| Revision as of 13:49, 16 February 2010 editOlaf Davis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,981 edits →Warning regarding your conduct: Last chance.← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:53, 16 February 2010 edit undoSimon-in-sagamihara (usurped) (talk | contribs)1,854 edits →Warning regarding your conductNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| In you tagged ] for speedy deletion under ]. But A1 specifically says "This applies only to very short articles." and the page was at that time 7,303 bytes long. It also said "This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article 'marriage'" which seems to give plenty of context to me. Particularly for an article created less than 2 minutes earlier, this seems in incorrect use of this speedy deletion tag. Please be more careful in future. ] ] 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | In you tagged ] for speedy deletion under ]. But A1 specifically says "This applies only to very short articles." and the page was at that time 7,303 bytes long. It also said "This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article 'marriage'" which seems to give plenty of context to me. Particularly for an article created less than 2 minutes earlier, this seems in incorrect use of this speedy deletion tag. Please be more careful in future. ] ] 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | Well, the Misplaced Pages community has ] ] ] ] by incorrectly accusing them of spamming ''is'' a big deal. Since you clearly have no intention of fixing your behaviour, I will block you the next time you issue an obviously inappropriate CSD tag. Your call. ] (]) 13:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Warning regarding your conduct == | |||
| ⚫ | : Thanks for the "annoying" link - I discovered the Incubator (2.5) which seems quite a useful alternative to CSDing the borderline cases. ] (]) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Sorry, but now I'm really close to reporting you to the ]. Taking a look into your you keep archived at "/dev/null": | |||
| * you're tagging uncountable articles for speedy deletion, inadequately referring to the ]. Some of these articles are fortunately detagged or recovered later, which anyway means additional work for others plus deterrence for new contributors. | |||
| * you keep tagging articles for speedy deletion right after creation, which is to be avoided per ] | |||
| * you keep offending and harrassing users, see : ''"Oh, and you're trying to hide all the evidence? VERY bad newbie. I'll be keeping an eye on your edits. If you remove DB tags again, you will be blocked from editing."'' directed to a user who removed the obviously insane Speedy Deletion tag from his page. Sure, it wasn't okay to remove the tag, but this absolutely no reason to attack him like this nor to utter a threat you're not entitled to. "hiding the evidence" is a false allegation. "VERY bad newbie" is a personal attack in breach of ] | |||
| * you keep instructing people in an overly didactic tone, often giving wrong instructions, e.g. : ''<nowiki>"we can use {{hangon}} then, can't we?"</nowiki>'' (wrong information, yet arrogantly didactic) | |||
| We all make mistakes, and once in a while we might even go too far in respect to this or that. The difference is that you are being continuosly contradicted, criticized, warned, but you don't seem to care at all. You don't seem to care about your numerous errors, so obviously you don't care about the rules. You not even seem to care about people you offend, that do feel offended and even complain about being offended. | |||
| This making it very hard to keep ], so it's no surprise that you're being called ''"a meance and a danger to the project"'' by one of your victims. If you keep on doing like this, I will tend to agree. However, at the moment please understand this as a well-intentioned warning as I do see at the same time that you're doing good work as well. | |||
| ] (]) 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| :{{ec}} I'd advice you take the above seriously, Simon. My still stands if you'd like some help with CSD criteria; otherwise I strongly suggest you take a while to re-read them before doing any more tagging, make sure each tag you place is appropriate, and ask for a second opinion on any article which you're unsure of. | |||
| :For the benefit of anyone reading who doesn't have a ] background, ] might be enlightening. | |||
| :Your above reply, which edit conflicted with this, suggests you ''haven't'' taken PanchoS's advice seriously. If your behaviour does continue, you will end up being blocked. ] (]) 13:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : "but you don't seem to care at all" | |||
| You got it! A few articles out of several hundred get detagged, no big deal. You don't like me calling it /dev/null, well, you're just some anonymous dude on the net, and as just shown, you can click History to get it anyway. Some other guy gets butthurt because his article got tagged as spam and spergs out, whatever. ] (]) 13:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Revision as of 13:53, 16 February 2010
Tagging of Prolly
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Prolly. I do not think that Prolly fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because This doesn't look like vandalism to me, but merely an inappropriate page. i have tagged it with Prod instead. I request that you consider not re-tagging Prolly for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES 03:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Tagging of Jordyn Jackson
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Jordyn Jackson. I do not think that Jordyn Jackson fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because Having released multiple albums is a claim of significance, posibly not sufficient at AfD but enough to avoid an ] speedy. I request that you consider not re-tagging Jordyn Jackson for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES 03:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Tagging of Shiddukhin for speedy deletion
In this edit you tagged Shiddukhin for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1. But A1 specifically says "This applies only to very short articles." and the page was at that time 7,303 bytes long. It also said "This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article 'marriage'" which seems to give plenty of context to me. Particularly for an article created less than 2 minutes earlier, this seems in incorrect use of this speedy deletion tag. Please be more careful in future. DES 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Misplaced Pages community has decided that annoying people by incorrectly accusing them of spamming is a big deal. Since you clearly have no intention of fixing your behaviour, I will block you the next time you issue an obviously inappropriate CSD tag. Your call. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "annoying" link - I discovered the Incubator (2.5) which seems quite a useful alternative to CSDing the borderline cases. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)