User talk:Jeremybornstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Removing speedy deletion tags

Hello,

Wikipedia has a policy on editors removing deletion tags off of their own page for example like you did on Try the Veal. The deletion tag can only be removed by another editor who makes the article more encyclopedic or by an administrator if they determine that the article doesn't fit the title of speedy deletion. Removing tags from aritcles without either of the two happening is a form of vandalism and could result in your being blocked from editing on Wikipedia.Mystify85JEC 06:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was editing the page at the time someone else placed the speedy deletion tag on it, and my edit overwrote and accidentally removed the tag. When I saw that this had happened, I went back and re-added the tag, as you could have seen by examining the edit history of the page if you had bothered to take the time to do so, instead of jumping at the chance to chastise. This sort of behavior on your part is bound to discourage people such as myself from contributions to Wikipedia. Jeremybornstein 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well as I can recall that if that was the case, which is hard to believe speaking that Wikipedia will automatically block your edit if there has been a change to the editing of an article, since you had completed your article. In addition, the article went two days without the tags being on them which is the reason why I put the tags back oon and left you the warning. Please do not take a friendly to the policies as a way to chastise you. It was not my intentions, and I apolgize. However, I conduct myself as an editor the same way that good editors who turn to be administrators conduct themselves.. But again, if you do have an issue with what I said, I apologize and ment no disrespect. Mystify85JEC 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually another user removed the tags, with the comment "not nonsense," after I had added them back. If there is a way of examining the page history at this point, it should be simple to verify this. Jeremybornstein 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veal

I've seen your comment, but I have to go out for the day now, so will respond this evening or tomorrow am, jimfbleak 04:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that the article was created in good faith, but it was a candidate for speedy deletion on a number of grounds.
  1. There are no independent verifiable sources listed.
  2. Consequently, it is not possible to establish whether the notability criteria are met.
  3. There is no context, no country or region is stated where this phrase is allegedly gaining currency (UK? USA? NZ? Oz?), or how its currency has been assessed
  4. If the currency assessment is based on your own observations, it would be classed as original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
If you feel that the concerns which led to deletion can be addressed, there is nothing to stop your recreating the article, I haven't prevented recreation. I'm sorry if you feel that I have behaved inappropriately, but I have to make a judgement based on what I see, jimfbleak 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)