Bdrasin

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Featured pictures
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:Current polls
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 19:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rational Response Squad

I deleted it because the article made no verifiable claims about the organisation's importance or notability. The numerous external links (mainly to its own site and MySpace) fit the pattern of the hundreds of spam articles we get every day. Disrupt Wikipedia's deletion process hasn't done them any favours either. Regards, The Land 09:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article made no verifiable claims (I don't know if I agree or not because you short-circuited the debate) then that seems like a legit reason to delete the article, but what is the point of the speed delete? Isn't assuming that all new/anonymous votes to keep (regardless of whether they present any valid arguments) are puppets a violation of assume good faith? And even if so, speed-deleting an article as punishment is NOT one of the criteria listed on Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions. What is the point of having these policies if the real test is whether or not one particular administrator thinks that the article is/is not encyclopedic? Why even allow anonymous/new users to comment on RfD if they will always just be assumed to be puppets? Bdrasin 11:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an archived copy of the original article that was RfD'd. --Cbenard 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after reading the article I agree that it is quite bad. I still don't like the way this was handled though. Bdrasin 15:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HJ

I have left a reply on talk. I wanted to stop in here, though, to express the sentiment that I hope you don't think the reverts rude. I think your points have some substance, but I am worried about the integrity of the sources and their being represented. I hope to talk further and work together on this. Lostcaesar 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That one

This edit was rather inappropriate. Please stop making disruptive edits. Grsz^X 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)