User talk:Mailcpathetsang

Professional Information Security Association

A tag has been placed on Professional Information Security Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WjBscribe 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My post above seems pretty clear- the article gave a lot of info about the company but did not explain why it was important enough to be included in Wikipedia. See WP:CORP for the relevant guidelines. Articles about companies need to have coverage in multiple reliable sources to confirm that they meet our policies on notability. WjBscribe 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not for profit organisations are subject to the same notability rules as other organisations. If you can point to press coverage (or other independent sources) that demonstrates the notability of this organisation, I may be willing to reconsider. Given that you seem to involved with the organisation, I suggest you also take a look at Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. As a more minor point, please post any further replies to the bottom of my talkpage, thanks. WjBscribe 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will undelete the page so that its deletion can be discussed fully and wider input thought- especially given that I am not linguistically in a position to evaluate those google results (though number of hits do not convey notability per se). WjBscribe 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been undeleted and its deletion listed for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Information Security Association. Any further comments about the article should be made as part of that discussion. WjBscribe 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a reason why the article was deleted, well it was explained above. Also, posting questions in archived user talkpages is not he best idea. Use the main talk page. Vegaswikian 21:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Vegaswikian's reasonings have been poorly formunated and on a very loose ground, with vague references. In the lack of supported evidences and facts, I would accept better reasoning if Vegaswikian's reasoning logic would pin-point exactly and without bias as to where and how the references would be pointed from.?Mailcpathetsang ^Talk 4:39 2007/04/25

My logic for deleting the page is based on the arguments provided by all the uses involved. Multiple keep arguments by the same user can be seen as an attempt to derail consensus, and the article would have been a speedy deletion candidate (per WP:CSD#G11) anyway. Those two things were what swayed my decision. --Core desat 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did, although I did not speedily delete the article; that fact was just a factor in the decision I made. Feel free to post a deletion review at WP:DRV if you still want to contest the deletion. --Core desat 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on talk pages

When you add a new comment, do so at the end. The easiest way to do this is to click the + tab for the talk page and fill in the blanks. Vegaswikian 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your earlier instructions have been clearer I would have gladly done so. Mailcpathetsang 19:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal application of speedy delete templates

You have placed several speedy delete templates on perfectly valid articles. This is causing unnecessary work for other hard pressed editors. If you continue to do this then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TerriersFan 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning - next time you misuse speedy delete templates you will be blocked. TerriersFan 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still learning. Give me some time. Mailcpathetsang 16:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the guidance I have given you, above, is quite clear. If not, please raise any doubts with me and I will clarify them. However, the position remains as I stated - if you place a speedy delete template on a legitimate article again you will be blocked. TerriersFan 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. But so far, did I? In my opinion not all of those I blocked are that legitimate anyway. I appreciate if your inputs are more constructive. Also, as an administrator, would you know which link I would go to file a complain?Mailcpathetsang 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go to WP:AN. TerriersFan 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Thank you. I'm making a case for someone but not you.Mailcpathetsang 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mailcpathetsang for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Vegaswikian 22:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been closed. I have indefinitely blocked your sockpuppet account (User:Hihivegaswiki), since it was used merely to harass Vegaswikian by placing speedy delete tags on articles he created. I will take no action against this account. Please be advised, however, that if you continue to violate Wikipedia policies by misapplying speedy delete tags, creating sockpuppet accounts, or other prohibited behavior, your account may be blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bear in mind that the sockpuppet has nothing to do with this account. Justice has been done. Mailcpathetsang 17:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving talk pages

I have moved back this talk page that you moved to a new user. Please do not do this again since a talk page must remain with the user page with which it is associated. TerriersFan 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

I also advise you not to use additional accounts, such as User:Mailcpathetsan and User:Mailcpathetsan1, in a way that may be a contravention of WP:Sockpuppetry. TerriersFan 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]