User talk:98.28.12.216

January 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Chavo Guerrero Jr., without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Re: editing
That information didn't belong according to who, exactly? According to you?? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that relies on consensus among its contributors and adherence to policies and guidelines to decide what is and isn't appropriate content. Deleting informating because you don't personally like it is not appropriate and will land you with a ban if you continue. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 17:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided any reasons for deleting that information other than you don't like it being there. Warning you that disruptive editing usually results in blocks is not me abusing my position (such as it is), just a simple statement of fact. If you have any valid reasons why that information should not be on the article, I suggest starting a new section at Talk:Chavo_Guerrero,_Jr. and stating them there so that they may be discussed. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Infonic
I proposed to delete the Infonic article and you removed this saying that no rationale for the PROD was provided. In the change note I stated that the PROD was raised because the company no longer exists and also the company website (www.infonic.com) no longer exists. Therefore the article is obsolete. Please can you review this article and begin the deletion process again (perhaps as a speedy delete) if you agree that this is appropriate. I will not do this again as I am not sure of the procedure. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.132.25 (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Martin Porter
I have removed the prod tag from Martin Porter, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I've added some sources to the article to establish the notability of the Porter stemmer, but really, had you known anything about information retrieval or natural language processing, then you would have heard of Martin Porter. Qwertyus (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you knew anything about editing to add significant third-party coverage (which you added wasn't), then we wouldn't be here. At any rate, I have started the AFD process.  Can you clean it up for me?  98.28.12.216 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your specific "This should be deleted because:" rationale? I see the prod statement, but the article has been edited since then. Let me know and I'll complete the nomination for you. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is my rationale - Notability is not established whatsoever, only verifiability. Anyone can invent things and win awards. It comes down to third-party significant coverage to determine if this article stays. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added references to the two foremost current textbooks in the field, one of which calls Porter's algo "The most common algorithm for stemming English", so notability has been established. I notice that Articles for deletion/Martin Porter is a red link, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Qwertyus (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IP editors can start AFDs, but only with the assistance of another editor since IPs can't create non-talk pages, and AFDs sit in the Wikipedia space. The reason I asked for a rationale here was so that I could go complete the nomination - which I have now done. My bit is only procedural - the article was nominated when the IP tagged it. Quertyus - and IP - you'll want to go comment at the debate. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the ref for the stemmer to point to cs.odu.edu (an authoratitive source). According to Google Scholar this article on the Porter Stemmer has 5,369 citations - a huge number !90.192.132.25 (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

12 Apostles (record label)
Hi, I noticed you participated in the AfD for 12 Apostles (record label) you said "This is a prime example of an article that could be improved by adding the relevant sources. Give it a chance!" I tried looking for some sources but I could not find anything. I also noticed you were the one who de-prodded the article. If you have found any relaible sources could you add them to the article, otherwise I don't see why the article should be kept as it fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.  Jay Jay Talk to me 17:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)