User talk:Pip2andahalf/Archives/2008/September
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Pip2andahalf/Archives/2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Demonoid. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Gary King (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Facebook revision
The new layout has already been covered in the article, and the opposition group is highly unimportant unless discussed in reliable sources. GlassCobra 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for coming off harshly above. You are a longstanding member and I should have spoken to you as such. Keep up the good work. :) GlassCobra 23:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars 'R' U
|
The Hidden Page Barnstar | |
| I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Whether you deserve is an open question. =p TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. That's OK, I own stock in AOL. ;D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I stumbled on it on somebody's page (wish I could recall who...) & thought it was kind of a neat idea. I had no idea I'd get so many hits... I originally had a message more like WP's (if you noticed iNkubusse suggesting it), but I got word that's frowned on. One more guideline I didn't know about. *sigh* TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, glad you liked it. Ta. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
<--If you got the joke, & aren't offended (I wasn't so sure it was as funny to you as to me...), go ahead & restore it from the page history, if you want. Or not. And yeh, I'm glad you got it. (My sense of humor is a bit weird...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whatevever works. Thanks. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Joaum
Hi!
Thank you for your advice. I'm tryng to log with the "Joaum" username, but, until now, nothing had happened. As you have told, the username is valid. Is strange that I can log. I always use the same password to avoid this tipe of problems. Well, I'll keep tryng.
Once more, thank you.
(Sorry about my poor english, is not my native) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.169.221 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Userboxes
Glad you like some of the userboxes. Here's a whole list of them you can use: Userboxes Template -- MF14 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
deletion
pure chance (: jimfbleak (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- just as well you said that, he'd removed the tag jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "hold on" just said that Wikipedia has plenty of space, give him a chance, so I've deleted and salted this time jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's now a fully protected page that can only be created or edited by admins unless the protection is removed. Just to clarify, there is an intermediate level (semi-protection) which bars only unregistered and new editors. This tends to be used on heavily vandalised pages jimfbleak (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "hold on" just said that Wikipedia has plenty of space, give him a chance, so I've deleted and salted this time jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
And now you have...
...got a new message ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Why did you request to speedily delete my article?
I have just started the article, and I know it's short, but I didn't even have a chance to expand it before the tag was placed on it. What do I need to add? I will add it. Also, please make sure it is not deleted immediately. -- IRP (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded to this on the respective article's talk page. Cheers, Pip (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is it OK now? Please see these links
- Talk:VORTEX2
- VORTEX2
- -- IRP (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Torx (game)
Just a friendly note on Torx (game). I declined your speedy deletion request because the article (even when you made the request) did not meet the requirements of G1 patent nonsense. If you still think the article needs to be deleted, I'd suggest taking it to AfD. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks. I actually was kinda on autopilot, since that user had been posting streams of spam up, and so I got a bit hasty when I saw yet another article by him... I removed the tag, but you were probably just too quick and efficient :P either way, he created another bogus page and I believe he was blocked. Either way, the history is pretty clear in his talk. Thanks again! Cheers Pip (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Remote-Free TV
I see you speedily deleted the article I created. Could you clarify on what was missing? I had thought I had enough information necessary for a minute-old stub.--Armyable (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I marked it for deletion because there was no distinguishable context, hence I could not determine the subject or notability and/ or usefulness of the article. I did so within Wikipedia's Criteria for Speedy Deletion, specifically Criterion A1. Pip (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Mynyddawg Mwynfawr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mynyddawg_Mwynfawr
what you talkin bout issues? That's a good f'n article! Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely did not mark this article for speedy deletion, as is apparent on the article's page. I do not know why you received such notification on your page - it must have been a malfunction on part of the tool that I use to work on Wikipedia. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this caused. Pip (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey no problem. happy editting. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome? I don't remember why you're thanking me haha Pip (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bumvertising
Hi. I'd tend to agree that the Bumvertising article feels very fiddly. It troubled me in the Homelessness article and in its own right. I've tried to edit it in and out in bits but was uncertain how to approach the larger issue. It has gotten Seattle press, apparently. But of the oddest sort. I don't ever hear anyone talking about its being humanistic or philanthropic although it purports to be, which is really stretching it, in my gut. In fact, no serious person helping the homeless seems to talk about it or think it's actually appropriate as far as I know. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, although it received press, I don't think it received press because it's humanitarian or socially accepted in any way. Just because something received press doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia And it's highly disrespectful, if you ask me. Nonetheless, it seems as though it has maintained it's place in Wikipedia despite that. I wouldn't think it would necessarily be bad to be bold and at least nominate it for deletion to get discussion going on it. What do you think? Thanks for responding... Maybe we should keep this discussion on the talk page of the article though. (We can just copy paste this if you agree) Pip (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Pip. Thanks for your note. Well, I think "bumvertising" is a messy and sloppy realisation of charitable behaviour. It really doesn't help the homeless, in my opinion. It has maintained its place in Wikipedia and the article on Homelessness because similar practices seem to have done in Dickens' time with sandwich boards and people walking around London wearing them. But it's an unpleasent and uncomfortable charitable act -- which actually is not charitable at all morally. Article for deletion ? Well, it does smell of someone's shameless self-promotion of the practice in that it's in Wikipedia already ... people have tried to take it out I think. I don't think it's a real helping item but exploitational of the downtrodden. I actually would prefer it were not in Wikipedia but I can't make a strong enough case to myself to cause its deletion unless the WP community feels similarly. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's well said, and agree entirely. I would almost flag it CSD:G11, Blatant Advertising... If you look at the history of the "article" and the way it's written, it looks like something I would flag that way if it showed up on New Pages while I was on patrol, regardless of it's generally unencyclopedic content. Then if you move on to the nature of the topic, again independently from it's rather offensive side, it's also something I would consider for CSD: A7, non notable organization. If, since CSD: A7 is a lower standard than Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by Wikipedia:Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." That's how I'd go about making the argument. Pip (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Pip. Thanks for your kindest reply. I am in agreement with you. Perhaps it should be put up for discussion before a deletion. However, in a rather oblique moralistic way, since the practice and exploitation goes back to Dickens' time, a purpose might be served to leave it in the article to show how business try to exploit the poor and afflicated and downtrodden - as a cautionary tale. I'll defer to your good judgement on this but keep me up to date and let me know if you need my help. Bests ever and many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your response to my original query as well. :) (I love the cool people I've been "meeting" and talking to since I've gotten more into Wikipedia. xD Awesome. Anyway - I think it'd be worth a proposed deletion, that way it'll spark discussion. There's a lot less discussion than I would have expected on the article. We'll see. I think about it, and I'll definitely keep you updated. :) Pip (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Pip. Thanks for your kindest reply. I am in agreement with you. Perhaps it should be put up for discussion before a deletion. However, in a rather oblique moralistic way, since the practice and exploitation goes back to Dickens' time, a purpose might be served to leave it in the article to show how business try to exploit the poor and afflicated and downtrodden - as a cautionary tale. I'll defer to your good judgement on this but keep me up to date and let me know if you need my help. Bests ever and many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's well said, and agree entirely. I would almost flag it CSD:G11, Blatant Advertising... If you look at the history of the "article" and the way it's written, it looks like something I would flag that way if it showed up on New Pages while I was on patrol, regardless of it's generally unencyclopedic content. Then if you move on to the nature of the topic, again independently from it's rather offensive side, it's also something I would consider for CSD: A7, non notable organization. If, since CSD: A7 is a lower standard than Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by Wikipedia:Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." That's how I'd go about making the argument. Pip (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Pip. Thanks for your note. Well, I think "bumvertising" is a messy and sloppy realisation of charitable behaviour. It really doesn't help the homeless, in my opinion. It has maintained its place in Wikipedia and the article on Homelessness because similar practices seem to have done in Dickens' time with sandwich boards and people walking around London wearing them. But it's an unpleasent and uncomfortable charitable act -- which actually is not charitable at all morally. Article for deletion ? Well, it does smell of someone's shameless self-promotion of the practice in that it's in Wikipedia already ... people have tried to take it out I think. I don't think it's a real helping item but exploitational of the downtrodden. I actually would prefer it were not in Wikipedia but I can't make a strong enough case to myself to cause its deletion unless the WP community feels similarly. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
(exdent) Excellent, Pip ! It's my great pleasure as well for the interaction. It does seem like a fiddly item to insert in the poor battered article on Homelessness (since we are all getting rid of constant vandalism which might say something implicitly about people's feelings on the sad plight of homeless and poor people). Let alone to do in reality with Bumvertising. But it's historically precedented. One is reminded of Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" -- "Are there no workhouses?". Yeah. Good thing the story ended on a different note. Please keep me updated. Bests. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop
I have to ask you, why did you revert me here? I asked on the talk page about removing the un-cited sections, was told to get rid of information without sources, and so I went ahead and cut out a large (and libelous) section, to be rebuilt later with well sourced references. Please undo your change, that you labeled "vandalism." Thank you, Will 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there, sorry about that. I was going full speed and didn't have a look at the talk page. When skimming the selection, it didn't look like material that was bad for any reason. I apologize. I have reverted my edit. Thanks for mesaging me. Pip (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Is there a better place to leave a note so this doesn't happen again in the future (for those that watch for vandalism)? Will 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- As far as this particular article? Well, if you developed the article more, it should be fine. If you still feel as though you want to just mention it, you should go to the article's talk page and add something there, along the lines of "This was deleted before, it was suggested I improve it before publishing, then trying again. I'm not affiliated with the group, and I'm not writing this as an advertisement." You can also feel free to say it was me who suggested you publish it again. An easy way to do so would be add this: [[User:Pip2andahalf|whatever display text you want goes here]] Cheers! Pip (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Is there a better place to leave a note so this doesn't happen again in the future (for those that watch for vandalism)? Will 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
NOT AGAIN!
The article now has a proposed deletion tag, placed on it by User:Orangemike. Look at this -- IRP ☎ 02:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
What should I do? -- IRP ☎ 02:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm not going to lie, I definitely am going to have to agree with the idea that the information contained in VORTEX2 could be consolidated into VORTEX. I posted a similar message on the talk page. The only thing you can do it discuss the deletion on the talk page. Just try to present a good argument - the way you'll get a strong argument is to study up a bit on Wikipedia's policies and such so that you can defend your article against what the other editors will be attacking it on. If all else fails, you could take the content of VORTEX2 and add it to VORTEX, converting VORTEX into a comprehensive article covering the information on both projects, as I suggested previously. I think that's probably going to be your best bet as far as the life of the content... Pip (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I will discuss it on his talk page. Also, a better way to let me know that I have new messages on your talk page is to create a new section on my talk page, and add: {{newmessages|User talk:Pip2andahalf}} -- IRP ☎ 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Pip2andahalf/Archives/2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Demonoid. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Gary King (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Facebook revision
The new layout has already been covered in the article, and the opposition group is highly unimportant unless discussed in reliable sources. GlassCobra 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for coming off harshly above. You are a longstanding member and I should have spoken to you as such. Keep up the good work. :) GlassCobra 23:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars 'R' U
|
|
The Hidden Page Barnstar | |
| I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Whether you deserve is an open question. =p TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. That's OK, I own stock in AOL. ;D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I stumbled on it on somebody's page (wish I could recall who...) & thought it was kind of a neat idea. I had no idea I'd get so many hits... I originally had a message more like WP's (if you noticed iNkubusse suggesting it), but I got word that's frowned on. One more guideline I didn't know about. *sigh* TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, glad you liked it. Ta. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
<--If you got the joke, & aren't offended (I wasn't so sure it was as funny to you as to me...), go ahead & restore it from the page history, if you want. Or not. And yeh, I'm glad you got it. (My sense of humor is a bit weird...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Whatevever works. Thanks. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Joaum
Hi!
Thank you for your advice. I'm tryng to log with the "Joaum" username, but, until now, nothing had happened. As you have told, the username is valid. Is strange that I can log. I always use the same password to avoid this tipe of problems. Well, I'll keep tryng.
Once more, thank you.
(Sorry about my poor english, is not my native) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.169.221 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Userboxes
Glad you like some of the userboxes. Here's a whole list of them you can use: Userboxes Template -- MF14 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
deletion
pure chance (: jimfbleak (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- just as well you said that, he'd removed the tag jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "hold on" just said that Wikipedia has plenty of space, give him a chance, so I've deleted and salted this time jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's now a fully protected page that can only be created or edited by admins unless the protection is removed. Just to clarify, there is an intermediate level (semi-protection) which bars only unregistered and new editors. This tends to be used on heavily vandalised pages jimfbleak (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "hold on" just said that Wikipedia has plenty of space, give him a chance, so I've deleted and salted this time jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
And now you have...
...got a new message ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Why did you request to speedily delete my article?
I have just started the article, and I know it's short, but I didn't even have a chance to expand it before the tag was placed on it. What do I need to add? I will add it. Also, please make sure it is not deleted immediately. -- IRP (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded to this on the respective article's talk page. Cheers, Pip (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is it OK now? Please see these links
- Talk:VORTEX2
- VORTEX2
- -- IRP (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Torx (game)
Just a friendly note on Torx (game). I declined your speedy deletion request because the article (even when you made the request) did not meet the requirements of G1 patent nonsense. If you still think the article needs to be deleted, I'd suggest taking it to AfD. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks. I actually was kinda on autopilot, since that user had been posting streams of spam up, and so I got a bit hasty when I saw yet another article by him... I removed the tag, but you were probably just too quick and efficient :P either way, he created another bogus page and I believe he was blocked. Either way, the history is pretty clear in his talk. Thanks again! Cheers Pip (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Remote-Free TV
I see you speedily deleted the article I created. Could you clarify on what was missing? I had thought I had enough information necessary for a minute-old stub.--Armyable (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I marked it for deletion because there was no distinguishable context, hence I could not determine the subject or notability and/ or usefulness of the article. I did so within Wikipedia's Criteria for Speedy Deletion, specifically Criterion A1. Pip (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Mynyddawg Mwynfawr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mynyddawg_Mwynfawr
what you talkin bout issues? That's a good f'n article! Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely did not mark this article for speedy deletion, as is apparent on the article's page. I do not know why you received such notification on your page - it must have been a malfunction on part of the tool that I use to work on Wikipedia. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this caused. Pip (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey no problem. happy editting. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome? I don't remember why you're thanking me haha Pip (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bumvertising
Hi. I'd tend to agree that the Bumvertising article feels very fiddly. It troubled me in the Homelessness article and in its own right. I've tried to edit it in and out in bits but was uncertain how to approach the larger issue. It has gotten Seattle press, apparently. But of the oddest sort. I don't ever hear anyone talking about its being humanistic or philanthropic although it purports to be, which is really stretching it, in my gut. In fact, no serious person helping the homeless seems to talk about it or think it's actually appropriate as far as I know. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, although it received press, I don't think it received press because it's humanitarian or socially accepted in any way. Just because something received press doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia And it's highly disrespectful, if you ask me. Nonetheless, it seems as though it has maintained it's place in Wikipedia despite that. I wouldn't think it would necessarily be bad to be bold and at least nominate it for deletion to get discussion going on it. What do you think? Thanks for responding... Maybe we should keep this discussion on the talk page of the article though. (We can just copy paste this if you agree) Pip (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Pip. Thanks for your note. Well, I think "bumvertising" is a messy and sloppy realisation of charitable behaviour. It really doesn't help the homeless, in my opinion. It has maintained its place in Wikipedia and the article on Homelessness because similar practices seem to have done in Dickens' time with sandwich boards and people walking around London wearing them. But it's an unpleasent and uncomfortable charitable act -- which actually is not charitable at all morally. Article for deletion ? Well, it does smell of someone's shameless self-promotion of the practice in that it's in Wikipedia already ... people have tried to take it out I think. I don't think it's a real helping item but exploitational of the downtrodden. I actually would prefer it were not in Wikipedia but I can't make a strong enough case to myself to cause its deletion unless the WP community feels similarly. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's well said, and agree entirely. I would almost flag it CSD:G11, Blatant Advertising... If you look at the history of the "article" and the way it's written, it looks like something I would flag that way if it showed up on New Pages while I was on patrol, regardless of it's generally unencyclopedic content. Then if you move on to the nature of the topic, again independently from it's rather offensive side, it's also something I would consider for CSD: A7, non notable organization. If, since CSD: A7 is a lower standard than Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by Wikipedia:Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." That's how I'd go about making the argument. Pip (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Pip. Thanks for your kindest reply. I am in agreement with you. Perhaps it should be put up for discussion before a deletion. However, in a rather oblique moralistic way, since the practice and exploitation goes back to Dickens' time, a purpose might be served to leave it in the article to show how business try to exploit the poor and afflicated and downtrodden - as a cautionary tale. I'll defer to your good judgement on this but keep me up to date and let me know if you need my help. Bests ever and many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your response to my original query as well. :) (I love the cool people I've been "meeting" and talking to since I've gotten more into Wikipedia. xD Awesome. Anyway - I think it'd be worth a proposed deletion, that way it'll spark discussion. There's a lot less discussion than I would have expected on the article. We'll see. I think about it, and I'll definitely keep you updated. :) Pip (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Pip. Thanks for your kindest reply. I am in agreement with you. Perhaps it should be put up for discussion before a deletion. However, in a rather oblique moralistic way, since the practice and exploitation goes back to Dickens' time, a purpose might be served to leave it in the article to show how business try to exploit the poor and afflicated and downtrodden - as a cautionary tale. I'll defer to your good judgement on this but keep me up to date and let me know if you need my help. Bests ever and many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's well said, and agree entirely. I would almost flag it CSD:G11, Blatant Advertising... If you look at the history of the "article" and the way it's written, it looks like something I would flag that way if it showed up on New Pages while I was on patrol, regardless of it's generally unencyclopedic content. Then if you move on to the nature of the topic, again independently from it's rather offensive side, it's also something I would consider for CSD: A7, non notable organization. If, since CSD: A7 is a lower standard than Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by Wikipedia:Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." That's how I'd go about making the argument. Pip (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Pip. Thanks for your note. Well, I think "bumvertising" is a messy and sloppy realisation of charitable behaviour. It really doesn't help the homeless, in my opinion. It has maintained its place in Wikipedia and the article on Homelessness because similar practices seem to have done in Dickens' time with sandwich boards and people walking around London wearing them. But it's an unpleasent and uncomfortable charitable act -- which actually is not charitable at all morally. Article for deletion ? Well, it does smell of someone's shameless self-promotion of the practice in that it's in Wikipedia already ... people have tried to take it out I think. I don't think it's a real helping item but exploitational of the downtrodden. I actually would prefer it were not in Wikipedia but I can't make a strong enough case to myself to cause its deletion unless the WP community feels similarly. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
(exdent) Excellent, Pip ! It's my great pleasure as well for the interaction. It does seem like a fiddly item to insert in the poor battered article on Homelessness (since we are all getting rid of constant vandalism which might say something implicitly about people's feelings on the sad plight of homeless and poor people). Let alone to do in reality with Bumvertising. But it's historically precedented. One is reminded of Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" -- "Are there no workhouses?". Yeah. Good thing the story ended on a different note. Please keep me updated. Bests. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop
I have to ask you, why did you revert me here? I asked on the talk page about removing the un-cited sections, was told to get rid of information without sources, and so I went ahead and cut out a large (and libelous) section, to be rebuilt later with well sourced references. Please undo your change, that you labeled "vandalism." Thank you, Will 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there, sorry about that. I was going full speed and didn't have a look at the talk page. When skimming the selection, it didn't look like material that was bad for any reason. I apologize. I have reverted my edit. Thanks for mesaging me. Pip (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Is there a better place to leave a note so this doesn't happen again in the future (for those that watch for vandalism)? Will 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- As far as this particular article? Well, if you developed the article more, it should be fine. If you still feel as though you want to just mention it, you should go to the article's talk page and add something there, along the lines of "This was deleted before, it was suggested I improve it before publishing, then trying again. I'm not affiliated with the group, and I'm not writing this as an advertisement." You can also feel free to say it was me who suggested you publish it again. An easy way to do so would be add this: [[User:Pip2andahalf|whatever display text you want goes here]] Cheers! Pip (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Is there a better place to leave a note so this doesn't happen again in the future (for those that watch for vandalism)? Will 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
NOT AGAIN!
The article now has a proposed deletion tag, placed on it by User:Orangemike. Look at this -- IRP ☎ 02:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
What should I do? -- IRP ☎ 02:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm not going to lie, I definitely am going to have to agree with the idea that the information contained in VORTEX2 could be consolidated into VORTEX. I posted a similar message on the talk page. The only thing you can do it discuss the deletion on the talk page. Just try to present a good argument - the way you'll get a strong argument is to study up a bit on Wikipedia's policies and such so that you can defend your article against what the other editors will be attacking it on. If all else fails, you could take the content of VORTEX2 and add it to VORTEX, converting VORTEX into a comprehensive article covering the information on both projects, as I suggested previously. I think that's probably going to be your best bet as far as the life of the content... Pip (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I will discuss it on his talk page. Also, a better way to let me know that I have new messages on your talk page is to create a new section on my talk page, and add: {{newmessages|User talk:Pip2andahalf}} -- IRP ☎ 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)