User talk:AmaTsisqa

Welcome!

Hello, AmaTsisqa, 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! --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

???? - this flies in the face of assume good faith. AmaTsisqa (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jeff V. Merkey, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please read the discussion page. I tried to address the problem. AmaTsisqa (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comment

Thanks for attempting to reword your comment to me. I'd already responded on the article talk page. It would probably be best if we tried to keep the discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I am going to read through all of this and take some time to try to understand it. It may seem obvious to you, but I guess I have a learning curve here. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Thanks. AmaTsisqa (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm happy to expand and clarify what I've written. Another editor has responded as well. Yes, I understand how this can be confusing. The popular conception of a patent is just too far from the facts. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff V. Merkey

Hi,

I have re-deleted the article on Jeff V. Merkey. There was a fairly comprehensive deletion discussion in November. The consensus then was "non-notable". Given the long history of discussions of the subject previously, it's likely this was well reviewed and discussed. II don't see any evidence to suggest the rewrite has added new evidence to change that or overcome the notability consensus., so I've deleted it under WP:CSD#G4 - recreation of a deleted page.

Because this has been a heated topic at times I have also opened a request for deletion review, to obtain consensus from the community whether or not others will agree.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, the Not notable criteria seemed more based on the subjects interactions with wikipedia itself than the real world. I am not in love with it, but was working on Novell stuff. a lot of wasted time today. AmaTsisqa (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it does have a basis for recreation, and you feel a good article can be written and a case made for notability, I'd suggest a user space draft and then seek eyeballs and consensus, or DRV, or own draft then DRV based on that draft, or be bold once you have a version with evidence of reliable source coverage that you feel "makes the case" for an article - these would be much more likely to "work" if there is a case for overturning the past decision. But above all review the past AFD and consider if there is a good case and if so - good luck! If you do a draft and want a review, or want the draft text to use for further work in the hope of a viable article (within norms), let me know. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the previous deletion discussion and from what I can gather, the subject of this article is a quagmire of contentious issues -- no thanks -- I thought a one paragraph article with a ton of refs would be somewhat innocuous but since I do not know what was there before, I do not know for certain whether what I wrote matches. At any rate ..... AmaTsisqa (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need for independent, third-party sources

I've once again removed your edits to the other articles. I suggest starting a new discussion on one of the article talk pages, offering potential sources for review. This way we'll avoid the problem where editors are removing sources because they don't appear to actually verify any information in the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I am a 64 year old woman and I have been around a while and while I want to assume good faith, I have been alive long enough to see someone who is on a vendetta. I'll leave you to it. My name is Frau Geartner BTW, and I am German. Have a great day. AmaTsisqa (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]