User talk:Keteracel

Speedy deletion nomination of Theatre Delicatessen
A tag has been placed on Theatre Delicatessen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A7 is a general one for companies, people, web content and the like - many have individual notability guidelines (people have WP:BIO, companies have WP:ORG) but most fall under WP:GNG. As it happens the article does demonstrate some notability, and the speedy deletion has been withdrawn. Ironholds (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to add a couple of comments on speedy deletion criteria A7.


 * While pruning the wikipedia of vandalism and "cruft" is important, my own experience is that some of the wikipedia's quality control volunteerscan be overly hasty. My own experience is that some of the wikipedia's quality control volunteers prove extremely reluctant to acknowledge the possibility they made a mistake.


 * One of the most interesting examples of over-hastiness concerns the speedy deletion of the article on the Political Quarterly -- an article created by a magazine columnist who had been told by a correspondent that the wikipedia deletion fora were often taken over by uncurious and bossy individuals prone to delete articles on any topic they didn't personally understand, or didn't understand. The columnist wrote a frankly damning article about how he found his friend's prediction confirmed.  The journal he created the article about had been edited by and contributed to by extremely high-profile individuals across the political spectrum, including Leon Trotsky and Benito Mussolini.  The overly hasty nominator didn't notice that the journal was almost a century old, and admonished the columnist for trying to create an article about a new blog-like thing maintained by him and his "friends".


 * One of my own worst experiences with speedy deletion was the article on Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. It was nominated for deletion within a minute or two of creation.  I applied a hangon tag, that signifies I was drafting an explanation on the talk page as for why the article should not be deleted.  An administrator had come along and deleted the article before I finished my defense.  The administrator ignored the hangon.  He wasn't supposed to do that.  He didn't read past the first screenful.  Getting the article re-instated took several days, and about 12 person-hours of my time, because the nominator and closing administrator hadn't been prepared to spend more than a few seconds deciding it should be deleted.


 * I had a discussion, a few years ago, with a quality control volunteer, who told me that "90%" of new articles were crap. I hadn't taken a close look at the new article list.  Doing so surprised me.  The crap ratio was a lot higher than I expected.  We agreed that we would check on the several dozen most recent articles in a week, and see how many turned out to be crap, that merited deletion.  We agreed it was about 50 percent.  Higher than I expected, lower than he expected.


 * Another big problem I have with how decisions are made by the quality control volunteers is that they make their decisions as if on can make a objective decisions on "notability", on what is remarkable. These are actually subjective judgments -- highly subjective when the topic is controversial.


 * There is a project similar to the wikipedia, the Citizendium. It was started by one of the co-founders of the wikipedia, and attempted to learn from some mistakes in the wikipedia's design.  One mistake it was going to try to learn from was putting an emphasis on "notability", replacing it with "maintainability".


 * Anyhow, I am not trying to scare you away from contributing to the wikipedia. Rather I encourage you to take the implied critcism of anyone who nominates your work for deletion with a grain of salt.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Where do you intend on placing the Jack Churchill image? Just asking. Old Al (Talk) 14:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Was thinking on the Jack_Churchill page. I'm adding an infobox to it. Although I have found a better image. Keteracel (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there!
You created the file titled 'File:Arabic speaking world.svg', which shows countries where Arabic is the official language or one of the official or national languages of the country. The color green represents countries where Arabic is the soul official language, and the color blue represents countries where Arabic is one of several official or national languages. Algeria is shown in the color green, however the Algerian Constitution lists the Berber language is a "national language", so shouldn't Algeria be shown in blue? Also, the official languages in Jordan are Arabic and English, so it should be shown in blue. Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TDeli.png
Thanks for uploading File:TDeli.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)