User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ssnɔsıp 01:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


I thought it was disguised vandalism, sorry. I've recently seen a few of those when I started reverting vandalism. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

deletion sorting[edit]

If you think an AfD discussion should be listed on one of the deletion sorting lists it isn't already listed on, you don't need to ask anyone, you can just do it yourself!

All you need to to is type the following on a new line at the bottom of the AfD (note you don't need add a bullet (*) at the start, the template does that:


Where <list> is the name of the deletion sorting list, e.g.


Once you've save the page (use an edit summary along the lines of "deletion sorting"), copy the title of the AfD (eg. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolsmile ) and go the deletion sorting list you've added the page to (you've just added a link to it, so it's easy to find) and add the following at the top of the list there:


Where <afd> is the full page name of the AfD discussion you've added to the list (and should be on your clipboard from the previous step), e.g.

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolsmile}}

Add a meaningfull edit summary (I usually use a link to the AfD I've just listed, others link to the article nominated) and your done.

You can find a list of all the deletion sorting lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact (they both list the same things, just in different formats). If you want to know more, just look at the main page of the deletion sorting wikiproject - Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-Net[edit]

Since you relied on my arguemnt to some extent, be aware that I changed my !vote. -- see my explanation there. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for taking on the task of dealing with some of the IRC article AfDs. I've not had as much time to work on them due to the AN/I discussion. With some of the minor stubs that were prodded, it might have been better just to redirect them to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#client_name. There were at least two I was already considering doing this for since they may not ever be expanded much further. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


This was a bad idea, and entirely counterproductive. Please help to address the discussions of these articles productively. And if you want an article on Slashdot so badly, why aren't you writing it yourself? Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi Uncle G, I am sorry and already admitted that it was not the right way. However, considering the effort I made the last days in improving articles and discussions of these articles, furthermore the lack of attention this got from WP:ANI, I am suprised about your comment. I am disengaging, if my help is wanted for a specific article please let me know. I am happy to help. (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That effort was good. But the direction that you began to take above was not. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about these things. The wrong way to go about getting the attention of Slashdot is to start supporting such deletion nominations with parody rationales. The right way is, of course, to go to Slashdot and write. This is not to say that the attention of Slashdot is really what is needed most here, on the gripping hand. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You know I gave you a chance to take back your harsh comment and immediately took a step back, however you keep lashing out on me. Let me recapitulate, there is a group of deletionists that abuses the AfD process and that despite the need of urgent admin intervention nothing happened. This went on for days (at least from 25 September when some nominations cached my interested), the frequency of articles being nominated not slowing down, just spilling over to more places.

Yes you are right, supporting a deletionist was not the best way. But here is the deal: Instead of doing time-consuming researches and improvements (go through my edit history if you are interested), I said, if the rules don't work ignore them for the spirit in which they ment and let's roll with the deletionists in order to show with a prominent case how absurd the situation has become. Publicity was never intended for personal reasons, but to finally get some help and point to a process malfunction that harms Wikipedia. I did not nominate a single article for deletion, I was never involved with the corresponding editors before, realistically you could need more help and bring more research and domain-specific knowledge into the process.

So where was your support and helping advice? Isn't the purpose of an admin to create an environment where collaboration is possible? I am absolutely convinced you guys do an important work, but what an unpleasant place AfD is. Appologies to vent some frustration in this edit, it's great to have people who devote their time to improve Wikipedia. I am very disappointed about your comments and consider retrieving from the English Wikipedia. (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Please don't be silly. The above cannot possibly be construed as "lashing out". And you should know full well where my support and helping advice has been. It was given quite liberally in several of the AFD discussions and articles, that you were yourself involved in editing. Uncle G (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck everyone[edit]

After stumbling a few days ago into deletion discussions, I believe that AfD is a mess! It's an abused process, without proper administrator guidance and in the case of software without any notability guidelines at all. While Wikipedia is in the business of creating and conserving knowledge, there is another side stream in the business of destroying and weeding out information. This clash of interests has probably been addressed at other places and I think it is not handled very well. There are not even consequences for those who been caught in lies, harassment and disruption. Who with expert knowledge is willing to contribute, when editors being dragged into internal power struggles and Wiki lawyering. Until the English Wikipedia policies and processes provide a better ground for scientific and creative collaboration I am retrieving. Hope this can be solved over time. Good bye. (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you could reconsider your position.
I agree very much with what you say about AfD, but retrieving is not the way to fight it -it will only makes things worse, leaving them in the hands of so-called "deletionists". The correct process you should adopt is 1)have a login here 2)go and argument on AfD debates.
Of course expect a lot of frustration from the large amount of people who interpret guidelines as they were strict policies, ignoring the essence of being a WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia, but this must not stop you. Please, please really come back with a username (this will help you -people often look at IP editors with suspect) and help maintain notable information on WP. Thanks. --Cyclopia - talk 10:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep. The process is insane really. There are many articles which are saved only if someone shows up and takes the time to look for references. Many people just rush in and say delete to everything, without even bothering to check. And those that nominate articles for deletion, often do dozens at a time, some having nominated hundreds in a single month. If you want to help, please consider joining the Rescue squadron. Dream Focus 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar search rescue.png Hello {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}},

You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject,
a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing!

Please visit the project page to learn more about improving Wikipedia articles considered by other editors as based upon notable topics. ~~~~


Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

--Tothwolf (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for psyBNC[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of psyBNC. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Hm2k (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)