User talk:Cilliang

Welcome!
Hello, Cilliang, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567062730 your edit] to BeamNG may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it is not a direct "sequel" to Rigs of Rods and despite being worked on by many of the same developers as (RigsofRods), numerous aspects of

Nomination of BeamNG for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BeamNG is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/BeamNG until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

BeamNG
The article BeamNG was deleted by fairly comprehensive consensus at Articles for deletion/BeamNG. Recreating the article's talk page is not the way to go about trying to get it undeleted. For that, you need to have a discussion with the closing administrator,. I'm going to nominate that new talk page for speedy deletion because there is no corresponding article, but thought I should post a note here first explaining why. Stalwart 111  22:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies - I see you've already taken it up with him. I'm hesitant to suggest it, but you are entitled to take this to DRV. Please note, though, that DRV is focused on discussions where there is a concern about the manner in which an administrator has closed a discussion or deleted an article. It's not AFD, take 2, nor is it a place to simply re-argue your case because you disagree with community consensus. Stalwart 111  22:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So what will happen to BeamNG? I'm new to BeamNG, if the DRV fails, what then? If for example Russia got deleted because user were angry fpr no reason, does that mean it's not significant?


 * The people who got the page deleted in the first place obviously dont know what relevance s, relevance is subjective. That's an idiotic rule.


 * Just look how dumb this is. Rigs of Rods isn't deleted, yet BeamNG is, and BeamNG is a sequel and is more popular, this makes no sense? Can you help me get it back?


 * Well, only admins can delete articles and usually only at the direction of the larger editing community (like at AFD). If an admin really did go crazy and deleted Russia, the deletion would be reverted and they would have their admin powers revoked almost instantaneously. In this case, community consensus has determined that the subject does not meet our inclusion guidelines. You need to either demonstrate how and why that is not the case (usually with new evidence not presented at AFD) or you need to wait until the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. "Relevance" is, ironically, irrelevant. Notability is our standard here. Stalwart 111  03:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)