Talk:Goods and services/Archives/2012

Wiki Editors

How I love wiki editors. So capricious. I wrote a huge article in related area, using a public domain image under fair-use licence; and the image was deleted repeatedly, and then the whole article was deleted as original research. Has anyone thought to act so strongly on this article? No. Sigh.

How can anyone trying to focus expert energy on a specific content area keep up with edit busybodies: Wikipedia gets overrun by anarchic little edit-dictators destroying one article (mine on product-service-systems), and allowing entire others (such as this, but vastly across areas such as sport and comics), to run wild like weeds.

Of course, now you'll find a reason for deleting this. I am not in favour of other wiki-cyclopedia efforts, but you guys take all the fun out of, believe me.

And please: any editors reading this, please please stop spamming almost all the articles on Wikipedia with a sludge of tags on the top line complaining about trivial things, or asking trivial things. Imagine newspaper articles with a para of disclaimers at the top of every piece. Hopeless. Jmanooch (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

deletion

From WP:RfD:

• Goods and services → good (economics) --- This page was originally just a definitional stub, but should now be gone as the link "goods and services" should be replaced with "goods and services". I have changed all instances in linked articles with that. RFD to help prevent new linking to goods and services. Scott Ritchie 18:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - a fairly sensible thing to type into the search engine. However, a better target for the redirect might be found. -Sean Curtin 01:13, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought it was better as the stub it was before it was simultaneously turned into a redir, and also listed here. I'll put the stub back; it should either be VfD'd, or expanded (or left as is, I suppose). Noel (talk) 03:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: It's a common term in economics, we should have something at that name. Noel (talk) 04:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

This article was nominated for deletion on December 23, 2005. The result of the discusion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Re-redirect

I've re-redirected this irritating article. There really is no point having it. The Land 23:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now it appears that User:Kappa is importing content from the service article. There's no point in making a duplicate of service here, though if there's something new to be added it's just as well. Scott Ritchie 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)