User talk:Dusoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Contents

[edit] Bratislava Old Town

Thanks, it has been a few years since I took the photos. I appreciate your corrections. By the way, I really loved the city! Regards, --Asterion talk to me 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Tags

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles, as you did with Vymucany. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

  1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
  2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Exxolon (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • To contest the speedy deletion - add the "hangon" tag as above then state on the talk page of the article your reasoning. The best way to avoid deletion is to provide Reliable Sources showing why the band is notable. Exxolon (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I did, but you someone or you have already deleted the page, so it doesn't make any sense.
I didn't (I don't have the ability) - the best thing to do is to contact the deleting admin (in this case User talk:Pedro) and ask him to copy the deleted article into a page in your userspace to be worked on, then copying it back in to the mainspace when you're satisfied it can meet the criteria. Exxolon (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vymucany

I had no issue with the reliability. The problem was that the article did not assert any notability - i.e. other than existing why are they notable? Why not check out WP:MUSIC for more information. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've userfied it into User:Dusoft/Sandbox, pending a re-wirite per the above. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. And what do you have with those HTML tags... where is plain old text (or wiki formatting)... oh.
I think the nominator was too hasty -- and that they should have made more of an effort to be helpful.
There is a rule that if articles are supposed to explicitly state that the subject is "notable". No one enforces this rule on core articles. The wikipedia has volunteers who patrol the wikipedia looking for new articles that they don't fit. They call for the deletion of new articles for various reasons. Containing "patent nonsense" is another. Your article was nominated because it was missing this explicit claim of notability.
You could have satisfied this rule by inserting a sentence that said something like:

"Wymucany is a notable musical group in Slovakia because its premier video received widespread critical acclaim in the Slovakian musical community."

or:

"Wymucany is a notable musical group in Slovakia because two(?) of its songs made the Slovakian top ten hit list."

No one could nominate the article for speedy deletion after you put in a phrase like this.
This doesn't mean it would be safe from challenges. Nominators could still nominate it for deletion. But they would have to use one of the two other "non-speedy" deletion methods.
With the "proposed deletion" method a nominator places a {{prod}} tag on the article. Anyone who thinks the reason offered for the prod is bogus simply removes the tag, and gives a reason why on the talk page.
Ideally, if the nominator didn't agree with the reason for the removal of the {{prod}} tag the nominator would engage in a civil discussion of the issue on the talk page. Unfortunately many of these patrolers don't do that. Many patrollers then immediately initiate the third method, the initiation of a discussion in the "articles for deletion forum. In this method they briefly state why they think the article doesn't belong.
{{Afd}} nominators are only supposed to justify deletion for reason from a list of criteria. Unfortunately many nominators routinely ignore the list of criteria.
Other wikipedians then comment on the article, stating opinions, like:
  • keep;
  • delete;
  • merge with an existing article;
  • rename
These other wikipedians opinions are supposed to be based on that list of criteria for which articles can be deleted. Unfortunately many participants routinely ignore the rules.
After seven(?) days of discussion one of the wikipedia's administrators will come along and close the discussion -- which could result in the article's deletion. It is explicitly "not a vote". Administrator's are authorized to ignore the opinions stated by participants that are counter to policy, or were based on misconceptions.
Again, unfortunately, in my experience, we can't count on administrators bringing the impartial judgment to their decisions we have a right to expect. I have participated in discussions where closing administrators made comments in other fora that showed that they very clearly were biased.
So, in your particular case, the closing admin wasn't saying your article was crap. He was only saying it was missing that sentence that explicitly asserted Vymucany was "notable".
I am very sorry that the process, so far, gave the appearance of hostility.
That may seem daunting, but, it seems to me that this group may very well easily satisfy all the criteria.
The closing administrator suggested you look at WP:Music. It is a guideline, not a full-fledged policy. The two criteria I included above are among a list of about a dozen criteria for inclusion. You only have to document that the group meets one of those criteria.
If I understand what the closing admin was saying here, and on his talk page, if you modify the copy he made in User:Dusoft/Sandbox, to include an explicit assertion of notability, and to document one of those criteria, he will restore your article.
As I understand it, you have two other choices:
  • You could modify the copy, as above, and place it right back in Vymucany, without asking for his permission. You would be flouting his authority, by doing so. The argument for doing so would be if you thought he had exceeded his authority.
    • I don't recommend this.
  • You could consider modifying the copy, as above, and then making an entry in wikipedia:deletion review. It is a forum intended to discuss when a deletion has been made where the process did not comply with policy. About half the participants there will be fellow administrators. They are supposed to confine their discussion to whether the wikipedia's procedures were followed, and not get invovled in the pros and cons of the article itself. Surprisingly, many administrators do drag in the pros and cons of the article, rather than confining their comments to the procedure.
    • If the undeletion process succeeds, and the consensus is to restore the article, you can expect an immediate initiation of a discussion to delete the article. That is why preparing a version that contains the assertion of notability, and has a reference to back it up, is important.
    • This could be embarrassing to the closing administrator, because it opens his decision to the scrutiny of his peers. If I had been in his position I would not have concluded this nomination so quickly, when you were clearly a newbie, and needed more time and more help.
I am one of the wikipedia's most prolific contributors. But I am not an administrator. One of my concerns over the wikipedia's future is that I have found that the volunteer patrollers who look for violations of the wikipedia's policies show disrespect for the wikipedia's policies and guidelines themselves. In your case it seems to me that there was a lack of compliance with "don't bite the newbies".
Good luck with all this! Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking your own software

Please read our policies on Conflict of interest and Links normally to be avoided. Adding a external link to your own website is never acceptable. If you think the site should be linked, then please suggest it on the appropriate Talk page and let other editors who don't have a conflict of interest decide. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)