User talk:Hallows AG/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Antoine Pinchon

Hi, I've now reviewed this article for Did You Know and have some concerns about referencing and wording. I have left a message for the article creator also. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback for Teahouse!

Hi Hallows! So happy you jumped into the Teahouse =) Thanks so much for volunteering your Wikipedia time! Just so you know, we do have a Teahouse talkback template we created, which is great for letting new editors (many who don't know about a watchlist option) know they have a response at the Teahouse. You can find it here, as listed on the Host tips page I mentioned above. Thanks so much, and don't forget to invite and document the invitations - we really need help with that. Thanks again, and see you at the Teahouse =) Sarah (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a question at the Teahouse you might have interest in...

Dear Hallows AG, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Zenfolio Article

I've spent a significant amount of time on the Zenfolio article. Admittedly, some of this time is the result of my unfamiliarity with creating a new article. It seems that the major objection to getting it approved is support of independent sources. I have a compilation of many independent sources, but I don't want the article to be simply a list of these. I posted what I thought were some of the most relevant ones, yet the article was still declined. So I would like to know more specifically what is wrong with the citations. I also have citations from print articles, including Professional Photographer, PC World, Shutterbug, etc. I'm hesitant to add more than have already been posted until I get a better picture of what is being deemed lacking. Victor Engel (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a response to this post please? If you are unable to reply to posts made on the page supplied in the comment, maybe you shouldn't be making the edit you did. In my opinion, taking action like this should be a commitment to follow up, so can I please have a follow up? This is really starting to get frustrating. Victor Engel (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The article needs more reliable sources. It needs sources to establish the notability of the subject. You can maybe add the review of PC World and etc. Cheers, Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How many reliable sources does an article need, exactly? As to notability, that was already established in the List of Photo Sharing Websites article via Alexa. I can add that information to the article, too, but I don't think that information would improve the article. Victor Engel (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. You are getting on my nerves now. You have marked the article for speedy deletion WITHOUT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS to improve the article. Furthermore, the speedy deletion notice gives instructions to contest the speedy deletion by clicking a button THAT D0ES NOT EXIST! Are you trying to keep new editors from joining wikipedia? If so, you're doing an effective job. I doubt that is the goal of wikipedia, so I will be soliciting help from others when I have time.Victor Engel (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like thanks to you, the article has been deleted. Next time, please work with the author of the article to resolve the problem before deleting the article. You've wasted my time for no good reason, and I expect an apology, and possibly some assistance in moving forward with this article (but probably from someone else who's more likely to be helpful).Victor Engel (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There are several things that you can do at this point, I will list them here. You:

• can request a Deletion Review at WP:DELREV
• Request undeltion at WP:REFUND
• Make a new, well sourced article (if so, please include the sources that you have mentioned before)
• Request the article to be made at WP:RA

I hope you will find this helpful. I apologize for the inconvinience. Cheers, Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: I did create the article, as shown in a message in a green box below. Cheers, Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of BikerOrNot.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BikerOrNot.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BikerOrNot.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Zenfolio

Hi Hallows AG. I seem to be confused as to your recent activity towards an article called "Zenfolio". I was recently answering questions by another user and I decided to look into the case. It appears as though the user submitted the article to WP:AFC and was then moved to mainspace by you as this revision history page shows. You then tagged the same article in which you moved for speedy deletion as shown with this diff. Can you please clarify why you allowed an article which a user submit to WP:AFC in good faith to be moved to mainspace and then tag it for deletion? It just seems a bit bitey to me. Especially when the author submitted the article correctly to AFC.

Also remember that G11 is for blatent advertising and not an article written like an ad. We have a template for that. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this is the chain of events that led me tp this, and should explain why I did what I did.

• Firstly, I declined the article a few days back, with the rationale of not habing enough reliable sources.
• Then, the user came to my talkpage and asked me why I did not accept the article. He asked me again a few days ago. I responded by saying that the article needed more sources. He pressured me to create the article by insisting that he coukd find more sources. (The message is still at the top, with the heading "Zenfolio article"
• Pressured, I then created the article. A few hours after, I saw a message on the article's talkpage that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion and the company was asking people to make an Wikipedia article for them. Seeing that, I assumed that the writer was acting under the orders of the company and tagged it for G11.

I hope that this sufficently explains the situation. And yes, I do know the {{advert}} template. Cheers, Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No. That is not the sequence of events. Yes, I did come to your talk page to ask what I could do to improve the article. As you mentioned, that post is still there. You skipped the part about your not replying until I posted again. I did not do this until you had replied to other posts, so I knew you had a chance to see my post. Your answer did not answer my question, so I asked again. How can I improve the article unless I know what's wrong with it? You said it needed more sources, and I wanted to know how many was enough, since you seemed to indicate that it was the quantity that was lacking. While it seemed to me absurd to have a whole list of citations, I was nevertheless happy to oblige if I knew what was required. At no time did I pressure anyone to create the article. I never expected it to be created as it was after it was rejected. What I expected was some clarity on what was needed to make the article up to standards. Note, it's not that I can find more sources, I have a document with them itemized. Your mention about what is included on the talk page of the article is hearsay at this point, since the article is deleted. Or is there some way to access that? I certainly never saw it. If someone claimed that I was asked by the company to create a wikipedia article, that person is guilty of libel against me and the company. I initiated this process on my own, hoping to improve wikipedia. Had I known it was going to be such an ordeal, I would have allowed wikipedia to remain inaccurate and incomplete. It's just not worth the hassle, and I have nothing to gain from the effort.

At this point, I don't expect the article to be undeleted. It never should have been created in the first place until it was ready. So I'm not sure if going through the suggested undelete processes is appropriate, unless it can be undeleted back to the state where it should be (pre-article). Is that possible? If so, how?Victor Engel (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You should have moved the article back to Victor's user space rather than deleting it. Doing otherwise is rude to the user that spent time on the article. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)