User talk:Interference 541/Archives/2015/January

Redirect to:

• User talk:Interference 541/Archives/2015/April

• From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the help :)

Uamaol (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

I contested the deletion of the page "YouTube Bait"

Please see talk page for information on why I think the page should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchyte (talk • contribs) 07:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Emmerdale

Oh dear oh dear oh dear!!! Who was fighting against this version then??? Vandalism you were fighting was it??? Or just keeping it going??!! Hollowspaced (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

GWCL

Please I don't I think your tag A7 for this article doesn't hold please revisit the article again.--Rberchie (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rberchie:, I've cleaned up the GWCL article and removed the CSD template in the process. Interference 541 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.--Rberchie (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

HJ Martin and Son

Hi, thanks for visiting this page. I contest the speedy deletion because I am aware of the issues and am working to resolve them. There is some interesting history involved her for this company and it is similar to other small businesses whose pages are fine on Wikipedia (see Menards, another Wisconsin company that is existing on Wikipedia and one that I used as a direct template for this page). If you look at the references, the majority of them are to outside, secondary sources now, which is the area I was working on. I value your input but do not agree it is a candidate for speedy deletion, particularly since you can see that it is being worked on. Thanks again. CdbgLaurie (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Declining Speedy Deletion of HJ Martin and Son

I'm declining the speedy deletion of HJ Martin and Son- whilst some of the text is promotional/unsourced, lots of it is factual and well-sourced. Therefore, I do not believe it is Unambiguous advertising. In addition, the user is working to resolve these issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Hi

Hello,

I noticed that another user (Amaury) has reverted a lot of things I've put on this page,

It's not normal on wikipedia to allow other people to edit user talk-pages - because it allows discussion between individuals.

I 'undid' it when they (Amaury) removed my comments, but you removed it again, saying 'I would've removed it anyways' - that's fine, of course; I'd just like to know whether you think it's generally acceptable, and if you'd like to discuss any problems with my edits, instead of just blanking everything I write.

Thanks for your time reading this. I hope it'll lead to a discussion, instead of you just removing and ignoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your prior comments were removed due to a lack of explanation and verbosity. I don't like the way you're using CSD templates to drop articles before they have the chance to expand. In addition, the explanations in your db templates lack proper explanation. "a9" is not a good-enough reason; write the actual title of A9 Interference 541 (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.

There are hundreds of utterly pointless articles every day, so my shorthand 'tagging' is probably in response to the sheer volume of spam, self-promotion, and generally unenclcopedic bullshit that is thrown out 24/7.

Do you know what I meant by 'a9', or did it actually confuse you?

I imagine that the admin would recognise what it meant - and even if she didn't, she'd just deny it, so no loss there.

If I can 'tag' 100 articles in an hour without getting into a debate about each one, isn't that a net positive? Bobbertybob (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbertybob: 'a9' is not going to be recognized by new or casual users of Wikipedia. As far as 'tagging' goes, unless the article has no potential to expand into worthiness, just tag it as a stub or in need of references. Additionally, if using comments in your tagging is too repetitive, use something like Twinkle to store comments you make often. Interference 541 (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bobbertybob (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC) to do so.[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}