User talk:Iyeru42
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
[edit]Hello, Iyeru42, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Be Bold!
- Don't let grumpy users scare you off
- Learn from others
- Play nicely with others
- Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
- Tell us about you
Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, 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.
We're so glad you're here! ---
| Iyeru's Talk
| |
|---|---|
| Archive | |
| User Talk: Archive 1 | |
If you wish to discuss something new on my talk page, please use the + button next to the edit button up there. Make sure to include a subject, and please don't create a new subject/discussion unless it's archived. You can see the archives on the right side of this page.
It is suggested you do this to not make a mess of the talk page. If you do not adhere to this, your talk will be edited to include a "dummy" section based on the topic discussed.
ReactOS and sourcing
[edit]Both versions of the article have their merits. The original has lots of useful information for the reader, sourced by the website, etc. It just doesn't establish notability and can't be GA.
In your revision, a couple of sources seem to be reliable secondary sources for notability (and GA): Ghacks.com and Kerner's blog at internet.com. I found another source you could add [1]. These sources seem to have some editorial review, if users can submit articles not everything gets posted, and the editors seem to be experts in their field. This is kind of marginal for a reliable source, but the IT field has maybe moved beyond the journal system for specialized knowledge, and blogs seem to be a main way IT diseminates specialized knowledge. If this article was about automated cow milkers, for example, we would look for articles in "Modern Dairy Farmer", etc. which would have an editorial board.
I have looked at some article for deletion discussions about IT articles, and a few sources like these seem to be enough to make the editors vote to keep the article. So as a practical matter these type of sources work. If you can use at least two sources like this in the article, I'll be statisfied and have no objection to removing the notability banner.
For GA, I think that maybe there just aren't enough reliable secondary sources as of now to provide say half the information, and the article just can't be a GA. Maybe you know better.
So I wouldn't bother paring down information from primary sources, if I were you. Just add information or citations from as many reliable secondary sources as you can to supplement the original article, and that's all we can do. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- It might be best take a few days off from the encyclopedia when your emotions are running high. You can always come back to the article later if you want. Someone took some pot shots at me earlier when replying to the review. I don't know if they were a developer, but they were a bit rude. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm counting four citations from reliable secondary sources, of 34 total. Things are better, but I think the 'one source' tag still belongs. One of the article's sources is just a copy of the wikipedia article on another site. Also there is at least one instance that is not a reliable source-- just one guy's beliefs with no editorial oversight. These references should be removed. It looks like you might need to review WP:RS. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]For disruption you are blocked for 72 hours. Garion96 (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please delete my account instead. I'll just come back and do it all over again. Iyeru42 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why? You did some good edits some time ago. What happened? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let's just say I had a fall out with the ReactOS Dev Fireball, I couldn't take his criticism. Iyeru42 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can always discuss any issues about this article in its talk page. Wikipedia is based on discussion and communication between editors. There is not reason to start "deleting" pages around. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I can unblock you if you like and you can discuss any issues about ReatcOS in its talk page. I'll add a banner with lot of usefull staff about Wikipedia in your talk page. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let's just say I had a fall out with the ReactOS Dev Fireball, I couldn't take his criticism. Iyeru42 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
July 2009
[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Iyeru42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm a vandal now, because you won't delete my account. Unblock me so I can destroy stuff.
Decline reason:
We cannot technically or legally delete your account. We can, however, extend your block to the end of time and revoke talk page access, such as what I'm doing right now because of your vow to resume any disruption. Mutes -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 04:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.