User talk:68.239.79.82/Onofre Bouvila

Re: Domingo Elizondo
Hey I don't really understand this talk page so I'll write here ok?

What's the point about adding the "Speedy deletion" box in the article I created about Domingo Elizondo one second after I created the article? What are you? a bot? Are you a bot? hello? I didn't even have time to add the reference of the book he wrote, which by the way includes its ISBN number! Calm down please. Onofre Bouvila 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am not a bot; all bots have the _Bot attached (Such as User:Werdnabot and User:Tangobot), and the fact that you did not know that doesn't help your case. Anyways, whether or not someone wrote a book means little. The notability of that author and that book are what counts when adding to an encyclopedia, and it seemed to me that that person was non-notable. I will remove the speedy deletion template but I am going to list it a WP:AfD to see what the community thinks. And about my talk page-click the "+" to the right of "Edit this Page" to add comments on user talk pages. -_ tennis man    sign here!  01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But really, how did you do to add that thing one second after I created the article? You must be very bored, and you gotta be fast too. By the way, there are lots of trash articles in Wikipedia. I created this one, about a guy that is proven that existed, he wrote a book, and he had a life, he was an explorer, etc, but I don't have much time now to expand the article. I created it, I proved he existed, and he wrote a book, and in the following days I will try to expand the article. I don't understand your aims to harrass me and my article by, first adding the Speedy deletion thing, and then proposing the community to delete the article. Seriously, I don't really understand it. That doesn't help. Maybe now the article does not have much information, but what's wrong with that? Articles are written step by step, you don't need to harrass people like that, you're don't have to be any Wikipedian Freedom Fighter nor anything so. Onofre Bouvila 01:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a thing called New Page Patrolling. You go to Special:Newpages and check on articles there for their notability. I refreshed the page and voila, there was your article. And look, I am not trying to harass you, but trying to be realistic. If the people believe that your article passes WP:N, then it will be kept. I don't want to fight over this; I was simpl doing what I spend a lot of time doing on the wiki: Reporting bad pages that should be deleted so deletion may occur. Whether or not your article is bad or not remains to be seen. I would, if I were you, make the case for the article at its WP:AfD listing and go from there. Oh, and how I reported it so fast: WP:TW. -- tennis man    sign here!  01:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well then, I'd just like to apologize for my haste in thinking that this was such a problem. I did not realize how you were going about the creation of these pages, and in light of that I am going to remove the   template from the article. If there is anything else I can do don't hesitate to ask, and I am sorry for the lack of seriousness that I felt in attempting to have the article speedy deleted. -- tennis man    sign here!  02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no problem about the layout; I can edit it without any problem. And thanks for understanding my understanding; and since I am signing off (10:24 PM at my location) have a good day/night, and I hope to see you around the wiki! -` tennis man    sign here!  02:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Domingo Elizondo
I have added a "" template to the article Domingo Elizondo, 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  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. tennis man    sign here!  01:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

New pages patrol - FYI
Hello ... I came here to your Talk page regarding your recent encounter with and the Domingo Elizondo snafu (see messages above this one) ... as a frequent participant in new pages patrol and Counter Vandalism Unit activities, I see this kind of thing all the time ... Some Other Editor even got the Senior Partners to block me from editing for a week because I had tagged two of their articles for speedy deletion within 48 hours of each other (the block was rescinded within an hour once my audit-trail was examined.)

To avoid this kind of Serious Bad Karma in the future, I have created a couple of sandbox essays to help bring WikiNewbies up to speed on how things work around here ... the first one was a "greeting" that infuriated the other editor, and they accused me of violating WP:CIVIL ... the revised version is Here about a speedy delete? and is designed to defuse the "I didn't frag it, I just tagged it!" problem (they also accused me of using an anon-IP account to "avoid taking responsibility" for my part in the speedy deletion of their articles.)

The Silver Lining of my block was that I wrote this sandbox with three related essays:
 * 1) What to do after your speedy delete has been restored
 * 2) What to do when a speedy delete tag is removed
 * 3) It's not YOUR article

The Jewel in the Crown is the second one, which contains the first written version of the protocol I created and try Very Hard to follow, which is based on the paradigm of "Flag it, then tag it, then frag it!" ... I found that I would tag an article, then go to leave the recommended boilerplate warning on the author's Talk page, only to find that the article had already been deleted before I could finish posting the warning ... I'd do a "Show preview," and the article was already a redlink!

Here about a speedy delete? makes mention of my tagging a dozen articles for speedy deletion in a single hour, so I wrote The Dirty Dozen to elaborate on how easy it is to decide that an article doesn't belong (as first submitted, anyway), and to tag it and give the author a courtesy warning in less than 5 minutes ... please read it.

So, if I came across a stub like this during a NPP or CVU scan, I would follow the protocol in Warn-bio ... it's designed to s-l-o-w d-o-w-n the speedy deletion by guaranteeing that there is documentation about the tagging editor's concerns before the article is tagged, and provides a place where the WP:Administrators can leave comments about why they agree that we should "kill it before it grows," and thus publicly share their responsibility in the speedy deletion, taking some of the heat off the poor shlubs like and me, who are simply the instigators, not the executioners.

I'm the first one to admit that sometimes we are Too Hasty in our judgments, as are some of the admins who do not sufficiently research our recommendations ... using the protocols should provide some timing buffers and minimize ruffling feathers all around ... please see my list of protocols that are Under Construction ... if it is called "Warn-ABCD", then enter "WP:ABCD" in the search box to the left of the screen to see what it's about, e.g., WP:BAND, WP:BIO, and WP:CORP are the WP:Notability criteria specific to "music," "people," and "organizations and companies."

While you're at it, try WP:DBTN (Don't Bite The Newbies), WP:DNFT (Do Not Feed the Troll), and WP:NFT (Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day) ... the point is that there are beau coup shortcuts for aspects of the Dark Side of Wikipedia that most users and editors never see, and unfortunately, you were collateral damage in the war against WP:VAND and WP:VSCA (to name a few).

I point these things out in case you should decide to take a hand in "the war against things made up in school one day," or to "actively seek out and confront the Forces of Evil" (as I like to call the missions of WP:NPP and WP:CVU), then you'll keep these new protocols in mind and follow them ... with enough feedback and consensus, maybe the Senior Partners will elevate these protocols to Official Guideline status. :-)

Happy Editing! &mdash; 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikireaucracy
Sorry but I have read what you wrote in my talk page (see New pages patrol - FYI) ... and man, and I don't understand it much. You've talked to me about all this stuff of speedy deletion and so on, but I don't get the general idea. What did you want to tell me? Say me in a single sentence, and I will try to assume it. Reading your talk page is like reading a programming code that I do not understand at all. Thanks. 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell: You created a "stub" of an article that got tagged for a speedy delete, perhaps Too Soon ... it led to an exchange with  (which you have deleted from your Talk page, but I have reconstructed in this sandbox) ... the incident came up in my communications with them about an unrelated matter, and I said, "Yeah, that kind of thing happens a lot ... I'm trying to do something about it happening Too Often."


 * I thought that as an editor who had been the "victim" of an overzealous new pages patrol tag and revert, that your input to the process of developing a new protocol would be helpful ... if it's a bit over your head, then that was my error ... if nothing else, it demonstrates that I need to develop a "kindergarten" version for nuggets ... I've been "pushing bits" (what we used to call computer programming) for over three decades now, and I tend to forget just how green nuggets can be. :-)


 * If it's all Greek to you, then just ignore it and MOVE ON ... I won't bother you again until I have something that is easier for you to understand, and then I would appreciate your feedback.


 * Happy Editing! &mdash;68.239.79.82 05:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Epilogue
Well, looks like this user stopped editing shortly after they were blocked for violating WP:CIVIL on talk pages ... then a few months ago, their User and Talk pages were deleted by Some Other Editor for "inactivity" ... good thing I made this archive copy! :-) &mdash; 13:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)