User talk:PMDrive1061/Archive1

You're welcome to leave a message, but I'm not likely to get it right away. Please add new content to the bottom. Thanks!

Hi Ralph. Nice to see you've still got a finger in the pie here. I think that Veropedia might work out rather well for you. You contributed a lot of high-quality content here over the years, and I can understand the disappointment you must feel seeing articles deteriorate without constant input (or simply becoming victim to the ever-increasing but inconsistently applied Wikipedia standards). The idea of Veropedia appeals to me too, although I am too busy to join that project at the moment.-gadfium 18:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember not to bite the newcomers as you did on User talk:Rach6892. You warned them as if they were a blatant vandal. A welcome template and a notice to do test edits in the sandbox would have been much more appropriate. Mr.Z-man 09:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMDrive1061,

So by some amazing coincidence, I was reading through User:Ginkgo100's short essay on speedy deletions, which has a great section on A1, and just decided to pop over to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to take a look-see. I then clicked on the article above and noticed it was improperly tagged with that very criteria, so I removed the notice per WP:CSD and came over here to pass on the handy link. Enjoy! --jonny-mt 08:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm I'm not sure that an unsourced statement of being "on the National Registry of Historic Places" is a claim to importance. No source, no context, no contest. Then again I'm very liberal with my interpretations of certain policies. I too have a section on speedy deletions. While it didn't fall under A1 wholly, it fell under it enough in my view that I would have deleted it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Image:Pasoalogo.jpg. The reason is:

unused images only speedy-deletable if under a non-free license

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image, it was uploaded solely for use in an advert article, it's been orphaned for a while now, and Wikipedia is not here to host images that serve no purpose, be it article or personal use. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your name pop up in the RC page. Glad to see that you're back, of sorts. I did get your last message that you left me, but I didn't reply back as I thought you had left. Anyways, I'm glad that you were able to take care of that cactus incident and are still around somewhere. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article may just be a sentence, but it does have clear context, so doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, which says "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." It's very easy to identify the subject of this one. If you really think it should be deleted you should take it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that my edits put you off. No one will prevent you from expanding on the article, it was not tagged for deletion, just for improvement. I tagged it with as needed more citations because at the time there was only one source which I assume is managed by him. Articles need multiple sources that are not involved with the subject to be verifiable. And while he certainly sounds notable, Wikipedia's guidelines for notability require coverage in secondary sources which weren't present (similar to the first issue). If you want to avoid people tagging your articles you may want to try creating them on a subpage of your userpage, or use construction templates. Sorry again -- pb30<talk> 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061, it would be appreciative if you do not judge me by my likes and dislikes, thank you very much! I, too, am a human, and can let out whatever my heart desires.