This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Best of the West journalism contest, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Heinrich Funck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nrwairport posted the speedy deletion tag on my new page Convicts' Bread Oven, calling it possible "vandalism or a hoax" even though the information for the article came from a highly authoritative source (the National Register of Historic Places) that was linked under References. The deletion tag then was removed, with this note: "The article is an excellent start - I do hope that you expand it. Looks like it's going to be an interesting subject."
After an (edit conflict × 2) with you, I was commenting at the 'deleted' section!
Note that the "Tag has been removed." (now deleted) and "excellent start" message above was not from Nrwairport, but from Admin.Ser Amantio di Nicolao. (The polite tone made me 'supicious'! Edit history reveals all! Click here). The deletion 'tag' was removed by Nrwairport here. It appears 'Ser' made a typo when signing, so only the time appeared, leading to confusion about who posted. I have 'signed' for them. (See {{unsigned}}) 220ofBorg22:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jfleach, I have partially reverted your deletion of my comment above (keeping your changes to your comment). If you only knew how long it took me to get it right after conflicting with your edits! It is generally held to be bad talk page practice to alter your comment, as you did here, after it has been replied to. If you do need to change/correct something, then you should strike through with <s></s> where deleted and underline with <u></u> where added. See WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. You can WP:Undo this message to remove it, and my restored comment if you wish. Regards, 220ofBorg23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jfleach. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Please help me with ... an outrageous and false allegation on my talk page that should be removed.
A Wikipedia editor falsely accused me of posting an article that was a hoax even though what I had written was true and I had provided an authoritative source for the information. The editor's statement is damaging to my reputation.
If the editor had done the same thing on a content page then the clearly false claim would be removed, never to be seen again. How do I go about getting it removed from my talk page?
I have posted a quick response on my talk page, but that's not good enough. It looks like we're having a "he said, she said" argument about something in dispute, and that's clearly not the case here.
Jfleach, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to treat others with respect and civility. A sub-pillar (if you will) is to Assume Good Faith. Yes, they nominated your page for deletion, but when they realized their mistake they removed it. If you plan on spending a great deal of time on Wikipedia (and I hope you do!) you will quickly realize that this sort of thing happens all the time. There was no ill-will put towards your page; there are hundreds of articles created every day, and only a small percentage of them are actually worth keeping. No one will care that a page was nominated for deletion an hour after it was created (especially if it was kept), and there are no reputations to be damaged. If you'd like to chat further about this (or anything else on your mind) feel free to drop me a note, either on my talk page or by pinging me here using {{u|Primefac}}. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to remove "an outrageous and false allegation" like that. You can remove almost anything any editor puts here. I think "WP:block" notices are one of few exceptions.
• I agree that that users' behavior is somewhat odd. (Stretching AGF a bit to say that!) It was I who started the "Misuse of templates?" section on their talk-page which they have now 'deleted', (without an edit summary) though it's still viewable through the page's edit history. That is also, in my opinion, odd behavior thought there are editors, who have many years and edits who for some reason always do that. For some of them that is their only acknowledgement to talk page comments. Some barely ever (even never) reply to another editor!
• They claim to have over 500 thousand edits, but on another account they had lost the password to. Most editors with that many edits don't behave like they have been towards newbies. AGF, I assume, for now, that it is true, but another editor pointed out that all the accounts with that many edits were all still active! I have seen a suggestion that they may be a 'wp:sock puppet'.
• I think that they have only "removed it", when their mistakes have been pointed out to them, not on their own initiative. In my case they nominated a perfectly valid redirect for deletion. I was shocked! Created quite a lot of them and that had never happened before! Their 'apology'/withdrawal comment was rather terse! (See here.)
• Just like the 'real world' people act like dicks on the internet and Wikipedia too. Happened to me at abouit 500 edits. There is a lot of vandalism from real 'dicks' and sometimes editors get frustrated chasing them around and real editors sometimes get caught in the 'cross fire'. That however is not what is happening here, IMHO.
Thank you, 220 . I reduced that item to a summary for now. It's still puzzling that the article was first marked for deletion but then OK'd, but the talk post is no longer offensive. I'll delete this item at some point, too. Jfleach (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest for future, WP:Archiving rather than deleting/summarising, makes it easier to follow for those not involved. Remember the whole internet can read anything thats is, or was, on this page.
• You could also use a{{hat}} and {{hab}} to 'hide' a discussion. But it's your talk page, your decision.
