User talk:Dimaspivak

Welcome!

Hello, Dimaspivak, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Burrows

Hi there, regarding your removal of information from the Burrows' article, I disagree that it is non-notable and have restored it. You cited WP:Notability, but I don't see where there are any relevant stipulations regarding the info you removed. I don't think there is any problem mentioning penalty shots, especially for a game 7 playoff game. Regarding the play-by-play for his overtime goal, there is lots of precedent for being detailed for such a play. For example, see Markus Naslund's game 7 play against the Flames in '04. Burrows' goal was arguably the biggest of his career, so I think the detail is warranted. Anyways, just thought I'd open up the discussion if you still disagree. I ask that you outline your concerns on my talk page before removing the content again. Thanks! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but I still respectfully disagree. This isn't a matter of indiscriminate info; it's an overtime goal in game 7. We can go into a little more detail than we would for other goals to delineate its importance. Will its notability hold on in a few years? I don't think that's a requirement for inclusion, but yes, I think it will. Think Pavel Bure against Calgary in 94. Exact same scenario. If there was such detailed info for each of the goals mentioned in the article, then I could see your concern, but it is the only goal for which additional play-by-play background is given, which hardly makes it indiscriminate. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your tone please. I was respectful in raising my concerns with you, so I ask that you do the same. You're not gonna convince anyone of anything if you attack them.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last response, but an overtime goal in Game 7 carries significantly more weight than one in Game 5. I don't know anyone who follows sports that would dispute that. As such, it is not indiscriminate info, but has specific notability that the rest of his goals do not have. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Hi Dimaspivak. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for List of appearances of Beats by Dr. Dre, a page that you tagged for deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for deletion. Please use the talk page for the article to address your concerns before hastily tagging for deletion without foundation. Srobak (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not tag the page for speedy deletion as it does not apply in this case. Dimaspivak (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the notice above is not regarding a speedy, as you can tell from its text. Additionally - for future reference - please engage in discussion within article talk pages regarding their necessity, value or validity before arbitrarily determining on your own the lack of need or value for it, and needlessly pursuing unfounded action in effort to remove them. Just because you do not find encyclopedic value in an article does not mean that the dozens of people involved in the article and its former incarnation do not. Knee-jerking an AFD without knowing anything about it is probably not the best way to proceed in the future. Srobak (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for List of appearances of Beats by Dr. Dre, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion." Dimaspivak (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the text at the top of this section for what is pertinent. Quoting intermediate edits is not proving anything. Srobak (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate edits? Your first posting on my talk page has edit summary: "Notice: Speedy deletion declined on List of appearances of Beats by Dr. Dre" when, in fact, I never tried to have the article speedily deleted. You got confused and used the wrong tag.

I can see you aren't listening. Let's wait until you do. See my first entry above. Srobak (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. It's okay; reading is hard. Dimaspivak (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be a dick. Srobak (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever hear of charm school?

Try being a little nicer in your edit summaries. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would any guy go to charm school..? Dimaspivak (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]