User talk:Shunt010
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 32k-Crypt
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article 32k-Crypt, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.
It's fun to play with toy ciphers, but you shouldn't use WP as the "official page of 32k-crypt" as stated in the source code. Ufretin 09:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eewifi
A tag has been placed on Eewifi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Eewifi and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jb0007 (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Final warning
This is the final warning you will receive (in respect of you IP address edits and edits under this account name) for continuing to insert spam links in articles under the guise of improving them. Dispatch 1327, East Midlands Comms and Eewifi are just a few of the examples. GBT/C 12:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dorket Head
Just a quickie - do you think that there's any merit in actually mentioning who owns any of the masts? I don't really think it adds anything to the article whatsoever - I see that you've changed the article a bit back in that direction, but wonder if it's worth going a bit further? What's your view? GBT/C 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Knowing the area quite well, I know there's no signs on any of the masts to say what they do, and there are a lot of rumours going around the locals as to what all 3 of these masts on such a prominent location as Dorket Head do (I've heard stories as far fetched as them being used for the Nuclear Missile control, since I believe there are nuclear missiles located around 10 miles away). I don't think it's worth turning the page on Dorket Head into a page all about radio masts (although it may be of some interest to me, I don't think it's of interest to most), but I think that the general public may be interested in simply who owns the mast, either for commercial reasons or to just find out the truth and that they're not top-secret military installations (which the lack of signs has possibly prompted these stories).
I know there was much debate over the mention of eeWifi using Dorket Head, and I think possibly that simply mentioning it is an internet company is a fair compromise, but I feel that removing the information altogether would detract from the article, due to Wikipedia being about the only place that I have ever seen that seems to actually say who owns these masts.
Sorry about getting back to you, and I guess this is where I reply, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I love the idea, I think I was perhaps a little mis-guided about how it all works.
Do you think the ownership should all be removed? I know it may save any suggestion of it being advertising, although I think that it is something which is of interest to the public generally.
Shunt010 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
