User talk:Paddingtonjbear

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Paddingtonjbear, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Crafty (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your note at Orangemike's talkpage

I saw your note over at Orangemike's talkpage and I see where you misunderstood: administrators are always looking at each other's actions, mostly to see what's going on. Just watch WP:AN/I for a couple of days to see the hair-pulling when admins disagree. WP's the world's most efficient argument factory, but the miracle is that it works pretty well. In general, admin B will defer to admin A's judgment unless there's plain injustice or abuse, since to do otherwise would invite madness. Hence the creation of forums like DRV for reviews. Most admins watch a lot of other admins' talkpages because other voices and opinions can help moderate a dispute before it blows up, and sometimes we just need some help from a bystander.

It's surprisingly different to edit with an account versus an IP - you get taken more seriously (for better or worse) and you get exposed to a lot more of the bureaucratic apparatus. It's not supposed to be that way, but it is, and you're climbing the learning curve. Please feel free to ask questions as you go, and happy editing. Acroterion _(talk) 02:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, this whole thing started because I followed a link to a group that I was interested in only to discover that the page had been deleted. I've never had that experience before, and I guess I flew off the handle a little. I'm sorry if any of it was directed at you as well. I was assuming that I would need Orangemike's permission in order to recreate the page, which just doesn't seem to go with the spirit of this website, but I think I was mistaken. Either way, I think the group is significant enough to warrant a page so I'll work on it once my course work lightens up this Semester or when I'm in need of some procrastination. I've figured out how to create a subpage on my User page, etc., etc.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of how the speedy deletion function should be used? I've really only encountered it before on pages that were obviously spammy, random nonsense, and things like that. I've never seen it used to delete a page that was deemed to be non-notable. The shift in burden of proof makes it seem problematic, especially for a page like the one that I was referring to because it was obviously written by a biased source and so might warrant deletion in the standard process for NPOV. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never took it as directed at me: I was just helping both you and Mike out. I'm not opposed to an article on the topic, and I doubt Mike is. The article was, as constituted, a mess with parenthetical comment, POV pushing, coatracking, and, yes, no coherent assertion that the term is widely used or that the group, as defined by the article, is notable. CSD A7 is "no credible assertion that the subject meets notability standards", and while it was on the edge of CSD A7, the promotional (in the sense of using Wikipedia to promote the use of that specific term) and POV-pushing aspect would tend to push it over the edge for me too. People are very aware of the way that a Wikipedia article shoots to the top of a Google search and will try to use WP to manufacture or enhance notability for a specific term, meme or group.

The deleted article contained a strawman-style argument concerning biblical illiteracy that didn't help matters - the coatracking I refer to above.

Probably half of all speedy deletions are for no assertion of notability: individuals, MySpace bands, clubs, companies. Just watch Special:Newpages for a while to see the parade, along with the editing tests, spam, vandalism, love notes, nonsense, defamation and occasional looniness. I'd guess that 25-30% of all new pages are deleted via speedy deletion, and up to 40-50% by all means of deletion.

If you can develop sourcing that indicates the notability of the term as applied to a group of preachers, by all means, the article is welcome. There is no prejudice to re-creation, and almost never is. In general, the only time re-creation is permanently barred is for vandalim, spamming or violations of the biographies of living persons policy. Acroterion _(talk) 13:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]