User talk:AWhiteElk
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, AWhiteElk, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- 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!
Cirt (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- TY for the links and the welcome Cirt! I don't know that I will stick around long enough to be called a Wikipedian. I've no interest in seeking out articles to edit. And my interest in taking time to share information here has diminished drastically over this issue of wanton deletions. Good, useful info lost to the masses because of the opinions of a few. In the case of Triple-A it came up as the 4th listing in a Google search. That speaks of notability to me. It tells me that there are many people interested and involved with it. Yet four peoples opinions caused the deletion of that article??? Community Consensus??? BAH! Four people out of a global community who use wiki as a reference does not make for any kind of communal consensus that I can respect. Furthermore, I think some people play at being important by going around and witchhunting articles to delete. They justify deletion with lip service to Wiki policy while violating the spirit of those policies. I think the avid deletionists do as much harm to wikipedias credibility and usefulness as do the vandals. So I don't know about investing much time here. But I will spend some more time researching this and trying to better understand this deletion phenomena before I turn my back on this aspect of the net community. AWhiteElk (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Userfy request
[edit]
Done, in response to userfication request - please see User:AWhiteElk/TripleA (computer game). Cirt (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Recording quick draft thoughts to later expound upon
[edit]A place for the quick recording of tangeant thoughts (be free to comment if you wish)
Vigilante Deletionism and Notability Censorship
[edit]The value I place in an encyclopedia comes from the discovery of information previously unknown or little known to me. The way some people explain wiki'fried notability... makes me think of the uselessness of using my old Encyclopedia Britannicas to find stuff that was so commonly referenced elsewhere that I had no need to use an encyclopedia in the first place! I understand the importance of verifying truth. But qualifying notability should not be based on finding a host of existing reference sources. The less referenced information is, the more important it becomes to reference it. If wikipedia is truly about the referencing of information; then I would think that dedicated wikipedians would be more interested in qualifying the truth of wiki-info versus being caught up in the debate of how important or how popular it is.
Notability is subjective. No-one has the right to censor the information I have access to. It irks me to know that wiki policy is such that people can, and do declare what is notable to the rest of us. And it outright pisses me off to learn that there are users at wiki who actively seek out and destroy communal contributions in what I see as a perversion of wiki policy. These vigilante deletionists play the role of thought police whether they consciously attempt to or not.
Vigilante Deletionists: Wikipedians taking a destructive editorial role by putting articles up for deletion when other constructive routes such as "clean-up, stub, verify, etc" are more appropriate.
So these Vigilante Deletionists go around 'culling the herd' by putting articles up for deletion while other options are available. They take the destructive route over the constructive route. Therefore I think of them as vigilantes fracturing the community as opposed to civil servants servicing the community. It sucks to lose access to info I might be seeking simply because it got torched in someones witch hunt. But thats life. This thing is open to the masses and the masses suck! Thats what we have administrators for. In the context of wiki admin... an admin responsibility to us is to moderate our diverse opinions into an actionable decision. I see that some fail, or perhaps don't even bother trying very hard. When an admins first action is to delete an article rather than provide the people with an opportunity to correct a policy violation, then that admin has failed. If a vigilante deletionist nominates an article for deletion, the admin should step in when other options are better suited.
This issue of lack of notability deletions works against wikipedias credibility and usefulness. If a wikipedians true motivation is to protect the wikipedia, then I don't see how their first action against an article is for a destructive deletion rather than any of the constructive options as outlined by wiki policy.
Oof so much for recording a brief thought before I get back to researching this wiki deletion phenomena. Oh well back to work... AWhiteElk (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Tripleareleasemodel.png
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Tripleareleasemodel.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oops I thought I had provided everything. My only other image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, I Think its alright? Going back now to attempt to figure this out... AWhiteElk (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is fixed? Added 'PD tag' and removed 'no license' tag AWhiteElk (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:How to delete 1 image within a file history?
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-FASTILY (TALK) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
TripleA
[edit]There was a userfied copy of this article at User:AWhiteElk/TripleA (computer game). The article was posted again recently, and deleted per WP:CSD#G4 as a repost of material deleted at AfD. User Veqryn (talk) requested that the new version should be userfied for him, and I have done this at User:Veqryn/TripleA. His version was so similar to the one in your userspace that it was clearly based on it, so in order to maintain the contribution history I have done a "history merge" so that there is now only one version which contains the whole contribution history. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:AWhiteElk/TripleA (computer game)
[edit]User:AWhiteElk/TripleA (computer game), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AWhiteElk/TripleA (computer game) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:AWhiteElk/TripleA (computer game) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The file File:TripleA Version Numbering.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
