User talk:Filibusti

Welcome!

Hello, Filibusti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hi. I note that you have recently created this account and are largely using it to edit articles on the topic of indie games, mostly by removing sources and proposing deletions. Could I please ask you to pause and reconsider this course? While your edits are well explained and do not appear to be vandalism, they are (probably quite unintentionally) disruptive. You appear to be confusing the ideas of "notability" (which requires coverage in INDEPENDENT sources) and "verifiability" (which requires coverage in RELIABLE sources). Personal blogs can be reliable sources for information on the person who writes them, regarding such things as motivations for creating games, design decisions, release dates et cetera. You may also not be aware of WP:BEFORE, which suggests that before nominating for deletion you should attempt to find sources yourself. Simple Google searches, and examinations of previous versions of the articles, will often identify these sources. Please take the time to attempt to improve the articles before cutting sections out of them and nominating them for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi dustformswords, I AM improving the articles by removing unsourced and unnecessary fluff. You make it sound as if I'm on a blind rampage but I go through each article carefully before deciding whether to propose a deletion, to put up an appropriate template, or leave the article as it is. I'm not confusing the concepts - to decide whether the fact that James Harvey did this or James Harvey did that, you need an independent, third-party source mentioning it. I understand that primary sources are allowed to be used in some cases for content but I believe that none of the edits I have done are such cases. Filibusti (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, I'm in disagreement with you (I think tagging Don't Look Back, an award winning game by an award winning creator, as a notability concern was particularly poor judgement, as was Gregory Weir, an award winning creator of award winning games) so can I suggest that if you can't find sources that satsify you, you take these concerns to the talk pages of the articles?  A long trail of similar deletion-minded edits from a new account is often a cause for panic on Wikipedia; obviously you know your way around the project, which tends to make people even more alarmed as it's a pattern most commonly seen in vandalism-minded sockpuppets.  Again, I don't think that's you - I think you're obviously out to improve the project - but it does mean that achieving your goals might take a little more consultation and patience than it would if you were only focusing on a couple of articles.  These indie game articles need a lot of love and, yes, some need deletion, but let's go to deletion as a last resort, not a first one, and first see if we can find the sources to fix them? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you intend to reply to the comments I left on your talk page, I'll respond there once you've replied instead so we don't have to deal with this back and forth thing. Filibusti (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bloody Fun Day
I removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Bloody Fun Day, as the article has been discussed at Articles for deletion in the past and per policy is permanently ineligible for proposed deletion. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this, and I have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of deletion. If you still believe the article should be deleted, please consider opening another Articles for deletion discussion by following the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 06:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, cheers. 06:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flash Element TD
Per your request I have taken this to AfD: Articles for deletion/Flash Element TD. I hope I have summarised your deletion reason fairly and accurately. You should feel free to start the discussion with a delete vote, better explainining your position, and of course if I have misrepresented you I will be happy to edit my remarks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anna Anthropy
And I have nominated this one, again per your request: Articles for deletion/Anna Anthropy. Once again please feel free to explain your argument through a formal delete vote and let me know if I have misrepresented your argument. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Filibusti (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit history
You have demonstrated a strong history of focusing on deleting or questioning the notability of independent developers and video games, going forward with bringing some of these articles to the Articles for Deletion (all of which, upon minimal searching, have turned up several reliable sources demonstrating the notability of these articles. I must recommend that you stop nominating articles for deletion and actually bring up concerns with the article's quality or perceived lack of notability. You are merely putting a bureaucratic road block in the way of actually improving articles - Wikipedia does not have to have a straw poll on everything. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, because of your nominating of these articles, some of them have actually had new sources brought up, and the articles will be improved. So, there was some good in this. But next time, bring the matter up on the talk page. These articles exist because somebody thought they were notable, and every person who looked at the page after that felt the same way. If you have a problem with it, deletion should not be your first step. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion on Webosaurs Wikipedia page
Hi!

You had placed a tag for deleting the Webosaurs page on Wikipedia. I've removed it, since I believe your reasons were unexplained. I would love to talk about it, though, so leave me a message either on the Webosaurs talk page, or mine.

With best regards,

Remixz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remixz (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)