User talk:Codf1977

Warning

Please STOP malicious deleting and disruptive edit. You need concensus to make dramatice changes to relevant articles. Thinking youself is always correct is wrong. Please edit in a civil and construtive way. Revws (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is you that is not editing in a constructive way, not me. Codf1977 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags you placed

All university articles in Wikipedia have ranking sections in their articles, which contain overal, individual schools and programs rankings, as long as they have such rankings. These rankings are part of the university infomation that the article should have. There is no advertising about this. You sure can do editcopy if you are not fine with some of the wording. But as long as the university received this much rankings, you can't simply remove them from the article. Revws (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of University of Wisconsin–List of Colleges and Schools‎‎

I have nominated University of Wisconsin–List of Colleges and Schools‎, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools‎. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Revws (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi... about the UADC page

Hi,

I noticed you added a WP:CRYSTAL tag to the United Asian Debating Championships. I was just wondering how that would apply in this case. From their website, it does seem to be a confirmed event that will happen. Additionally, given that both the pages for AUDC and the All-Asian Intervarsity Debating Championships are notable, A tournament that combines both would also be notable right?

I'm in the process of editing the page, with appropriate links, etc. Could you hold on for a day or so before tagging it.

Thanks Sniperz11_@^CS 11:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree with if a and b are notable it follows that c combining both is also notable, it is not a speedy so it won't get deleted for at least 7 days. Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Could you explain the logic behind that conclusion if possible. My understanding of the tournament, based on their website and of the happenings on some of the other hits for a search of this is that it will replace both the previous tournaments as a single tournament for the Asian region. Given the size (140 teams), that is at least 600 people in attendance, which to my mind, is a sizeable number for a student conference, and given the teams that seem to have registered there, it is indeed quite notable already. Anyway, will work on that article.

Any other concerns that you see that need to be fixed??

Cheers.

Sniperz11_@^CS 11:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Size is not the issue - is it independently considered notable. Codf1977 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I believe that is indeed so, judging by the confirmed participation details, their website and the response it seems to be getting on some of the other fora and debating news sites. The UADC tournament WILL happen this year, and will be more notable than both the previous tournaments - registration numbers show a record number of participants, as well as a record number of participating Universities.

The registration results PDF show 140 teams, from about 50-60 Universities from across 15 nations. That, to my mind, is indeed a notable event, especially if you consider that the maximum participation at the 'notable' AUDC has been around 60 teams. This tournament over double of that in size. And that does translate to a pretty well known event, considering that these guys would be representing their universities (thousands of students), as also the following that the tournament gets even from non-asian, non-competing debaters.

And if size isn't the issue, then I think both the pages for the AUDC and the All-Asians would be in more than a spot of bother. I think this tournament does have not only the size, but also the visibility to make it notable in its own right.

I'll be editing this page and adding more information. Do check it out in a day or two, and check if it has satisfied some of the shortcomings that led to the tag. Hopefully it will, and I hope you'd be able to revaluate that tag.

Cheers. Sniperz11_@^CS 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please STOP malicious deleting and disruptive edit. Your personal doubts don't qualify for the reason for deletion. Revws (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

None of my edits are either malicious or disruptive. You are exactly wrong about personal doubts - any editor is free to change anything they feel is wrong or misleading, promotional or just plain un-encyclopaedic .Codf1977 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Éric Morin

Hello Codf1977, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Éric Morin has been removed. It was removed by 4meter4 with the following edit summary '(add ref)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 4meter4 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mahen

Hello Codf1977, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Mahen - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your malicious deletion. I already pointed out to you in the discussion. "Notability is about the article. Not every sentence within the article need to be notable. Besides, this ranking is notable. Google search results justify its notability." "There is no such policy says that ranking is advertising." Revws (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have made it clear on the article talk page, I do not believe that the ScienceWatch Rankings are notable and have made my reasons very clear. If you dot accept them, then by all means on the article talk page provide links to coverage of them. Codf1977 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Use Google to verify. Where did you get the idea that every sentence in Wikipedia articles needs to be notable? Revws (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)