User talk:Notnoteworthy

June 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to INgrooves‎, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. The article is obviously not an orphan, is not written like an advertisement, and notability was established by consensus at AFD. Stalwart 111  07:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at TechCrunch. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place " " on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: TechCrunch was changed by Notnoteworthy (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.962289 on 2013-06-15T21:57:50+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How to AfD
Looks like you've been tagging some articles with AfD notices. To nominate an article for deletion, you must also create a discussion page at Articles_for_deletion/PageName and add that page to the daily log file. Follow steps 2-4 under "Steps to list an article for deletion:" on the pages you tagged for details on what templates to use.

Alternatively, you can installthe Twinkle gadget in your user preferences to automate all these steps. Kilopi (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

btw, similar applies to PROD--you must give a reason, not just place the prod, or the prod will probably be declined. Twinkle helps here, also.


 * While you were tagging AFDs, you seem to have missed Scoopler. I removed the redlinked AFD for you - please re-add it and complete the nomination. Also, do be careful with your deletion rationales - "Notability, orphan" is not sufficient as a reason to delete an article. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And the same with Directed Edge (company). UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, no question - but the better rationale would be to say that at the AFDs. Two words doesn't give me much to work with. Now, on the other hand, if you say that "This and other articles are based on sourcing (i.e. Techcrunch) that appears to have a Conflict of Interest with the subject. As a result, there does not seem to be any notability here. Also, the article is an orphan..."? That's almost an automatic Delete. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

advice
I'm one of the people here most active in deletion process--as an admin I've personally deleted over 14,000 pages and I've nominated for many thousands of others. I have, however, also worked on saving articles,the relatively minority of initially unsatisfactory articles that were worth saving, and I'm also one of the most active editors in doing that. Over my 7 years here, I've probably saved about 2000, about 1/10 of the ones I had some role in deleting. I think my work would be unbalanced if I concentrated only on one side of it--and my recommendations might, in fact, not be taken all that seriously.

Sometimes an article can be saved by cutting out the fluff, but iot is not usually a good idea to  remove possibly useful references. We normally consider Telecrunch as a possibly reliable source for some purposes. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add to the above: thanks for your efforts at cleaning up Wikipedia and getting rid of spam. However, I think you may have been a little hasty and indiscriminate in some of your recent nominations for deletion. I've been working my way through the California ones and have found some that had significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources already cited in the article. You should show some evidence that you have followed WP:BEFORE, by evaluating the references given in the article and doing at least a cursory search for additional references. Also, as was suggested above, you should give a more detailed explanation of your reasons for deletion, not just a WP:VAGUEWAVE at a couple of tags. AfD is not for cleanup; the mere fact that an article is an orphan, for example, is no reason to delete. Thanks, and I look forward to seeing more of your work at AfD and elsewhere! (P.S. I noticed that you replied to Ultraexactzz at the top of their talk page, rather than at the bottom. Always put new comments at the bottom - just a word to the wise. For that matter, you can reply here and keep the conversation in one place.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Arrangington
Notnoteworthy, Do you have any connection with User:Arrangington? It seems to be an unlikely coincidence that two editors who started editing so closely in time should have such similar interests. If you have such a connection then please read and take on board the advice at WP:SOCK, particularly in the context of commenting at deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have blocked that account as it is fairly clear it belongs to you. Please do not use multiple accounts, as you will simply be blocked. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)