User talk:LaciKey

Welcome!
Hello, LaciKey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as William Roshko, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of William Roshko


A tag has been placed on William Roshko 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 a person or group of people, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of William Roshko for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Roshko 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/William Roshko 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. GB fan 22:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with William Roshko. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing content
Your recent edits to William Roshko are not appropriate. Please do not remove all the content from a page while the deletion descussion is ongoing. Please also keep all commentary out of the article. The appropriate place for that is either the article talk page or the deletion discussion page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at William Roshko. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Predetermined decision to delete
on October 24 originally established the article and within minutes it was marked for speedy deletion. I then explained I needed a day or two to supplement it to establish criteria for wiki inclusion. I was ignored and article was deleted in less than 24 hours, before I was even given the chance to supplement, or given the chance to supplement by non-admin wiki editors. now, within 4 hours of being created/submitted the second time, it was submitted for deletion discussion. do the editors get a reward or bonus for the more articles they delete? come on, they mischaracterized the refs and were so brazenly arrogant to state that the social security debate in US in non-notable. there are kids in grade school who have better sense and better grasp of current events than these admins!!!!! and then of course you've got admins who can't even spell simple words yet they pass judgement on substantive articles!! how can someone take wiki seriously?


 * If you're going to criticize someones spelling, you might want to learn proper grammar and punctuation first. Also you spelled judgment wrong. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

what are academic credentials of admin editors?
why are wiki editors anonymous? what are their academic or intellectual credentials? why are the secrecy? they pass judgment on artciles yet we know nothing about their backgrounds. wiki asks the public to blindly accept the people and procedures as fair and qualified, yet wiki cloaks itself in secrecy. wiki questions everybody and everything that comes through the site, yet the public is asked not to question its credibility or legitimacy!!! why is that? I'm still laughing about the fact a wiki editor did not have the ability to grasp and therefore categorize the article as social security, as well as the editor who said that Pres Obama's Commission was not a reliable ref--- she deleted the ref and the content because she was the one who nominated the article for deletion-- isn't that a conflict of interest? she had a goal and she simply deleted anything that supported a position opposite to hers. no problem with wiki doing what it wants to achieve its goal, but you shouldn't pretend to be ethical when you're not. was there EVER a case in the history of wiki AFD concensus discusssion where an editor actually disagreed with the editor who nominated a deletion? I didn't think so-- these are people who work for a common goal and common company so there are obvious ramifications in the future if they offer honest opionions in concensus. but the wiki system is set up as "indow dressing"to spport the nominator's position rather than an objective body to HONESTLY discuss the merits of inclusion.

Please don't again threaten to block me for simply writing my position.

Deletion discussion
No one is going to block you from editing unless you continue to be disruptive. Deleting the content of the article is disruptive, the notice at the top of the article says to not blank the article while the discussion is going on. Removing maintenance tags such as the weasel word and deadlink tags without addressing the issues is disruptive.

In your discussion please comment on the article not on the editors.

You should go to the deletion discussion, Articles for deletion/William Roshko and explain your side. Not every article that is put up for deletion is deleted.

You should familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines here on wikipedia.
 * Notability is the general notability guideline.
 * Notability (people) is the notability guideline for people.

When you comment in the deletion discussion you need to explain how he meets the guidelines.

If you have any questions please ask here. GB fan 23:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

support of deletion
wiki has no choice but to delete. editors have said content was not credible, so if and when the subject finds out he will possible file a lawsuit for defamation. my vote is to delete. my "beef" was that wiki editors didn't take a hard look at content and made a snap judgement........ my proof was the initial position for speedy deletion made within an hour of creation and I requested a day or so for me to supplement, or perhaps a short time for other third parties (non admin editors) to edit the article as they see fit with hopefully supplements to my refs. then after a week or so if other third parties did not add reliable content or didn't feel the subject matter interesting enough to be "wiki worthy," the speedy deletion would have been appropriate. I was also disappointed that "the social security debate" was not seen as notable or contemporary or continuous because it is in fact an ongoing topic of discussion for lawmakers in US and will be a front-and-center issue in coming years especially for the 2016 Presidential campaign, which as you know actually begins in 2015 and may possible even begin late 2014. there's always a reason to delete any article. all the negative dialogue has destroyed any merit the article may have had, so my vote is to delete.

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
GB fan 11:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)