User talk:Mayalld
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mayalld. |
 |
|
Hasty AFD notices
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Adams (Game Developer) and other notices on your talk page have shown that you are incredibly hasty at nominating new articles for deletion. By repeatedly attempting to destroy articles less than 2 minutes after they have been created, your actions are only serving to discourage new editors from using Wikipedia. Had Thabin been like any other new user, the article would likely be wrongly deleted based off your false and weak rationale with zero research. Please cease nominating brand new articles for deletion. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I nominate a fair few articles for deletion, and very occasionally, I make a mistake. Where I do so, I will withdraw the AfD. Given that an AfD runs for 5 days, I see zero risk of an incorrect deletion. Mayalld (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- We probably lose relatively few articles by this process, but we lose a lot of new potential new editors. Can you imagine the effect this has on them? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- People claim this, but I see no evidence. Mayalld (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Because they quit. Evidence is common sense. If I were a new user and I created a new article on Wikipedia, only to see someone attempt to delete it two minutes later, I would have no idea what to do. I'd have no clue what to do. "What is this big red template? What can I do? What are all these weird terms? WP:NN? WP:BIO? WHAT? If this is going to happen every time I make an article, what is the point?" This is a common reaction from many new users. All it takes is the incredibly hasty AFD notice alone to get rid of the new user forever. It's very telling that you wouldn't even acknowledge the impact on the editor in the first response. You truly don't know the effect of your actions. I am asking again: Please stop. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- And your evidence for this is? Nothing. Just bald assertion. There is zero evidence that new editors who find their first articles survives an AfD are any more likely to quit than any other new editor. Mayalld (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Because they quit. Evidence is common sense. If I were a new user and I created a new article on Wikipedia, only to see someone attempt to delete it two minutes later, I would have no idea what to do. I'd have no clue what to do. "What is this big red template? What can I do? What are all these weird terms? WP:NN? WP:BIO? WHAT? If this is going to happen every time I make an article, what is the point?" This is a common reaction from many new users. All it takes is the incredibly hasty AFD notice alone to get rid of the new user forever. It's very telling that you wouldn't even acknowledge the impact on the editor in the first response. You truly don't know the effect of your actions. I am asking again: Please stop. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- People claim this, but I see no evidence. Mayalld (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- We probably lose relatively few articles by this process, but we lose a lot of new potential new editors. Can you imagine the effect this has on them? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
re: SunniPath
You have requested deletion of SunniPath. I am not sure why you feel that this Organization is not a significant religious Organization. The organization has been in existence for 6 years. Have a successful Islamic Education program which are recognized by accredited Universities. Can you give me your reasoning for recommending for deletion?
- I see absolutely NOTHING, other than your claims. WIkipedia requires EVIDENCE from reliable sources. (and as you have a significant conflict of interest, this is particularly true) Mayalld (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio on Sort big number
You placed a {{db-copyvio}} on this article, but failed to note the URL from which it was copied. This makes it difficult for an admin to verify that the copyright violation has occurred. In the future, please remember to specific the URL on a copyvio tag. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- The code that was pasted contained a copyright assertion! Mayalld (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. I missed that. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Appropriate & Necessary Information (viaficable)
Dear Mayalld:
I don't understand your opposition to this information as "inappropriate" for Wikipedia. Exactly what critria does this organization use to consider proposed articles. Or, it Wikipedia articles criticed by special interest organization?
Have you, personally, ever prevailed in any legal litigation Jury trial, or otherwise, without assistance of counsel. I have!!!
Should you require detailed documented proof, I stand by to forward the same to you via facsmile, immediately. Or, are your considerations of a more personal nature?
I await your response
Kenneth S Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Alexander (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your message seems to indicate a fundemental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has minimum standards of notability that the subject of an article must meet for inclusion. It requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view by editors who don't have a conflict of interest
- It is not a soapbox for people to trumpet their own achievements. It is not a provider of webspace for anything that you want to post.
- Our policies on article inclusion are linked above, and I suggest you start with WP:N. I would also point you at WP:AGF, and suggest that flinging accusations of "special interest organisations" when your article is nominated is a spectacular failure to assume good faith.
- You should note that creating the same article under 3 different names is not the way to do anything, and particularly not where the article is of dubious notability.
- Mayalld (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The 'very' trumpet achievement of prevailing against State of Alaska Attorney Generals Office Department of Law, is coincidental to the even more important "fact" of deliberate indifference to African American Muslims in Federal and State Penal Institutions. It is not me, or the proposed article that fails here, it is a "want-to-be" editor who has ffailed, and shall continue to fail endeavors for such employment with any organization except wikipedia. What were your writing compensation deposits last month?
- Sorry, but it is extraordinarily difficult to accept that your response is actually written in the English Language!
- You clearly have a burning need to tell your story. All well and good, tell it! Create a web site about it. Just don't presume that Wikipedia will provide a home for your soapbox.
- As to the last part, I am not employed by Wikipedia, and my writing compensation deposits last month were zero. I don't do this for a living! Mayalld (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious that you do not write, or edit, for compensation, and you most likely never will because you fail at logic and reason as well as academically flawed in areas of information logging. The proposed article is little more than important informative facts regarding our Country's judiciary indifference to definitions of torture and mal-treatment of "Naturally" born citizens of whether African American, or Muslim. The proposed article is reflective of the "U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS" a Constitution underminded and virually destroyed by ignorance an beauracatic individuals with priniciples contrary to intentions of the founding fathers. I insist you keep your interpretations of Wikipedia policies out of consideration here, make no acceptions to the rules and withdraw your unfounded recommendation for deletion of the proposed article. I, myself, am more knowledgible than you to suggest what is or is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
- Quite apart from the fact that your response is a breach of our policy on no personal attacks, I find it vaguely amusing that somebody whose written style, and spelling, is such as this would dream of telling anybody hat they can't write or edit.
- You say "our Country's", which shows very clearly that you don't understand that this is the English Language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia (English is a language spoken in other countries that the USA, such as England).
- Whilst I am sure that that you know best, and that the hundreds of people who crafted Wikipedia's policies on inclusion are wrong, I think (on balance) that my recomendation that the article be deleted will stand. Mayalld (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
And my objection stand as well. In as much as your comment(s) on my use of the English language is concerned, hast in responding to idiotic stubborness is indicative of just another judgemental individual lacking the ability to see content rather than purpose. Furthermore, The Modern Language Association have included "'s" after a 'noun' to mean "plural" or "possessive". Indeed, I am in doubt of Wikipedia for allowing your recommendations. Or, perhsps you are simply being clever. In any-case, although I am unaware of international policiees of Wikipedia, you obviously have mis-interpreted what you claim to understand.