Hello, Graywalls, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a criticism, I'm just curious: why do you insert <br />
tags and extra whitespace in edits like this, this, and this? Is this intentional on your part or just something weird done by the VisualEditor? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome, new editor, and thank you for working on the often thankless task of nominating articles for deletion. Please carefully re-read the description for the speedy deletion criterion WP:G11. Here's an excerpt: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.
It may also help to read the detailed description at WP:NOTPROMOTION, specifically item 5, which includes this text: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources....
You improperly applied WP:G11 to Bit House Saloon (now at Draft:Bit House Saloon). The prose on the page is written neutrally, and it is all referenced to reliable sources that cover the subject of the article directly. I'm not saying it would survive at AFD, but G11 does not apply. Thanks, and happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.CSD exists only for pages whose deletion should be uncontroversial. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() |
This situation reminds me a lot of something that happened about a year ago. It dragged on for months, with lots of moans and groans from the prolific article creator about how we were all so unkind in deleting his articles when we could have fixed them for him. When he'd irritated enough people, that contributor was eventually banned from creating any new articles. Deb (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
Fekner sent me a nasty email saying we had ravaged his page. I think we massively improved it. Some people seem to think WP is a promotional vehicle for their personal careers.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Graywalls,
We've interacted once or twice, but mostly I've watched articles in my watchlist and on various talk pages (including yours). I've seen a pattern of editing that comes off as disruptive, hostile, or prickly. Just from the past few days:
and some patterns (versus individual quotes above):
It seems you have a bias towards the removal of content, and some of it (coincidentally?) tends to line up with things that Another Believer has created or contributed to, perhaps after a debate on an article deletion, which appears to be your first significant interaction. I'm not sure if that's related or not, but combining all of these behaviors together has .. gathered attention from other users, who mostly seem to be responding in good faith towards the community building.
This has intensified- while I was writing this and pulling diffs I saw you called out Another Believer for canvassing "both on and off the Wiki platform". Certainly I've interacted with Another Believer in the same way I've interacted with you- because our interests in Oregon articles tends to intersect. I don't think I've met either of you but I'm also really bad with names and faces.
Your edits have made it clear that you are well-aware of "how Wikipedia works", the policies and so on. So I'm not linking to specific pillars/guidelines/essays. Mostly I wanted to directly approach you with this to see how intentional it is, and if there's a more general issue or concern you have outside of specific commits. tedder (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)