User talk:Teh tennisman/Archive7

May 2007 Archive

Hello

Can you make me a archive thingy page showing all my archives shown on my talk? Thanks. Questions contact me. WikiMan53 talk / sign? 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Article

Hey I don't really understand this talk page so I'll write here ok?

What's the point about adding the "Speedy deletion" box in the article I created about Domingo Elizondo one second after I created the article? What are you? a bot? Are you a bot? hello? I didn't even have time to add the reference of the book he wrote, which by the way includes its ISBN number! Calm down please. Onofre Bouvila 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But really, how did you do to add that thing one second after I created the article? You must be very bored, and you gotta be fast too. By the way, there are lots of trash articles in Wikipedia. I created this one, about a guy that is proven that existed, he wrote a book, and he had a life, he was an explorer, etc, but I don't have much time now to expand the article. I created it, I proved he existed, and he wrote a book, and in the following days I will try to expand the article. I don't understand your aims to harrass me and my article by, first adding the Speedy deletion thing, and then proposing the community to delete the article. Seriously, I don't really understand it. That doesn't help. Maybe now the article does not have much information, but what's wrong with that? Articles are written step by step, you don't need to harrass people like that, you're don't have to be any Wikipedian Freedom Fighter nor anything so. Onofre Bouvila 01:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry I write here hehe. I still haven't found a place in your talk page.

In these days, I am creating various articles about Spanish explorers who played a crucial role in the expansion and settlement of New Spain. For example, check this one: [1]: this is how it was at the begin, when I created it. If someone like you had came and had removed the article, I would not have been able to expand it, and now we would not have this fantastic article, that I have made after five days of work: Pere d'Alberní i Teixidor. Just take it easy. I don't know how that stuff about deletion process works, I don't really understand nor like wikireaucracy (yeah, what I'm doing here then? DUNNO).
Anyway, if in two or three months the article still being two lines of text like it is today, well, come on, start a process for deletion, but don't start it now, cus I won't even have time to check it, or I won't know how to check it and try to stop the deletion, and all in all on what will be supported the deletion? It will just be the critteria of two or three people who has too much time like you. I mean, it won't probably be objective. The fact that two or three wikipedians that in that moment were luring that page and saw the post about deleting the article and posted to save it or delete it I don't think they have much critteria to decide if the article must be kept or not. I mean, they are not going to improve the article nor anything so, they don't really care, they will just see two lines of text and they will probably delete it. But that doesn't mean the article deserves a deletion. If the article is finally deleted, it will be just the result of the circumstancial situation of wikipedians who are reading the page of deletions in that moment, and who will decide either if the page will be deleted or not. I don't think there are many wikipedians that go to these bureaucracy pages to see "which article do we save today", but on the contrary I bet there are lots of them who go there like "let's see which article do I kill today", because they have that "anti-troll anti-vandal wikipedia-freedom-fighter" instilled in their minds.
So just let time to expand the article, now I'm gonna put a "stub" label, etc, and if in two or three months the article is still the same, go delete it. But if you start a process right now, I don't think I am even going to find the page where I can support the article, and it's very probably it will be deleted, yes, but the decission won't be objective. Things are done step by step, u know. From here to here. So please if you made that thing about deletion, remove it. Onofre Bouvila 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! It's me for last time (I won't ruin your layout anymore).

Well, thanks for understanding it, no problem. Sometimes we must look beyond. Onofre Bouvila 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Halil İbrahim Cenik

Hello ... I declined your CSD A1 on this Turkish midfielder ... see the Discussion page for details ... sorry for the gruff tone of voice, but I guess I've been in front of the keyboard for Too Long again.

I notice that you did not put a {{empty-warn}} on the author's Talk page ... please take a look at my sandbox essay What to do when a speedy delete tag is removed ... I'd like to propose this as the protocol to follow for WP:NPP and WP:CVU to try to minimize WP:DBTN incidents, like the kind of overzealous CSD tagging that got me blocked from editing last week.

Anywho, I was simply going to stick {{talkheader}} on the respective Discussion and Talk pages (since they were both virgins) ... I'm still testing the protocol and boilerplates for the Talk pages, so I look for pages that have already been tagged, but the author hadn't been notified, and then I could safely test my boilerplates in real situations.

But then I noticed the infobox at the bottom of the article, which started me digging ... and I decided that I would decline the CSD, and solicit your help in testing the protocol. :-)

The idea is to adopt the kinder, gentler paradigm of "Flag, then tag!" ... always post the warning before actually tagging the article ... some admins are So Fast that the article can be deleted before you can finish pasting the courtesy warning on the author's Talk page, so post the warning first ... then take the time to put a message on the article's Discussion about why you think it should be deleted ... that's for the admin to read when they're slogging through the backlog of CSD nominations, and it also gives the author some time to actually add some more material.

This wouldn't be a problem if they'd only learn to use a sandbox first, but they're Newbies ... making "mistakes" is what they do ... it's part of their learning curve ... how many times have you come back a few hours after tagging an article only to find a worthy & worthwhile Little Stub that Could, an article that you wouldn't even bother to {{prod}}?

Sometimes, it's all about timing, and the protocol forces two rather lengthy edits before the tag is actually applied, but most of all it guarantees that the author has a point of contact when they come back the next day and their precious article has evaporated ... we can all forget to put a warning on a page as we get Too Buzy tracking and tagging some anon vandal ... or we could get caught up in an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation on TV and forget that we hadn't done a SAVE before we walked away from the keyboard for an hour ... or a hardware failure could keep us off-line for a day or two.

So, I'm going to drop what I'm currently doing and start to work on a new WARN-NOCONTEXT protocol to go along with the WARN-BIO and WARN_COPYVIO I'm currently testing ... see my boilerplate list for others I'll be working on Real Soon Now.

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 14:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Teh tennisman/Archive7, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Politics rule 18:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Ah, sorry. I just came home, but it appears everything is sorted. What a mess that was... · AndonicO ^Talk 00:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Always do, but hopefully next time I'll be on time. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 08:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)