User talk:Djsasso
 |
Warning: This user stalks discussion pages. {{talkback}} is not necessary. |
Contents
Spider[change | edit source]
Could you tell me why would you have deleted it anyway? Tdfdc (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because none of the references talk about the company in a way that isn't just routine coverage. Like reviews of products or listing that they were at some expo or another. There needs to be sources from reputable magazines/newspapers talking about the company itself, not their products. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- And what is your opinion about the comment I have left in Chenzw's talk page?
- I also think the reasoning you have provided are for RfD, and not for QD. The scope of my discussion with Autonf was only QD. Tdfdc (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Except that it has already been RfDed. At this point its up to you to prove notability to be able to recreate it again, until you do QD applies. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to the reasoning you have stated. Do you truly think that QD applies? When I have reviewed it, it clearly states: identical or similar copy. If you will compare the article on the date that the RfD was filed, with the article that I have recreated, you can hardly find them identical or 'similar copy'. And that is even without dwelling into the condition for the recreation, that was stated as reviewing by another editor, and without mentioning the possibility of another RfD which Osiris have mentioned. Tdfdc (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Just a note: the comparison should not be to the article as of the date the rfd was filed. It should be to the article as of the date the rfd was closed. This is because, if an article is changed during an rfd to address the concerns, and editors agree that the issues are corrected, the article is not deleted. If the article is changed but is still deleted, that means the issues were not corrected. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would disagree. In this particular case, the consensus was reached at the beginning of the RfD for the way the article looked at that time. I have noted to Osiris that the article that was RfD'd and the current articles are different, and he agreed with that point, proposing another RfD. However, even though Chenzw prompted you to help with the article, you have QD'd it, after helping with it. I'm still amused at what you have done.
- (talk page stalker) Just a note: the comparison should not be to the article as of the date the rfd was filed. It should be to the article as of the date the rfd was closed. This is because, if an article is changed during an rfd to address the concerns, and editors agree that the issues are corrected, the article is not deleted. If the article is changed but is still deleted, that means the issues were not corrected. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to the reasoning you have stated. Do you truly think that QD applies? When I have reviewed it, it clearly states: identical or similar copy. If you will compare the article on the date that the RfD was filed, with the article that I have recreated, you can hardly find them identical or 'similar copy'. And that is even without dwelling into the condition for the recreation, that was stated as reviewing by another editor, and without mentioning the possibility of another RfD which Osiris have mentioned. Tdfdc (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Except that it has already been RfDed. At this point its up to you to prove notability to be able to recreate it again, until you do QD applies. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- In all of this I don't see even a slightest ray of AGF. And into this you would like me to invite my fellow audiophiles to contribute? That would immediately create a conflict, instead of a collaborative, based on AGF, involvement.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If I were you, and acted in AGF, I would personally leave a comment on your talk page, and ask why do you think that the article was reviewed, and wouldn't arbitrary assume that there wasn't a reviewing process, especially considering that RfD's wrap-up didn't specify anything like a formal, written review, and I wouldn't QD it. At best, if I wouldn't satisfied with a reply, I would probably propose another RfD. However, being the person that helped with the article, I would probably do nothing of these at all, and let other admins to handle it; especially if I wouldn't have time to invest into finding more reliable sources to help to develop the article further. Tdfdc (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- May I propose you to revert QD and start RfD? That would be a much more polite action, and I could centralize there my reasoning. And, if you could start injecting rays of AGF in your actions towards the article (even if not a sunshine), I would much appreciate it. Tdfdc (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Notability P.S.[change | edit source]
Out of pure curiosity, I have decided to test my impression of 40-60%. I did so by pressing "random" on en.wk. Here are the articles I got:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Championships_in_Athletics_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_1500_metres - 1 reference, to todor66.com website, fails notability requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_14,_Prince_Edward_Island - Got no references, fails notability requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beloved_%281970_film%29 - 1 Reference, may or may not 'potentially' fulfill the notability reqs, fails at present form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconditioning - 3 References, First reference is being actually another en.wk article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGraw-Hill_Encyclopedia_of_Science_and_Technology, that itself got no references. Other two are ISBN references. Even if they are valid, 2 references are not enough to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Though potentially it is most likely complies with the notability requirements, in the current form it fails.
I have repeatedly clicked 4 times on random article button. I give you my word that I didn't omit any articles. Tdfdc (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Requesting AWB permission[change | edit source]
Please take a look at my request here. Please direct all your future messages there. Thanks. - Jayadevp13 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
See my reply to you there. - Jayadevp13 04:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete Review[change | edit source]
There is an ongoing review process in which you are participating. Kindly review the last two sections regarding reliable sources that were introduced (sections) after your participation in the survey.Tdfdc (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Subpages[change | edit source]
What I am trying to do is find out if there is a sufficient number of stubs for the creation of these stub tags. These pages do not interfere with the operation of Wikipedia and, as I said, once I am done with this I will nominate these pages for deletion. If these pages had not been deleted back in February, then most likely I would already be done and we would not be having this fight. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- As I said on Auntof6's page. We don't sort stubs here like you are trying to do. You have been asked in the past not to try and sort stubs like that here. We only create stubs when people are actively trying to work on a project involving those specific stubs. Please stop sorting stubs. We actively discourage sub sorting here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Language stub sorting[change | edit source]
We have another user doing the same kind of stub sorting into language stubs. What would you think of deleting the language stub template and taking it off of articles? It wouldn't be too hard to do, since there aren't that many pages using it so far. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
