AndrewAnorak
Hello, AndrewAnorak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Simplified Ruleset
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Glossary
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
Happy Wiki-ing!
Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as The Evil Empire: 101 ways England ruined the world.) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Hatch68 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
- (Evil Empire)I'm not sure that this is a nonsense article. Amazon is selling a book with the same title, and the description seems to enforce the same synopsis as the author has described here. I did not find a chapter listing to verify that, though the synopsis on Amazon states, "With an irreverent mix of historical facts, smart commentary, and red-blooded American arrogance, Grasse offers a devastating critique of the country..." I think some references are in order, but all-in-all I wouldn't state that this is a nonsense article. Trigam41 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize that this seems out of place, I could not edit the section above, but was redirected here. Trigam41 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like it was likely a direct copy from sections of the book, then, so it would have qualified for a db-copyvio. Either way, WP:SNOW applies. Something seems to be wrong with the edit section links today, so I moved your discussion here while making this reply. Hatch68 18:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article is also completely different from the one which was speedy deleted earlier today. Hatch68 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like it was likely a direct copy from sections of the book, then, so it would have qualified for a db-copyvio. Either way, WP:SNOW applies. Something seems to be wrong with the edit section links today, so I moved your discussion here while making this reply. Hatch68 18:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize that this seems out of place, I could not edit the section above, but was redirected here. Trigam41 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
(Evil Empire) I'm not sure why I keep getting directed to this section. Please, pardon me - and if you're able to move my comments north-ward, I appreciate it. I'm not sure I understand WP:SNOW. Are you saying that this article may not be nonsense, but it meets other criteria for speedy deletion and therefore should be deleted anyway (i.e. db-copyvio)? Trigam41 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm having the same problem when I try to click the section edit links. I'm not sure why. To get around it just click the edit button for the entire article. As for WP:SNOW, I originally quoted that because I thought you were referring to the original version of the article that I tagged as nonsense. It turns out the article got recreated with a slightly different title and this time was more coherent. The original article read like a big joke, and was likely copied from the book that was mentioned. I think you've got the gist of WP:SNOW in your above statement. Although there might have been some evidence to argue against it being nonsense, there is no reason to overturn the speedy delete since it is very unlikely it would have survived a db-copyvio that your research turned up, and extremely unlikely that it would have survived a full blown WP:AFD review. Hatch68 21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Scaipod, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hatch68 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)