User talk:Nelsot5
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Nelsot5, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Sniking, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - MrX 00:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sniking[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sniking requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. - MrX 00:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sniking[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sniking requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Sniking, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sniking[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sniking requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Singularity42 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022[edit]
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Sniking, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll reply here to the comment on the article's talk page, as that page will soon be deleted. Briefly, as per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, Wikipedia is not a textbook or case study. It's purpose is not to show how a neologism becomes accepted. It is an encyclopedia on notable subjects. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for this update. I am not sure how my page violates your protocol. It is not done with a nefarious intent, nor is it a purpose of mine to be silly. Being a word in the protologism stage has its relevance to the wikipedia page. It also has relevance as it is a focus of the popular book "Frindle" by Andrew Clement, which I also noted. I think an automatic filter triggered this and an honest look at this might result in acceptance of this page. I am hopeful that we can come to some kind of agreement, thank you for reading this!
- I am a 4th grade educator in Solon Springs Elementary School in Wisconsin, and my name is Timothy Nelson. My email is nelsot5@gmail.com and my cell is 715 969 8095 if a personal phone call would help convey my respect for wikipedia and you as admin and operators.
- Please reconsider and allow this entry.
- Sincerely,
- Tim Nelson Nelsot5 (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This was not a filter. This was a manual review of new pages which both I (as the initial reviewer) and an administrator (who reviewed my concern and agreed and deleted the article) found the article was clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia. The intention behind the article is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on notable subjects. The subject of this article is a word that was made-up and is not notable. Having an article to show how it will become a word is not encyclopedic - that's for a text book or case study of how a word becomes notable and accepted, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Singularity42 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt reply. I understand you think this is best used for a case study or textbook. If that rule was applied more consistently than any reference to a case study on wikipedia, the terms such as protologism and neologism, for example or any textbook study would also be removed. Since they should be found in those sources and not wikipedia. I feel you may be making a subjective determination, since you were the original reviewer from 2016, unless I am mistaken, rather than an objective decision, and I respect that. I appreciate that an administrator also looked at it, and I respect their decision as well. Is there a higher level I can appeal this too? Respectfully, to see what they might say? Thanks for responding to my appeal. Nelsot5 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- )(Replying to both comments here). In terms of appeal, because Wikipedia is based on consensus not individual opinions, and there was no deletion discussion, you don't really need to "appeal" (called WP:Deletion Review). Instead, you can just request it be undeleted at WP:REFUND. But I think the administrator who undeletes it will want to put it into a user draft space for now to see if it can be improved as I do not think any administrator right now will okay it for mainspace. (I was a former administrator who dealt with these types of issues. As for the other question (what can be done to make the article fit within policy) - I personally don't think that is possible - this doesn't appear to be notable right now, an absolute requirement. Singularity42 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks for your reply. No further action on my end here. Have a great day! Nelsot5 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- )(Replying to both comments here). In terms of appeal, because Wikipedia is based on consensus not individual opinions, and there was no deletion discussion, you don't really need to "appeal" (called WP:Deletion Review). Instead, you can just request it be undeleted at WP:REFUND. But I think the administrator who undeletes it will want to put it into a user draft space for now to see if it can be improved as I do not think any administrator right now will okay it for mainspace. (I was a former administrator who dealt with these types of issues. As for the other question (what can be done to make the article fit within policy) - I personally don't think that is possible - this doesn't appear to be notable right now, an absolute requirement. Singularity42 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt reply. I understand you think this is best used for a case study or textbook. If that rule was applied more consistently than any reference to a case study on wikipedia, the terms such as protologism and neologism, for example or any textbook study would also be removed. Since they should be found in those sources and not wikipedia. I feel you may be making a subjective determination, since you were the original reviewer from 2016, unless I am mistaken, rather than an objective decision, and I respect that. I appreciate that an administrator also looked at it, and I respect their decision as well. Is there a higher level I can appeal this too? Respectfully, to see what they might say? Thanks for responding to my appeal. Nelsot5 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you think you can make the article fall within Wikipedia policy, you an go to WP:REFUND and request it be restored as a user draft for you to work on. Singularity42 (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- How could this entry be modified so it fits your policy. Can you advise please? Thank you. Nelsot5 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This was not a filter. This was a manual review of new pages which both I (as the initial reviewer) and an administrator (who reviewed my concern and agreed and deleted the article) found the article was clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia. The intention behind the article is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on notable subjects. The subject of this article is a word that was made-up and is not notable. Having an article to show how it will become a word is not encyclopedic - that's for a text book or case study of how a word becomes notable and accepted, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Singularity42 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)