Talk:Tubrid
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
2008 posts
[edit]Would appreciate a little patience in this (only my second) article Over the next few days, I hope for it to develop into something worth the wait
I have deleted the 'marked for deletion' tag. In doing so I hope I have not violated a Wikipedia convention.
I have attempted to address the concerns raised and would be more than happy to justify my opinion that this site merits inclusion in Wikipedia.
Questions of the 'importance' of monuments, which may not be internationally recognised tourist destinations, is bound to be problematic.
As I further develop the article, I hope it will become evident to those with a general interest in Irish history, particularly of the 17thC, why it merits inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.38.170 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for not being logged in when submitting the above.
- Well, yes, actually, it is very much a violation of Wikipedia rules to remove a speedy-deletion tag on your own article! There were instructions right there, on the tag, telling you how to challenge such a nomination. As it is, I ended up deciding that the speedy-deletion criteria were not met, and the article ended up vastly improved. But for the future, please do note that removal of that tag was in fact not a proper move. That being said: please read the welcome message I've left on your talk page; and good luck on the ever-fascinating, ever-sorrowful, ever-glorious task that is Irish history! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for my unintentional indiscretion (got a little panicked when I thought my labours might suddenly go for naught) and thanks for your welcome and advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RashersTierney (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Attempting the tilde signing procedure, much of this still very new RashersTierney (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The article cites three authoritative sources. I don't see how this can be a valid criticism. RashersTierney (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- You should read WP:CITE for guidance on how to source the various assertions. A generic bibliography at the end of the article is not adequate documentation. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK Mike, I accept it needs some extra work. Appreciate the guidance. RashersTierney (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)