User talk:24.54.208.177

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] AfD

I happened upon your comment on Jimbo's page, as I read it from time to time.

Sorry you were treated rudely.

As someone who often participates in AfD, I can say that, sometimes, it is easy to make a few digs at articles in our comments. Going through the AfD process is like doing a mop and bucket duty, a thankless job, but not a "think"less one. Sometimes wisecracks serve to ease the boredom and, unfortunately, the exhaustion at some of the nonsense we have to look at. Not very many people are rude about it -- sometimes I am, I must admit.

I can see why someone might object to that.

But getting to your particular article, I would be very surprised if it is being moved for deletion for the wrong reasons. Participating in AfD is a great exercise in getting to know what belongs on WP and what does not -- at least according current consensus -- and most who participate are very good at what they do.

Listen to the reasons people give for saying the article should be deleted. They are probably valid ones. If you can identify one or two reasons that were more thoughtful (forget the ones like "it's crap"), reasons you strongly disagree with, let me take a look at them and I can give you some feedback, one editor to another. If I disagree or agree I will tell you why. If it helps you, great.

  • Was the the text copied word for word from one website to another?
  • Did the article clearly demontrate -- in the opening paragraph or two -- what made the subject was notable?
  • Did it seem to promote a company?

In the past, I have mistakenly nominated articles for deletion, but other editors quickly caught my error and moved to keep them. I can't ever remember an article actually being deleted that was clearly a deserving one.

paul klenk talk 10:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DoYouDo AfD

Hi - I felt that the DoYouDo article read very much like the sort of semi-promotional pieces that turn up on Wikipedia with considerable frequency. I was going on the basis of this version of the article, as well as the original version, not the far shorter one that now exists - though that I would also vote for deletion on the grounds that it gives almost no useful context. The huge reductions in the text of the article after AfD are also unusual, to say the least.

It's also fair to say that like many (most?) other editors, I tend to be a bit harsher on articles written by anonymous users. I'm well aware that this is by no means always fair, but the sad fact is that the great majority of non-useful edits (spam, vandalism etc) are done by IP addresses rather than logged in users. Assume good faith, yes, but that doesn't mean "take everything at face value at all costs". I may be wrong to believe that the article is inappropriate, but looking at the AfD discussion I'm hardly the only one. Loganberry (Talk) 11:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

For disruptive actions you are no doubt fully aware of, and which are documented at WP:AN/I, I have blocked you for 48 hours. If you wish to contribute constructively on your return, you will be welcome to do so. -Splashtalk 04:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.54.208.177.html"