User talk:Alan Isherwood/Archives/2009/September

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you very much :) DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 14:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

it was not a test
delete that message, or if not I will assume you want to ban my creation of wikipedia articles. — Esteban Bodigami Vincenzi 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then, but as the page says, you should add below the deletion tag, and place your reasons on the article's talk page.  Thanks, DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 04:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * it was deleted by the same mod, noob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodigami (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank's for your attempt to change my user talk page, but I like it the way it is. Thanks, DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 05:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Z-Pesa
Hello Alan Isherwood, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Z-Pesa) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again!  So Why  14:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. If you don't mind me asking just so I know for the future, what were your reasons picking an A7 over my G11?  Looking at the criteria of an A7, it says Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content.  However (if memory serves correct), the page in question seemed to be referring to an application designed for mobile phones, which would seem to fall out of that criteria I would have thought? Thanks in advance,  -- AlanI (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would but there is also a website named that way and the article itself was not talking about it being a mobile phone application but rather an online service (that can also be accessed from mobile phones). The problem with G11 here would be that the page was not really promotional (G11 requires that it serves only to promote and cannot be cleaned up) and there were no weblinks or similar that spam articles usually carry, so it was rather an article written from a certain POV and not a valid G11. As a rule, you might remember it this way: "If you can cut away all the spammy bits and afterwards have a valid stub, it's not a G11". Regards  So Why  14:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that makes sense, thankyou :) AlanI (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. If you need any other help, feel free to ask.
 * PS: If you allow me to make a suggestion: You should try and create a unique signature and not copy your adopter's, people find it usually easier to remember as well asdistinguish users that way (personally, I find signatures who use background color (and bright color at that) annoying as they distract from the text). Regards  So Why  15:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, it wasn't actually from my adopter, it was just something I came up with myself. But yes, point taken about the bright colour, I'll put some thought into it.  Cheers, AlanI (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

1hourflex
I swear you must be getting paid for allowing pages to be published or not, for you so quickly market the onehourpage for deletion that it really looked weird!

In fact before marking the page for deletion why don´t you:

1 - READ the links that give it notability

2 - WAIT until it is at least finished! --User:Galonga 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Galonga. My observations were based on a Google search for 1hourflex  which provided minimal search results.  By all means, if you believe my actions are in error, then please provide your reasons on the article's talk page.  As part of the speedy-deletion process, the speedy deletion tag should not be removed by the article author, instead, the hangon tag should be added.  I noticed you added the hangon tag whilst removing the speedy deletion tag, this is a minor procedural error.  I have gone ahead and replaced the deletion tag whilst keeping your hangon message.  You should now provide your thoughts on the article's talk page. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.  Cheers, DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 13:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That´s why there are the links in the article: so please check them and you´ll see that those are leading publications in the field —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then, but as I said, you should be moving this conversation to the article's talk page. The final deletion decision is not made by me, it will be made by an administrator who will be expecting to see your comments there.  As a side note, if you plan on expanding the article longer then it is now in the near future, you may wish to consider using the Template:Under_construction tag. DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 13:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You could point out to the lectonar admin this conversation, for he just deleted the article giving me no time to put the tag you mentioned.


 * Geez! You admins are too eager to pull the trigger! Wait at least a couple of hours to delete things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 13:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Galonga (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Now what do I do? That faster-than-me admin deleted the article without giving me at least a couple of seconds to put the construction tag!
 * Your best chance would probably to contact the administrator who preformed the actual deletion, in this case, Lectonar, which it appears you have now done. In addition, you may wish to review the following Wikipedia policy on disputing deletions Deletion_policy.  Cheers, DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 14:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Galonga (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Problem is that this site is packed with admins crazy to delete articles. So ok I can convince this guy to keep it, but I know that in 5 minutes some other will delete it as well! Why don´t you guys talk to each other then?


 * I'm not actually an administrator, I'm simply an editor who has basically the same account access rights you do. There are quite strict policies on what articles are and are not allowed Wikipedia.  Your topic was deleted under A7, in particular, because of lack of noteability.  If an official deletion review was raised, I think you'll find all relevant admins would join together to look at the issue as a whole.  This, however, cannot be done for each article as there are just simply too many of them.  If a decision were made in such a setting, I think you'd find that all administrators would stand by the decision. DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 14:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically what you are telling me is that an article can be deleted by ANY admin. So if one had a fit with his girlfriend (or boyfriend, who cares!) and is in a bad mood then we have to live with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)