Raymond Browne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Catholic Church)|bishop]] at [[St Mary's Cathedral, Killarney]] on 21 July by the [Dermot Clifford]], [[Archbishop of Cashel|Archbishop of Cashel and Emly]].
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Your AFD nominations
Please read WP:BEFORE: "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability." --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I AfDed on the speedy deletion grounds of no importance asserted. Please read the grounds on which I nominated before posting such messages. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please search for references before wasting other editors' time. Cleverly choosing your words does not get you out of this. --NeilN talk to me 17:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain what steps you have taken to have WP:DEL-REASON#1 and WP:A7 withdrawn. If you haven't, then your words are inconsistent with your actions, so I'll ignore them. Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please search for references before wasting other editors' time. Cleverly choosing your words does not get you out of this. --NeilN talk to me 17:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
AFD nominations
Please read WP:BEFORE as well as WP:AFD, Editors are expected to do some searching before nomination which you clearly haven't done,
It's now bordering on disruptive editing and you will blocked for it which no one wants,
Anyway take a break & read all the relevant policies,
Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- speedy deletion criteria make no such requirement. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it was a speedy deletion candidate you could {db-a7} it and it would be deleted without trouble. If you did on those entries you nominated you'd find most admins would reject your tagging. When you take articles to AFD, clearly they're not speediable, and you have a responsibility as the nominator to check for sources and assess notability and abide by WP:BEFORE. Length doesn't matter, a notable subject will always be a notable subject. 85% of articles on wikipedia are short. Are we to delete every article purely because it's undeveloped? If you want an article expanded just ask. Please stop wasting everybody's time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I used AfD because that is easily accessed via Twinkle: if you leap to assumptions about the reason I choose one route over another you are liable to assume incorrectly.
- Did the Miguel Laurencena article make any claim about notability at the time I nominated it? Bearing in mind the answer to that, was it valid to challenge it under WP:A7? Given that, why was it not valid to challenge it at AfD? You seem determined to erect some sort of smokescreen around woefully inadequate articles, and to be pursuing me for stting that articles are in a stste that does not merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia over bringing them to such a standard.
- Good work on Miguel Laurencena: shame it wasn't like that before I intervened. Kevin McE (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it was a speedy deletion candidate you could {db-a7} it and it would be deleted without trouble. If you did on those entries you nominated you'd find most admins would reject your tagging. When you take articles to AFD, clearly they're not speediable, and you have a responsibility as the nominator to check for sources and assess notability and abide by WP:BEFORE. Length doesn't matter, a notable subject will always be a notable subject. 85% of articles on wikipedia are short. Are we to delete every article purely because it's undeveloped? If you want an article expanded just ask. Please stop wasting everybody's time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)