Okay, everyone, I know that recently a lot of my articles have been short stubs, and this has been seen by a lot of people as being unhelpful and disruptive, but I follow the concept of Wikipedia:Article development, that is, yes - the article does not have to start off perfect. A stub is better than no article at all. There are so many great ideas for articles that have been cast aside and forgotten about. All I am trying to do is bring them to people's attention. Yes, that results in lots of stub article, but.... so what? I say we all take a massive chill pill and let the articles have a chance to grow. If the subject is non-notable, so be it, but if the only reason why people want it deleted is because of its current state, then I personally think you have forgotten what Wikipedia is all about. P.S That said, now I will be more cautious in my choices of articles to create, and I will take sources into consideration. I have to admit, I did throw my self into the task in a solitary manner, so I didn't really worry about the technical details. I just wanted to get the article out there. But now I will be more careful.-- Coin945 ( talk) 07:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from 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 page's discussion. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Please do NOT remove deletion notices yourself, but if you have contested a deletion, please address the issues to avoid further deletion. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: All articles must be sourced. If you are looking for reliable sources for an article such as Belgitude, please be sure to cite the books that mention it, together with page number where the contents of your article are mentioned. For instructions how to make citations please see WP:CITE. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The subject of the prehistoric and Viking Age art of Scandinavia is treated under the page title Norse art. If you care to dig up some good literature on the subject, that article can probably be significantly improved and expanded. "Scandinavian art", on the other hand, is an overly broad title for what you appear to want to do here. -- Hegvald ( talk) 19:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Hanuno'o. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JDOG555 ( talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. One of the points people are making here is that while it may appear to be a good idea to start subs on subjects that we may not already have, as all articles must be referenced, they are likely to be deleted if they are not. So if you are unable to find the time to look for WP:RS, you may be wasting your time, which would be a shame as you are clearly keen on adding to the encyclopedia. Never hesitate to ask for advice. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of gestures into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Cnilep ( talk) 07:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on
Apollarium requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a
repost of material that was previously deleted following a
deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use
deletion review instead recreating the page. Thank you.
Nabla (
talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You can't use allwords as a source - it's quoting Wikitionary, and like Wikipedia itself, that's not regarded here as a reliable source (editable....). The glossary one does not link to a wiki, but uses exactly the same text. This provides us with a problem like that of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? If glossary did, you can't use the text as it's copyright to them. If, as I suspect, they too are copying wiki sources, then it's an unreliable reference. (Ever read Catch 22?) I've been through 10 pages of ghits, and can't see anything that looks reliable, with one exception but unfortunately the link doesn't work. Before you post this again, read WP:RS and find a couple first. And write it in your own words - different words to those in those copycat sites. (You'd be amazed at how many there are - some even print our stuff out and sell it!). Peridon ( talk) 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You created this article on 2 December 2011. So it is surprising that the references are all "Accessed October 28, 2007"? Did you copy them wholesale from another WP article? The accessdate is supposed to show the date on which the web reference was used to support the content of the article. What is going on here? Please explain. Pam D 23:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on The Myrchents, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pam D 08:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict):::What's more, I'm tempted to CSD db-band The Myrchents. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Oops! Looks like you beat me to it. I'll check the criterion, and delete it accordingly. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Myrchents is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myrchents until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pam D 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Please check what you type. Have another look at this version of Monkey's uncle. Is it really fit for an encyclopedia? Did Darwin write "The Decent of Man"? (Hint: Try "Descent"). Try spelling the title right in the lead sentence. "ackoeledge"? Give us a few links (Darwin, Scopes Trial, for a start). Actually the Oxford English Dictionary has a citation from 8 Feb 1925, which contradicts your text. The Scopes Trial was decided in June 1925, though I suppose it may have started before Feb of that year. (I haven't time right now to sort out adding that to the article but will do so some time).
In short, there seem a lot of problems with just this short stub. Please go back over your stubs and tidy them up - why should the rest of us have to clear up after you because you find it such fun creating stubs that you cannot apparently be bothered to get little things like spelling right. SLOW DOWN, and please go back over some of your past work. Thanks. Pam D 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
...or rather your amazing contribution about kedushas Erez Yisrael. I always wanted to create that page! Thanks so much!!! xxx Chesdovi ( talk) 10:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion turning redlinks into stubs is valuable, and does not require you fully understand the topic of the article you create, so long as you provide at least one good reference, or alternately, several less than perfect references. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Wickelphone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pam
D 08:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Deautomatization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me 08:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I've also noticed that you've been moving articles that you dispute proposed deletions on to Articles for Deletion. While you are likely doing this with good intents, stop. The only valid reason to list an article on AfD is if you, yourself, believe the article should be deleted. Otherwise, it is inappropriate to deny the nominator the opportunity to provide a rationale for deletion and to waste the community's time with a discussion that would never have happened if no one ever does decide to nominate it. You are, of course, always welcome to comment in an AfD discussion once it is underway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shared Dreaming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shared Dreaming until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pam D 09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Western dance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pam
D 11:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Betograve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betograve until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nabla ( talk) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Rassias method has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pam
D 11:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Sentence length (linguistics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pam
D 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Chocolate-on-white ware has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Nabla (
talk) 22:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sentence length (linguistics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentence length (linguistics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cnilep ( talk) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a copy of something which I posted to contest the deletion of Sentence length (linguistics). I have to admit, it did tick me off a bit (hence the first sentence :P).
Okay, look. I understand your point about a lot of my articles being "collections of google hits" etc... but how does that make them unencyclopedic? It seems like a very good way to start an article IMO. First of all you get the info, just so there is something in the article, then afterwards you fish through the already found info and link up the info on similar topics and make paragraphs out of that. I think the problem is that you equating "collections of google hits" with unencyclopedic material is wrong. These articles are good. Obviously they are not perfect but besides maybe a couple which actually were uncyclopedic or obsolete, the rest give good info, even though the info may only be a few sentences long. The fact the the info is in discrete sentences, each gotten from a different source shouldnt make a difference at all. If you really do have a problem with these few articles which have been tagged recently, just take them to AfD. See what they say. Obviously my vote isn't going to have any weight on your decision so see what the wider community say. I may be wrong, who knows, but from my perspective, I have been majorly short-changed for trying to do some good to this community.-- Coin945 ( talk) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I contend that some of the article I did create were bad... some, very bad, but on the whole, I have contributed some very informative few sentences on a variety of topics. Whatever you may say, I do honestly believe that I have done good. If this were done 5 years ago, I would have gotten no backlash. It is not my fault that now in this "so-called" phase where everyone is starting to care about quality more than quantity (of articles) that has resulting in this crazed idea that in the first few hours of creation, an article has to be formatted, copyedited etc. perfectly. I have seen tons and tons of articles of place names etc. and all that is in the article is: X is a Y in Z. That's it... I thought that instead of having like 1 sentence, gtting a bit more info and stuffing it in would at least give the article a bit more pezazz. As already mentioned, yes, it results in a "mismatch" (I guess you could call it) of Google hits, but that doesn't make the concept, or even the article bad. You may hate the articles, there is nothing I can do to stop you, and as past cases have proven, I agree with you in some cases. What I am saying is, stop dissing the articles that I have created for the wrong reasons.-- Coin945 ( talk) 03:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
And now just to bring some Wikipedia essays to your attention (which is the general practice nowadays...)
I am truly sorry for the massive undertaking I have... i guess you could call it dumped on others. That was not my intention. You are right. The spelling mistakes and other general crap that was left over from stubs is terrible. I am merely saying that there is no reason to resort to deletion. I have stopped making stubs. I will go back and help sort out this mess. Any more work I do will be done with the proper care and thought that should have gone into the rest.-- Coin945 ( talk) 04:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Killer Puzzles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ost (
talk) 20:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Coin945. At AfD:Sentence length (linguistics) you wrote, "Once two concepts are joined together, I wonder if they ever really do split apart again. [...] can you provide a few examples of where this course of action has worked successfully?" These are not exactly merge-and-then-split cases, but similar to what you are looking for.
In September 2007 the page Yellow Head (person) was created, describing three different people known as Yellow Head. Soon thereafter, another editor proposed that the page be split into three. It took some time, but in November 2010 the content was split into Ozaawindib, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians#Yellow Head, and Mille Lacs Indians#Yellow Head.
After the page Awkward turtle was deleted in 2006, its content was recreated at List of gestures, and just this year was re-split to Awkward turtle.
It also appears that the page History of sentence spacing was split from the page Sentence spacing, though I don't think there was ever a merge there.
In short, split happens. Happy editing, Cnilep ( talk) 05:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Familiarisation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pam
D 13:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The Google search copy paste award goes to you: Coin945: Dog-cat_relationship ( google search), Dominant response ( google book search), and Distraction-conflict ( google book search). One of us if fundamentally mistaken about the nature of WP. I start to suspect it is me... Thank you. - Nabla ( talk) 20:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Cyberwhore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Cloudz
679 20:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)