User talk:ConconJondor

Time available (12 January 2011)
Can I suggest you get your material together before creating a page? That way you avoid having to say "because there has not been sufficient time to write any material for the article".... Peridon (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create that page, I was pointing it out. Thank you. ConconJondor (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates (1 February 2011)
I propose to change in Twinkle/Huggle/Cluebot etc... names to numbers like 2011 02 01 because september, october, november and december are coined by pagan roman liars who lied that these are 7th 8th 9th and 10th months when they aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.238.72 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the Gregorian calendar, then I'm not the person to take it up with. And the consensus is that we use the Gregorian calendar, so it's what we use. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. ConconJondor (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about stripping lies from Gregorian calendar? Let's name months like:
 * Primilis
 * Sectilis
 * Tertilis
 * Quadrilis
 * Quintilis
 * Sextilis
 * September
 * Octember
 * November
 * December
 * Unodecember
 * Duodecember
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.238.72 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't simpler to keep them as they are? ConconJondor (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because we have lying names, which is nonsense. At least better name months like:
 * January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, Tiber, Caligul, Claud, Ner
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.238.72 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim Keener (3 February 2011)
This should not have been flagged as an A7 CSD, but blanked and tagged as an attack page ASAP. When you encounter negative unsourced content, particularly for living persons, ALWAYS blank the page and flag for speedy deletion. This is a primary policy on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.  Cind. amuse  20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That didn't occur to me, but the page relied upon the deleted BLOOD DIRT SALT DEATH BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BONER page, another CSD (correct me if I am wrong) and the claim was also unreferenced, so I could have done worse. And flagging it did mean it wasn't unnoticed, meaning that if (and it was) a breach of WP:ATTACK it could be picked up on quicker than if it wasn't flagged under any CSD. Fair? ConconJondor (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Six to one half a dozen of another. Welcome to Wikipedia either way. Just please be careful to correctly blank and flag all attack pages. You may want to consider using Twinkle to assist you in this effort. Let me know if you have any questions.  Cind. amuse  20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Slow down, wouldja? (5 February 2011)
See.
 * 'A few minutes': surely that is long enough to further add context and content? And you could have written more before creating the page, which would have removed the issue altogether. Thanks, ConconJondor (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to take a stab at the subject yourself? What do you think you could do with Tryphé in just a few minutes? Yakushima (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the expert. And your initial contribution was 'Classical authors such as Aeschines and Plutarch condemned the τρυφἠ (tryphé) of Romans such as Crassus and Lucullus which included lavish dinner parties and ostentatious buildings.' You could have put what you added after the CSD template in the first edit, which would have prevented me from tagging your article. ConconJondor (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And to think I started Tryphé as part of an effort to argue that extravagance should be deleted for WP:NOTDICT violation. *Sigh*.  Care to weigh in on that AfD discussion? Yakushima (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So to argue that extravagance should be deleted, you created Tryphé, which is also violation of WP:NOTDICT. If that isn't tit for tat, I don't know what is. ConconJondor (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I argue that Tryphé is an actual encyclopedic topic, one that includes but also goes well beyond "extravagance" in the most usual sense of the term, whereas you can't really talk about extravagance as anything but a word, since the word can apply to so many things, including these extravagant claims that extravagance belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia loses a mere dictionary entry with some silly claims to wider meanings (none of which seem to have stood up; see my various edits and comments in the Afd), and Wikipedia gains an article with a clear focus on a real topic, with some historical depth. Is this not progress?  AfD is not about reducing the number of articles on Wikipedia.  It's about making Wikipedia better.  If every AfD deletion left three new, good articles on truly notable topics in its wake (albeit stubs), Wikipedia improves. Yakushima (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, if you really thought Tryphé was a WP:NOTDICT violation, why didn't you put an AfD nom where your mouth is? Yakushima (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it only occured to me once you'd pointed out extravagance. Can we forgive and forget, I'd like to move on and improve my style .... ConconJondor (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, slow down
You did the same thing to William Warner Bishop. You prodded it as no content--5 minutes sfter it had been started. This is not the way to deal with new contributors. I note that the presence of a filled-in infobox is sufficient to defeat A3, because it can always be re-phrased into sentences. As for the example above, the above sentence was clearly sufficient content to prevent deletion, and is clearly not DICT. I will look at the AfD mentioned. The point of A3 is to remove things that will almost certainly never be articles. I have also declined two other of your speedy nominations. (and deleted one, as reviewing administrator). Please carefully read WP:SPEEDY before continuing to nominate articles for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm over-zealous with speedy deletion tags, but I would have thought that 5 minutes is long enough ....
 * Any other constructive criticism? And please bear in mind I've only been a Wikipedian for just under a month, I'm quite inexperienced. Thanks, ConconJondor (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. You may want to review the guidelines for patrolling new pages, along with the criteria for speedy deletion. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.  Cind. amuse  17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on Kelly W. Case? I'm thinking CSD:A7, although CSD:G11 could also be appropriate? ConconJondor (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Owing to lack of reply, I'm going to tag CSD:G11 ConconJondor (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the G11. It claims he is notable as a prosector. That may or may not be so, but the claim is enough to prevent A7. I suggest a check for copyvio as well--I'm almost sure you'll find its copied from his web site. Or a publicity blurb about him. Sometimes an article like this would be more appropriately taken to prod than csd.--If it had had  a few more specific facts about his career, I'd have gone that route, because the puffery could have been removed, leaving only the facts. Here, if we remove the puffery and irrelevancy, there's nothing left.


 * Anyway,  I was about to come here as you requested and mention some additional points you might like to consider. I suggest  that you would do well to be more alert to possible copyright violation; Institute of Builders' Merchants is a direct copy of their web page, and I deleted it as such. (The clue, is that it is written in the first person: "Where we began".)  And they conveniently gave the link to their page--obviously not being aware they cannot copy it into Wikipedia  Had they not listed the web site, I would have certainly gone and looked for it after such a clue. I shall give them my usual advice in the situation.  One of the other articles you properly marked for deletion as promotional was in addition a similar copyvio. (as almost certainly is the article on Case.  When that is the  case,  use both tags-- though with Twinkle, the second one needs to be added manually. Promotionalism can be a matter of degree & thus debatable, but copyvio is an unmistakable reason for deletion.


 * I realize you've only been here a month, and that's why you've been making these mistakes. This is a special reason why you should slow down, and look carefully, checking the full text of the speedy criterion, not just the summary. You've been doing a good job of reverting vandalism, and I see you are careful to always leave the appropriate notice and a proper edit summary. And I see also that you've gone to some trouble to learn the rules here as you've been going along. Perhaps this is the time to consider also making some more positive contributions to articles about which you have some knowledge or interest. I always recommend that people start off that way at first, adding small amounts of material, before moving to patrolling. It adds perspective. And when patrolling, it helps to work a little back from the back of new page patrol (there's a link on new pages for doing that) --this is a good way of avoiding tagging articles still under construction. Too many people work only at the front, and consequently   many articles fall off the bottom of the list without being reviewed.


 * One further thing: give people a chance to reply. As it happens, I'm starting off here today, so I'm doing this first, but normally I am working on many things at a time, and often need about a day to get back to a question.  DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I'll take it into account and act upon it. Again, thanks, ConconJondor (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add copyvio template, but should I also remove the G11 tag or leave it as it is? ConconJondor (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * rememebr you have to find the site before you add the template. If you just suspect, add . But no need to bother at all, for I just deleted the article!    DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * B-e-a-utiful. Some content, but not all was on http://www.kellycaselawfirm.com/about also, account possibly used for promotion only and promotional user name? Obviously after some watch to prove this. Has just added a (red)linked mention to the Notable Alumni section of Tulane University Law School. With regard to the user name promotion possibility, we have to remember that it is his name as well as the firm. ConconJondor (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thing to look for? Sockpuppets. Before User:DGG mentioned it, I was looking for the source of the copyvio. It was clear that the @aikitiger was the user's twitter account. Going to the history of the Tulane University Law School article, you'll see both User:Aikitiger and User:Kelly W. Case. Going further to the contributions of Aikitiger, you'll see the Acadiana High School, along with the additional sock of User:98.200.205.12. Very telling. It is clear that the sockpuppet accounts are solely promotional in nature.  Cind. amuse  19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lousiana State University, Notable Alumni, Kelly W. Case (with ext link) added by Aikitiger
 * Obviously the Tulane University Law School edits, with ext link, both users
 * Also, Acadiana High School (with ext link), IP user and Aikitiger ...
 * Telling indeed
 * ConconJondor (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kaytazzade Mehmet Nazım (6 February 2011)
Hi, whilst I was starting to write this article I pressed enter on my keyboard by accident when writing the first sentence. I'm in the process of writing the article now.  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, don't worry, I had qualms about putting it there but justified it with a 13 minute window between your creation and my viewing. Thanks, ConconJondor (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you put a summary paragraph then I'll happily remove the tag, also you might want to point this out on the discussion page, if you haven't already. Thanks again, ConconJondor (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll quickly right a rough intro. I'm having to translate from Turkish journals which can be a bit difficult! Thanks for your understanding. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to be less zealous with CSD templates, if you have some time to read my talk page you'll notice that I haven't been the best at following those guidelines. ConconJondor (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (5 March 2011)
Thank you for the multiple vandalism reverts on my userpage last night. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, easiest anti-vandalism stuff I've done in a while ;), ConconJondor (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Sumitwt 12 April 2011
Hi, you might have overlooked the existing autobiog warning on the page for the same article. Cheers Fæ (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly me, I got ahead of myself ... thanks for pointing it out, ConconJondor talk contribs 10:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Little Man (film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- &#91;&#91;++@adikka (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How was my edit unconstructive? if you look at the difference my edit made, you'll notice that my edit removed a piece of gibberish "hola hello PUTA merda" which has since been put back in by your revert. ConconJondor talk contribs 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed--I've redone your reversal. Akkida, please look before you leap. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accepted--&#91;&#91;++@adikka (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Panzer 88 (Film)
Just FYI: Your Prod was challanged by an IP address with no explanation. Feel free to do whatever you consider the best action to do. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)