User talk:JimCS

I don't understand...
You deleted my page "Casual Science" before I was even finished. You flagged it as CSD, which states "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation."

Your reason was that it lacked notability. My unfinished page was mine, the website it represents is mine, and the website exists. You made reference to Articles: Section 7, which makes no sense. My site deals only with science and art, as mentioned, and just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean it's not important.

I don't see what the problem is. JimCS 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Howdy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I provided a link in the delete reason that explained things, but no worries.  Please visit WP:WEB to see the criteria needed for a website to remain on Wikipedia.  Your article was deleted to Articles, subsection 7 of WP:CSD which includes websites that do not meet the listed criteria.  Regards, C HAIRBOY  (☎) 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick, but seemingly automated, response. I understand what you claim that I violated, I just don't understand why. Given the fact that I was not finished typing it, I still feel there is no justification for its deletion. If I write it all out before saving, may I resubmit?JimCS 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not automated. I don't eat old peoples medicine for food, I'm not even hunting Sarah Connor.  If you can make your article meet WP:WEB, then sure, go ahead and repost it.  It would be useful to see some sort of acknowledgment that you've read WP:WEB and understand it. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 04:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Casual Science
It's been up for 15 minutes, and there's no evidence that the website meets WP:WEB in any possible form. As such, it qualifies for deletion under the criteria I provided above. What the heck? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 06:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it then. While your at it, you might want to delete Liero_Xtreme, Gusanos, LOSP and perhaps the thousands of other pages, and the ones that I used as reference when creating mine. Maybe you could give an example of this so called "evidence" that you so so much demand. I have read through the pages you gave me multiple times. I am not advertising the site, I gave hard background information about the foundation and its goals etc... But whatever, no sense in arguing, just delete it, no sense in wasting any more of my time trying to please you. (Update: It is no longer posted as a website... but rather the foundation in general. Does this help? If not, I stand past my previous statement. JimCS 06:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, it's not personal, it's just that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of web links. Instead of deleting it a second time, I tagged it for deletion and will let someone else make the call so you can see that this isn't "chairboy in some sort of crazy deletion spree" or something.  We both live like a mile apart or something, so I don't want you to run my car off the road or anything. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem. I didn't intend this to be a personal issue, but I still have no idea for the specific reason my article was deleted. The ONLY requirement that I saw, that I didn't meet, was that I didn't have a special "award" for my site (neither does Yahoo, Youtube, Monster etc...) so I changed it from a website to an organization and it's still deleted. But it's not a problem now, I just assume the "higher ups" click the delete button without reviewing, just like all other major CMS sites. It's not against you, but I would of really liked to know the specific requirement that I was violating in order to avoid this whole issue... now we'll never know. :[ JimCS 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a way you can get more folks to examine the deletion. Go to WP:DRV and make use of deletion review process.  If it's a bad deletion, it'll become immedietely clear. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 01:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT
You might want to check out WP:POINT. Going around and tagging well known websites for deletion because your personal website was deleted is an example of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. This situation is specifically called out, in fact. I know you're frustrated, but c'mon. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 13:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, whenever I discuss it they link me to the page telling about "x is wrong, why not y?" I bring this up because it's not fair that my site was targeted when others are not. Sure, maybe my article deserved to be deleted, but why the bias? You can't look at mail.com and tell me that doesn't violate any policy. C'mon!JimCS 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)