User talk:Onesecondglance/Archive 1

Doubledotdash
I have added a "" template to the article Doubledotdash, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bass fishing physicist 22:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Articles for deletion/Doubledotdash!?
Hi, I was the creator of an article you recently discussed and deleted [1]. Whatever your reasons for supporting the deletion, I do not think it overly polite to summarily remove it without so much as a note on my talk page to let me know. An AfD discussion is only a discussion if there is more than one point of view being expressed - and since no attempt was made to contact me it was impossible for me to provide the evidence you sought. Please bear this in mind when completing AfDs in future. Onesecondglance 08:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello OneSecondGlance. Since you don't edit that often I'm not that sure you'll be able to respond that quickly to this message. Anyway, as far as I can recall the article that was being discussed was overwhelmingly ad-like, and therefore compliant with AFD measures, or even speedy deletion. I do recognise and appreciate that AFD is meant to discuss the article and that is what occured. You're statement that I deleted your article is actually incorrect, (see the deletion log). It would be appropriate of me to refer you to Wikipedia's stringent policies on that specific area, such as making sure the article is verifiable;it has reliable sources and most importantly independent sources that can back up any claim and what Wikipedia isn't, in your case a soapbox. Thank you for your time here at Wikipedia and thank you for contacting me about the closure in October. Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift reply, Rudget. The reason for my message was that, as you noted, I wasn't editing that frequently through October, so I was somewhat surprised to find the article deleted without any mention. I was perhaps under the assumption that if an article goes for AfD it's good practice to let the original author know, in the same way it's good to let them know if a PROD or speedy deletion template is added. I'm honestly a touch disappointed you found the article ad-like or a self-promoting vanity piece - it was never intended as such, just a bit of info about a local organisation in my area. I certainly tried to make it encyclopaedic in style - but notability is always going to be contentious (wikipedia is somewhat strict in its definitions) so I don't think there's any value in contesting that, though. Anyway, thanks for the response.Onesecondglance 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, although it would be worth noting that I never actually edited the page, proposed it for deletion on the article page, deleted it, or put it up at AFD. I would also like to note your apparent sincerity you have given in your message, it is appreciated, and I am very sorry that the article was deleted without your notification. Make sure not to write articles like that in the future, and you should do fine. I'm sure of it.

Heavy metal / classical influence
Hi! Sorry for the delay of my reply, (couldn't reply earlier). Anyway, thanks for this very interesting discussion. I particularly appreciate your attention concerning my arguments and the fact you always try to argue against them taking acount of them. I need to praise that about you because I know by experience that many editors around here generally don't have your patience and this kind of attention. Anyway your propositions made on the discussion page seem to be interesting and appears mostly acceptable to me. I'll reply to it, when I'll have just a little more time.

About my writting style and my english, thanks for the recommandations. I'm not offended at all. On the contrary, any suggestion is very welcome. I know my english is poor and I really need to improve it. So never hesitate to make any comments on my wording. Oh, and I'm extremely sorry if anything in my posts could be interpreted as agressive.I'm glad you didn't interpret it that way. Because I indeed didn't meant to. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All good! Hope you had a good Christmas and thanks for being one of the few polite people on Wikipedia these days. Cheers! Onesecondglance (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As it stands I am (also) quite happy with the section you alerted me too, it seems balanced. I abandoned the discussion some while back as it promised to demand just too much energy of me. RichardJ Christie (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheongsam
Onesecondglance, out of utter frustration I've made extensive changes to the articles on qipao and cheongsam. I've moved the old Cheongsam article to Changshan, and Cheongsam now redirects to Qipao. I've also completely changed terminology to make it more consistent and comprehensible.


 * Male version = changshan.
 * Female version (modern, body-fitting) = cheongsam.
 * Old Manchu female version (baggy) = qipao.

I hope the article is more enlightening for English speakers in its current form. And by the way, the article notes that the original name of the modern sexy garment was zamsae (Shanghainese), which came into English via Cantonese. So there's no need to be apologetic that the English term represents a colonial distortion or misunderstanding of facts about China (a favourite accusation when English differs from standard PRC Chinese). Cheongsam is closer to the original term! Bathrobe (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Click here for previous discussions
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. The Llama! (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ooopsie. feeling a bit thick right now... Onesecondglance (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)