User talk:Encarnorm

Welcome!

Hello, Encarnorm, 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, such as Everest (company), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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 this 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Total-MAdMaN (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Everest (company)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Everest (company) 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 a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or 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.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Everest (company)

Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from Everest (company). Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps:

Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion.
This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willing to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Everest (company). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Everest (company), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to AIV

Hi Encarnorm, this is a notice to let you know that I have reported your removal of speedy deletion templates at Everest (company) to administrators. An administrator should assess the report in a short while, and they will take any appropriate actions. Please wait for an administrator before taking any further actions yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everest (disambiguation)

The Name "other Places " was better than "places" , the current version looks good enough. Hope i have clarified myself - -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 22:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit warring" with bot over speedy deletion tag

I understand why you have found it frustrating to repeatedly have your edit reverted. However, it is an unfortunate fact that in the substantial majority of cases where the author of an article repeatedly removes a speedy deletion tag, it is being done disruptively. You suggest that "a single unopposed removal by the creator ... might be the fastest and most logical next step in cases where an article has been clearly mistagged", and you are quite right. However, such a case can be dealt with by the author writing a brief note on the article's talk page, and someone else looking at the case and declining the speedy deletion. The extra trouble involved is small, and vastly outweighed by the saving in trouble in the far larger number of cases where the removal of the speedy deletion tag was not legitimate. That means that, if we consider only the case you were involved in, it does indeed seem, as you suggest, that your suggestion would save time and trouble, but if we consider all cases, the contrary is the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've depressed me even more now. The thought that someone actually justified this insanity on a time management basis is just, well, dumb. You're not paying for my time, so you've no right to assume I have it to waste in situations like this where you're so obviously in the wrong, no matter how rare false positives might be (and I doubt it's that rare at all), and no matter how easy you might think the alternative is (assumptions etc). So what if people widely ignore the CSD instructions and remove tags? I had thought that people appreciated this was the price you pay if you want a fast uncontroversial deletion process that literally any fool is allowed to trigger. Encarnorm (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encarnorm, a CSD tag merely means that an admin will look at it, and delete it if appropriate. If the person who placed the CSD tag didn't know what they were doing, as you assert, then you have nothing to worry about. So there is no reason for you to delete the CSD tag. --SubSeven (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except IAR. Expecting someone to wait for an admin in this situation is ridiculous petty beurocracy at best. At best. Encarnorm (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by waiting? What are you waiting for? You are not forbidden to work on the article or whatever during that time. --SubSeven (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do many people spend their time editting articles while there's a massive red tag on it declaring that it may be deleted without warning at any time? I doubt it. Encarnorm (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's such a foregone conclusion that the CSD was erroneous, then I don't see why not. But even if not, the nice thing about speedy deletes is that they are handled... speedily!
I see from your recent edit summaries that you think Wikipedia procedures are a 'waste of time'. Sorry to hear that. It would be a shame to lose your stellar contributions, but your time is precious, after all. What is your interest in the Everest company? --SubSeven (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can stick your sarcasm up your arse. In this case, the 'speedy deletion' was so speedy, it took from 21:38, 15 March 2012‎ to 06:46, 17 March 2012 before people stopped attempting to claim that the article had no credible claim of importance, because that's how long it took for an admin to tell people the obvious truth. You call that speedy? What a joke. If you like waiting around for that long for admins to fix obvious mistakes, or you like editting articles with big red tags on them, then more fool you. If you like having to keep moving sources around in an article, moving them three words this way and three words that way, to satisfy someone with obvious reading difficulties, then more fool you. If this is how you like to waste your time on Wikipedia, then you're an idiot. And what is your interest in my interest in Everest? Is this already miserable experience of Wikipedia now going to be compounded by some bullshit charge now? I noticed there was no article on them so I created one. Have you got a problem with that? Well, have you? Encarnorm (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Everest (company). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your edit summaries are getting rather abusive please assume good faith of other editors Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already exhausted all my good faith for that guy. He clearly has reading problems, and is obviously one of those people whose imagination cannot cope with the art of writing copy being a task of interpreting sources into your own words, rather than slavishly copying them word for word, and tagging everything else as unsourced/original research/peacockery/POV, or whatever other silliness he's been doing. I'm sick of his timewasting. Encarnorm (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]