User talk:TheMadFam

Welcome!

Hello, TheMadFam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Coolhandnuke.com, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Coolhandnuke.com

A tag has been placed on Coolhandnuke.com 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 web content, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of CoolHandNuke

A tag has been placed on CoolHandNuke 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 web content, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. role^player 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re CoolHandNuke

I am afraid you're not helping your cause by telling me that the website in question hasn't even gone live yet. Wikipedia is not a place that lists every single website that has ever been created. Neither is it a business directory, nor is it a web directory. It is an encyclopedia, and as such it only lists items of proven notability, that can be verified using reliable sources. The subject matter you are writing about can do none of those things, and as such, I'm afraid it does not have a place on Wikipedia.

When you are able to demonstrate that the subject has notability, using reliable third party sources that can verify that claim, then by all means come back and post again. -- role^player 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid relevance is not the issue here, notability is, and facebook is not evidence of notability. I can understand you are not accepting what I am saying, and have asked for someone else to come in and help out here, I don't really know what else I can tell you. The site just isn't notable. Period. -- role^player 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Smashville^talk 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article CoolHandNuke, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Tool2Die4 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to Smallville: Respectfully, the article created was not intended to be nor was it written as a promotion or advertising. As a compendium of knowledge people may seek to discover information through wikipedia and as such a brief article and description was given. In short order a site either compiles knowledge or is does not. I believe that deletion in this case would directly go against the stated mission.

Your company does not meet notability standards, and your article met the standard for speedy deletion. If you have a problem with it, take it to Deletion Review. I have deleted it and will not undelete it. And call me by my correct username, please. In addition, posting the link to your website to various other pages vary much does constitute linkspamming. --Smashville^talk 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

++++ With Reference to Smashville: Respectfully Sir, I do apologize for misreading your username. After 12 hours at a computer screen the eyes do get weary, but I do not believe that I have been anything but respectful and cordial in any of my postings or notes on this matter. I do not believe that you have returned that courtesy by my reading of your note and if I am correct in that, I believe that an apology is in order. I am referencing the don't bite notion of the site. Fwiw, you gave Notability here as the deletion notice and gave a separate cause for deletion in the delete log. However, I will be following your suggestion to take it to deletion review. On a personal level, I'm sure that you read through these things often and do great work but we are all in this world together and it would be a much better place if we could eliminate more of the "if you have a problem" talk. It really does not serve anyone well. Best Wishes & Respectfully.TheMadFam (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite well to take it to Deletion review - some of those last upto five days and have many involved conversations. However, if I'm being truthful with you, the review of your site would maybe last two hours before being closed as a WP:SNOW case. Your own words say that you don't have any sources, we just cannot build a house without bricks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to Tool2Die4: Respectfully, great care was taken to eliminate any bias in the article and I do not believe that a conflict of interest exists or rather that no conflict or bias was shown in the article. I acknowledge that there could be an appearance of conflict and suggest that wikipedia has other means for noting this flagging for example rather than deletion. TheMadFam (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It basically comes down to this - your site just isn't notable. It can't have an article. Maybe it will be notable in six months or twelve months - it just isn't now. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

++++ With reference to Cameron Scott: I appreciate the civility in your response, Thank you for your help. I respectfully submit that there is a lesser standard for acceptance, notably CSD#A7. That aside, there does not appear to be a clear standard of notability i.e. # of links, references, etc that clearly delineate the required threshold which must be met. If you would kindly supply that information to me or point me towards someone who could, I would be very appreciative. I ask because I do understand your thoughts, points, explanation of the review process for deletion and should my interpretation not be honored; this information will surely be required. Thank you again for your help and your civility. Best Wishes.TheMadFam (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (web). Here's the guideline used.--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me explain the two key principles of notability in terms of an organisation providing evidence that they are notable. The first is that organisations or individuals independent of your organisation have written about you. That's the first hurdle. Tied to that, the people or organisations who write about you must be a) notable and b) what we consider reliable - they have some form of editorial process, they have a track record etc etc. So some examples.

1) You write about yourself on face-book - fails both - it's not independent, there is no editorial contract, anyone can edit face book.

2) your friend writes about your product on a blog - Well it's independent, but your friend is not notable, and we don't generally accept blogs.

3) A major news paper writes about you - If the new york times writes about you, that's a source we can use. If they write about you and two other sources - even better.

You can find out more about reliable sources at WP:RS and more about notability at WP:NOTE. At it currently stands, you don't have a single source, so a deletion review would be rejected very quickly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+++++ Re: Cameron Scott latest on 2 principles. Thank you, sincerely. That is actually a very good response for me, one that I can understand. It took 3+ hrs of everyones time to get here which I am sure that we would all like back, but it does help very much. I am still looking for a quantifiable explanation i.e. how many links, what is the min threshold; so any help with that would be greatly appreciated. But otherwise that explanation definitely helps with the quality side. And what's most important, you were never rude or lacking in civility about it. For that I am most thankful.TheMadFam (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I gave you the link where that information is kept four hours prior to your claiming that three hours of time had been wasted. -- role^player 09:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+++++ Re: Roleplayer time response. Respectfully, perhaps a better way to state my feeling of appreciation is that Cameron Scott explained it to me. I have not gone back through all the notes but I have no reason to doubt that you did provide that link if that is your assertion. It was the explanation that was helpful, not just the link. For someone who has not been involved with this system and it's intricacies, simply learning the wsiwyg creator can be difficult. Furthermore there is extensive information provided in link after link on the site, going through it all, digesting and understanding it all for the first time can be more than a little problematic. I understand that I might not be as quick as most to picking this up and understanding it but perhaps a brief Wikipedia for Dummies type tutorial is in order or should be required for newbies. My point for referencing the time taken to get there was not that links were not provided, but that any dialog or explanation that existed was limited at best. I was frantically working to prevent the pages from being deleted through the technical means of placing codes, etc according the required format (I am not a coder or a programmer or otherwise technical in the least) while simultaneously trying to begin a conversation explaining all this in a manner which I could understand. This is why I was requesting that I actually speak with someone, even a chat room would be been helpful as more meaningful two-way dialog as I do not receive notifications or the like about the postings. While it may not seem all that difficult to most but I have had to constantly search and kept getting 'lost' as to where I was and where I needed to be. So with respect, to both you and to 'the four hours prior to claiming that three hours had been wasted' I stand by that assertion. That is my feeling and belief. Furthermore, one of the reasons that I decided to push forward with the posting rather than wait was the "do not bite" portion written into the site. I most certainly assert that there was biting which is not a very good way to deal with a process of communication, especially one that was written with the ideals of wikipedia. I believe that in going through the notes you will find a lack of consideration, respect and failed standard of common human decency most easily noted in the following passage: "If you have a problem with it, take it to Deletion Review. I have deleted it and will not undelete it. And call me by my correct username, please." Now in his/her defense, they did end it with a 'please' however I would tend to believe that last minute please is somewhat akin to putting a cherry on top of a sundae made of broken glass and gravel. Now this might not be the proper place to discuss this element of all that has transpired and in the end it may be my misreading of the intent in the various messages rather than the messages themselves that got us here but standards of both editorial and common human decency should apply. And while Smashville certainly may have met the standard for editorial guidelines, I do not believe that s/he did so in simple human kindness or rather did not engage in respectful conversation in any form. If you read through prior communications on this page I believe the notes will show this clearly. Even after this, I took great pains to respond in a respectful and courteous manner. Smashville's only comments were made on the delete review page, which is their right. They are under no obligation that I am aware of to actually to actually address my thoughts in a meaningful and constructive way and it would seem that they have chosen not to do so. Cameron Scott on the other hand took time to explain and provide links without 'biting' and for that I am truly thankful. The time wasted belong to all of us and it is my belief that starting with his/her explanation in a courteous, respectful manner would have been the best place to start; rather than it show itself towards the end of a multi-hour engagement. I am sure that everyone involved in this has various things of note going on in their lives that are, in the grand scheme, much more important than what has transpired here. For me, it is my 2yo daughter who should have had this time allotted to her so in that sense the 3 hours mention earlier and the 45 min typing this (I am a bad, slow typer) is a waste.TheMadFam (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what action are you looking for here? If you feel I have somehow misused my admin tools, WP:ANI is that-a-way...if you are looking for some kind of apology for deleting your article and refusing to undelete, it's not coming. --Smashville^talk 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

++ With respect and to address your questions clearly, I have not suggested that you have misused your admin tools. Nor have I asked for an apology for deleting your article or refusing to undelete it. I have suggested and will suggest quite clearly here that you have been rude in conduct and tone; which I believe to be unwarranted and actually goes against the "do not bite" mantra. For whatever reasons, it seems that this has been part of the dynamic of my conversation with you. Case in point your last sentence ending in "it's not coming." What purpose is served by expressing your point in that way? I find it rude and mildly inflammatory. If that is part of what you have been meaning to convey, then you have been successful and it has been duly noted. Fwiw, there can be a civilized, respectful discourse in the world but this type of conversation should be two-way. I understand your point, why you felt that the article should have been deleted and why you deleted it. I do not believe that you were justified in being rude or antagonizing in any of your posts and comments. To put it simply....you can be nice, even when you don't see eye to eye with someone, even when you are in complete disagreement with someone, you can be nice or at least respectful. If there is an apology warranted it would be for how you communicated, not for the deletion and I have never intimated anything else. As for the outcome the deletion review seems to be running its course and the outcome that I seek is to be heard out in a civilized, intelligent conversation. Based on the reviews thus far, your position seems to be unanimously supported which is both fine and proper; but it is being reviewed and that it the outcome that I seek. As for any outcome specific to you, I'll leave that to you but I would encourage you to treat others as you would like to be treated going forward. It's simply a better way to live and in the end, I think that's the legacy that you want to leave.TheMadFam (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You used Wikipedia to advertise for your company. Nothing I have said to you has been either uncivil or incorrect. --Smashville^talk 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree on both your assertions of advertising and uncivil. I entered information so that it could be found for those who were interested. If google is in the dictionary, is it advertising? I don't believe that it is, so long as the entry is properly defined. Therefore, I believe your position to be in error here and in the overall assertion to advertise. Furthermore as a compendium of knowledge, wikipedia must contain some information on a subject otherwise it is neither a compendium or knowledge. In fact, by definition quite the opposite.

At some point you made reference to linkspamming or something similar which I also deny. This based on my reading that links are no follow in wikipedia, so linkspamming or the like cannot logically exist. I posted the links with the user in mind. If I see something in wikipedia that I want to know more about, I like it when there is a link. In short the article and the links created and contained therein were written with the end user in mind. I had hoped to make it easy and relevant for anyone. I also, posted links for Web 1.0 and Web 2.0; so I believe my usage to have been uniform.

Regardless of all this I do very much believe that you were exceptionally uncivil and I cite you from 2 separate notes "If you have a problem with it, take it to Deletion Review. I have deleted it and will not undelete it. And call me by my correct username" as well as "if you are looking for some kind of apology for deleting your article and refusing to undelete, it's not coming."

Now as to your assertion that nothing you have said is incorrect, strictly speaking to the technical points without regards to 'style' it very well seems that you are or may be correct in your understanding and rendering of the guidelines. That is not to say that I believe the guidelines or the prevalent interpretation of them to be correct, but that is yet another conversation.

However, the technical points you have made are not the issue that we have been addressing here, in this section, you & I. It is conduct, and I believe that your conduct has been rude and uncivil IMHO.

I may have made some mistakes, I may have made several mistakes but I have taken great effort to be respectful and civil to everyone at all points. I simply do not believe that this courtesy was returned by you. Perhaps I have misunderstood, perhaps I am mistaken, and I can speak only for my reading of your notes and comments; but I do believe my feeling on this matter to be true to both subject and in context. Regardless of the outcome of this discourse or of the rendering of the page, I have been very purposeful in maintaining a respectful, civil tone. Firm in my belief and convictions, unsatisfied with the initial dealings, but respectful and civil at all times because I have chosen to do so. I can choose to become angry, irritated, uncivil or unkind but that it not who and what I want to be. You have to be the change in the world that you want to see. I'd like to see the world a better, more tolerant, respectful place and if nothing else I hope that is something that may be conveyed in some small way throughout this process. With that in mind, whoever, wherever, whatever you are and are pursuing in the RW, I wish you the best and I hope that this world will have been a better place because you were in it. It is the same wish that I have for myself, no more and certainly no less. RespectfullyTheMadFam (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can understand how you would feel you have received a bit of a bum deal from Wikipedia as a new user. May I suggest, that re your comment:

It is conduct, and I believe that your conduct has been rude and uncivil IMHO.

if you have a problem with an admin on Wikipedia, as a new user I would go and create a new section at the admins' noticeboard and bring it up there. That way, rather than getting into a heated exchange with a single admin on your user talk page, you're bringing up their conduct in a public forum where other people can view it and get involved. They may agree with you regarding Smashville's conduct, they may not. But imo it's more constructive than getting into this exchange with him here.

Also if any of my comments to you came across as uncivil, that was wholly unintentional and I apologise. -- role^player 22:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplayer, Thank you. Sincerely. I do appreciate the constructive feedback and you are probably correct in more ways than one. And I Thank You for you the apology. I do not know that it was necessary but I am very appreciative of your effort to make that clear. It does mean something. I may have been wrong about any number of areas, but one thing I can assure you is it was not an attempt to advertise nor to linkbait/spam, vandilize or otherwise do anything untoward. Again, thank you for your efforts, your help and your guidance. If we cross paths again, I hope to be better educated and less of a nuisance. Best wishes & Regards.TheMadFam (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above...just going to back out of this. Nothing constructive is going to happen here. MadFam, part of my job here is to make sure Wikipedia is clear of advertisement/spam/vandalism/vanity, etc. While I still believe that I said nothing uncivil, I do apologize if you felt my responses to be such. Please understand that my deletion of your article and adamant support of said deletion is not a reflection on you personally. --Smashville^talk 01:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]