Hello, TomT0m, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hi, I'm not happy with my interactions with admins here. I made him (them actually) know, I've been answered they're "not interested in this discussion". Is that really acceptable ? What to do next ? (the previous page of the story is here.) TomT0m (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you're talking about Bbb23 here. Reading the story, it's evident that you feel betrayed and dissuaded from editing Wikipedia or creating your article again. There are a few outlets in which you can proceed with. If you genuinely feel there is administrator misconduct here, which I personally do not, you can report it at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. I do not recommend this, as it tends to get drama-ey over there and heated, but I'm just letting you know that's where supposed administrator misconduct goes to get reported. I don't think this qualifies, but you can make the decision for yourself. Second, there is deletion review. Deletion review is where articles which are speedily deleted, deleted via proposed deletion, or articles for deletion can be reassessed. It is not afd 2, but let's say that afterwards the afd, it is known that there was heavy canvassing on other sites to !delete the article, all from single purpose accounts. That would influence the discussion, and they might rerun it again with semi protection. In this case, since it was speedily deleted, it would be reassessed by some uninvolved experienced editors on whether it warranted a speedy deletion or not. If it doesn't, they will !vote overturn, or !vote endorse, for endorsing speedy deletion. You can make the claim that you discussed it with the reviewing administrator and nothing came out of it. Read everything about it, including the notifications, and make your arguments on why the article qualifies and should not have been speedily deleted. Don't worry, Bbb23 would only have one vote to regard. Administrators, while are expected to have good judgement, do not get any more sway in content disputes/deletion discussions than anyone else.
I also noticed that you had some interest in drafts. Drafts are in the 'draft' namespace, and as long as it's being somewhat actively improved, and isn't violating any serious policies like copyright or attack pages, it can be there indefinitely. You can follow instructions at WP:DRAFTS for how to make one. You can either request the text of the article from Bbb23, or you could request it from another uninvolved administrator at WP:REFUND. Tutelary (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, Tutelary. I don't want to go to the noticeboard incident as I'm relectuant to do this as it is atm just a disagreement and, I think, just a lack of consideration to contributors, nothing more.
I think I'll follow the Deletion Review path (this is actually the second deletion, the first one was for spam by another admin who acknowledge this actually was not spam, which puzzles me a little).
Still I have question to you as you are uninvolved : do you think it's legitimate for an admin to delete an article without automatically provide him for a real reason and options he have after the deletion ? Actually I had to ask him what to do, and I still have to explicitely ask him to have a change to recieve my work ... Don't you think it is a problem and can make contributors actually legitmaly angry, and therefor should be avoided ? TomT0m (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well generally, if admins are deleting content for no reason, and since they are accountable for their actions, I think that they should generally have to give a reason for it. It would be common courtesy to give options on what to do, but it's not required, and if there were a policy/guideline mandating it, I would be opposed as it would take up too much time for each speedy deletion. In the deletion log for the page, it said that it was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, which means that it had no claim of significance. Also, reading back over the text on the talk page, you never really asked on why your page was deleted, but were ranting about how it was deleted. I understand that speedy deletions can be bitey at times, that should be considered, but they're a necessary evil. Some are attack pages, copyright violations, blatant advertising, and other things which would have a snow vote to delete. There is a process, as I said for receiving the text of the page, and that is at WP:REFUND. Tutelary (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tutelary: Hehe, my journey would have been simpler if restoring the article was the main reason I'm here. Unfortunately it was mainly to understand how some good faith contributor stopped. And your necessary evil is the cause of it. It take a lot of courage and bureaucraty to understand what happened and why, to take the initiative to talk to the admin, and takes a lot of courage to understand the bureaucraty involved. You know it so much you to avoid it ... Saving bureaucraty to save admin times implies lose of good contributors.
The article was for deleted for (unlegitimate) spam reasons, the second time it was for lack of context, I think I might have cateched in the discussions.
So actually we're at the point that long time contributors who know really well the machinery are in power to abuse their rights. By not giving informations, this is very likely that an abused person won't ask or fight back, or just will go away or be lost into the administration maze.
Last, about the time it take to put a clear, well written, succint and already formated message on the talk page of a user, I must disagree.
Not at home, but have access to a computer for a time. Basically, this is part of the problem and one of my main critiques of Wikipedia, and I would not be sure how to fix it. Articles need to have a degree of quality and follow guidelines and policies, though I acknowledge Wikipedia's policy of ignoring all rules, and consider it essential at times. Ultimately, when a new editor has their page tagged for deletion, even if it warrants it or it doesn't, it does have a rather huge bitey effect. As I mentioned before, it's a necessary evil, and not one we can particularly counter without lowering the notability guidelines or other policies. To see all the speedy deletion criteria, see WP:CSD. When I was a brand new editor, I had my own article on simple.wikipedia.org tagged for deletion, and it was just a proposed deletion. I closed out of Wikipedia and stopped trying. Stayed logged out and didn't try again. Later, started editing again and here I am. I understand what you're going through, I really do. Which is why I recommended deletion review, as it can be evaluated by other experienced editors and will be allowed to be recreated. (It can be recreated now, but since it's been deleted a few times, it has the risk of being create protected.) I know your frustration, especially since not a bureaucracy is a thing. After you file the deletion review and still have questions, you can ask me here and I'll respond. Though I would recommend heading to the Teahouse or the help desk for Wikipedia. I don't know everything, especially obscure things, but they might. Tutelary (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects
Please don't post nonsense like this, which breaks perfectly good redirects. I understand that English may not be your first language, but that's the reason I don't edit stuff like that on fr.wikipedia, for example. My schoolboy French would be insufficient. Thanks. Begoontalk17:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not really meant to stay as is anyway, I did this mainly to sort out interlanguage links on Wikidata, this was a mess (articles about JBOD linked with the article about non-RAID architecture, different topics). I replaced the redirect with a small article and forgot about it. Anyway, if something was wrong with my english, what was wrong ? without any specific architecture would have been better ? @Begoon:TomT0m (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was unintelligible, and bizarre. And it broke a redirect, which, before your odd edit, steered people to the correct information. No biggie, but that's why I try not to edit technical things on wikis where the primary language is not one I speak fluently. Fixed now, so no worries. Begoontalk19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Begoon: Yes, you already said that :) I wanted a more precise answer (what was really wrong in my sentences), but whatever.
What you might not know is that english nowdays is also an international communication language and as such is more likely to be edited by non native speakers. It's not like it was just a stranger bothering natives :). TomT0m (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know that. One of the biggest problems en.wikipedia has is that folks want to edit it regardless of their English competence. I'm not sure why you'd imagine I didn't know that, or the underlying reasons for it. I'd like to offer something more concrete with regards to the wording, but, frankly, a sentence like "It's a common name for an architecture without special architecture." is just so meaningless I have no idea what you were trying to say. Anyway, that's not really the point. The point is that you felt this "sentence" was better than a redirect to coherent information, so broke a valid redirect to include it, thus confusing readers. That's a silly thing to do. There was nothing to "fix". Begoontalk20:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Begoon: Hmm, I don't think this is a language problem. JBOD is a disc architecture, I think we all agree here. It's a name given to an architecture that has not really been thaught, like RAID is, RAID has purposes, such as redundancy, and needs the disks to be organised in a certain way to do this. JBOD is the name for disks given when the builder did not try to achieve a special architecture, like RAID is. So in that sense it is not really an architecture, it's the name for "no architecture". I could have written it better, but the problem is not that I'm bad in english. For the redirect, I explained why I did this. TomT0m (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metaclass (Semantic Web), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RDF. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lambda the Ultimate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – Smyth\talk16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 28 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello, TomT0m. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
