User talk:Modelmotion

Welcome!

Hello Modelmotion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Vary 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lana Hater may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. -- Longhair 05:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville Link

Are you connected to the Geocities website you cited? Arcayne 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the page in question but I am not an author on the page.--Modelmotion 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Maxwell Glick

I have nominated Maxwell Glick, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Glick. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jmlk 1 7 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of The Secret World of Sam King

The article The Secret World of Sam King has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did 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 indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake give an author time to write an article before you delete it. We are not all experts and it takes time to put a page together.--Modelmotion (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good way of avoiding this is to write the article in a subpage. For example, if the article gets deleted again, don't just repost it, write it first at, for example, User talk:Modelmotion/The Secret World of Sam King. when you are ready to "go live" you can use the move tab to move the article from your userspace to the article space. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion but I need to work quickly and that is what I did. I don't see a problem.--Modelmotion (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hours later and the article still fails to assert any importance which would render it outside the ambit of section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. There is nothing personal in this, but I will delete it again if it remains just another article on a website with no encyclopedic merit. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (web) to see what is needed to write an article on a website that is going to "stick". To avoid the speedy criterion I cited, you don't even need to meet that notability guideline; the standard is lower; easier to meet, and yet you haven't yet met that lower threshold.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Secret World of Sam King

A tag has been placed on The Secret World of Sam King 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 or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ravenswing 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are on an insane power trip. Get over yourselves. I try to help by doing something good and I do not need this kind of disrespect. This is not wiki, this is power gone mad. Enough already--Modelmotion (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Secret World of Sam King

A tag has been placed on The Secret World of Sam King requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TN‑X-Man 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Yang Peiyi

I have nominated Yang Peiyi, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yang Peiyi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Itemirus (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete

Notability of Template:Db-person

A tag has been placed on Template:Db-person requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), 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 an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Template:Db-person|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. 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. Itemirus (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Yang Peiyi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yang Peiyi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said, I am dont with Wikipedia....this has turned into an unfriendly facist process and I want no part in your tryany.--Modelmotion (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad!

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found

Hi, Modelmotion, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 18:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that two welcomes. Good to see you, hope to see you working on articles with us that are up for deletion. there is a lot to do! Ikip (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user:ikip:

Thanks. I am not an expert at WP policies so I go more with what should be common sense. For a while I actually gave up on contributing to Wikipedia because articles some under such vigorous attack while in development. I hope the head admins of Wikipedia are aware of the problem but at the same time they may very well be pushing for limitations on content covered by Wikipedia.--Modelmotion (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have pretty much stopped writing articles because of those editors who delete.

My most recent article I created, Mercy for Animals was tagged for speedy deletion an hour and one minute after it was created. It should never have been.

Since I know policies and how the corrupt system works, the article still exists. Whereas if you would have created it, there is a good chance it would have been deleted the same day.

PC Pro editor Steve Cassidy wrote:

For an example of the dark side [of Web 2.0] running out of control, though, check out Wikipedia...In the [New York Times Review of Books] article Baker explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation...but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself…I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of [The Political Quarterly]… within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content…and has been put up for "express deletion…It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire"[1]

I hope the head admins of Wikipedia are aware of the problem but at the same time they may very well be pushing for limitations on content covered by Wikipedia.

In many cases, the head admins ARE the problem. In any organization the tone of the organization, the company culture, is formed at the top. It is no accident things are the way they are.

Here is some reading:

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists

Academic studies about Wikipedia#Explicit vie for ownership

I found all this and I felt much better, I felt redeemed and justified in my views of how wikipedia really works. Many establish journalists in the most established media of the world and feel that some of the veteran editors here are bullies and tin pot dictators. Ikip (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you quoted journalist on ANI, I just saw your comments.

As I wrote on another editors page today:

I have been an editor for 4 years, since October 2005. I have had over 4000 of my edits destroyed by other editors. I was about to leave wikipedia in frustration many, many times, and then I asked at the village pump about groups that help articles. Even at the village pump I was harshly criticized for simply asking the question, but thankfully someone told me about the little known article rescue squadron. Since I joined the group has almost doubled, we are almost 300 members strong. We rescue articles, just like yours. I would like to formally invite you to be part of our squad.

The editor who criticized me at village pump a year and a half ago was the same editor who criticized you. This editor seems to watch several pages and immediately comments and criticizes anyone if they mention deletion and inclusion.

As I wrote recently:

Civil Religion: The biggest hurdle I see is that some of the most influential editors are not going to want to be labeled inclusionist/deletionists. Influential editors realize that titles like "Inclusionist/Deletionist" are divisive, and invoke negative feelings. Wanting to appear to be a consensus builder, these influential editors publicly declare the "we are all wikipedians" mantra, denying that there is even a difference.

Attitudes like this remind me of politicians who want to be seen as uniters, using patriotic images and invoking American Civil Religion.

I think pretending a problem doesn't solve the problem, it only appeals to your voters. Ikip (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^gab 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]