User talk:Rustybadge

Welcome!

Hello, Rustybadge, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

If you have any questions you can always go here for help too:WP:Village Pump Aaron Bowen 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buyer behaviour

A tag has been placed on Buyer behaviour, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Quietust 12:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{hangon}} tag goes on the page in question, not here. I have added the tag to Buyer behaviour since that was obviously your intention. --Finngall ^talk 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blame-time

A tag has been placed on Blame-time, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Finngall ^talk 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your new articles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or glossary, and all of these very short articles seem more suited for Wiktionary than Wikipedia. I am flagging most of them for speedy deletion under the no-context criterion cited above. Please refrain from creating more such articles unless you are willing to expand on them in a manner more suited to an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that some of your articles tread very close to ground covered by existing articles, so I have redirected these articles accordingly rather than proposing their deletion. The original content can still be recovered by going back to previous revisions of the orignal article. --Finngall ^talk 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2007

Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Target Group Index, to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What's up with TGI??

I tagged it for speedy deletion for the same reasons than the user above me, your article is a dictionary definition that shouldn't be put on Wikipedia. I suggest you to read the official policy WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More dictionary-entry "articles"

I've tagged several more of your new "articles" as definitions, not articles, and more suitable for copying to Wiktionary. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; the idea is not to have a separate article for every tiny concept in a field (such as "advertising copy"), but rather to have encyclopedic entries on topics, such as Copywriting, with sections on aspects of those topics within the articles. --Orange Mike 14:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, be careful when editing on people's talk pages--your edits mangled a message from another user. Don't worry, I've fixed it.

Second, I don't know about the TGI article--I haven't seen it myself.

You've stated that you want to flesh all of these articles out later, which is laudable. Unfortunately, we're not psychic--we can only base our assessments of articles based on what's there, not what's going to be there. If you don't have a lot of material at the moment but you still want to include it somewhere, you can easily incorporate it into related existing articles where applicable. I would advise not creating new articles until they're already fleshed out. You can work on them here by creating subpages of your userpage and copying the results over to the main article space when you're done. (If you don't want to keep these subpages around when you're done, you can flag them for speedy deletion yourself by replacing the content with the {{db-author}} tag and admin will get to them soon after.)

It's not our intention here to bite newcomers--in fact, quite the opposite. But some of us do try hard to keep the amount of cruft to a minimum by keeping a close eye on new page creation. Otherwise, we'd be swamped by nonsense articles, vanity articles, articles about every crappy high school band on four continents, spam articles, "my classmate is a poopoohead" articles, and even a lot of serious, well-meaning articles about subjects that simply aren't worthy of inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia with a worldwide readership. It's a big job, but the end result is generally better than if we put greater restrictions on who gets to post.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Take care, and feel free to ask more questions. --Finngall ^talk 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Photoshop function articles

These articles that you are creating about functions and features within Adobe Photoshop are not notable on their own. They might have a place in the main article about the software. Realkyhick 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or glossary. All of these articles are grossly inappropriate. --Orange Mike 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Vertical Publications

I moved this to Wiktionary, as it is basically just a definition at this point. Herostratus 03:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]