User talk:Paritalo/archive

Welcome!

 * Thanks! I've actually been contributing quite a bit to non-en WP's over the past years ;-) Paritalo (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Fast.ai for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fast.ai 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/Fast.ai until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Zoodino (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Communications with other editors belong on their Talk pages or the article's Talk page, not at the AfD discussion. My recommendation is that the quote should be removed. What the people say about their own company is not considered a contribution to notability. Same holds for interviews. What is needed is what other people have written about the company. At length. David notMD (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your explanation! And apologies for posting in the wrong place. Paritalo (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:Jesswade88. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. —— Serial # 18:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, OK. I'll admit I find all of this borderline aggressive. I spent my free time in a weekend researching and writing an article for Wikipedia, because I wanted to get back into the hobby of editing here. I obviously made the mistake of creating my first article about a company, as it seems like anyone writing about any person or company must be having a conflict of interest, right? I guess defending myself makes it worse? Trying to actually improve the page makes it worse? Asking for help makes it worse?
 * This is ridiculous. I tried having a discussion on the deletion page and was not allowed. I asked ONE other user, who has experience with creating an article on the same topic, for help, as I really don't want to see my efforts gone to waste because one single editor believes the worst in people. "Canvassing", seriously? Asking for help to ONE other editor, hoping someone would actually be constructive?
 * In a previous life, and with a moderator account I eventually had to abandon over a decade ago because I was being stalked and harrassed after being a member of the NL Abitration Committee, I certainly did my share of vandalism fighting and flagging suspicious edits. But I pray to God I never came across as hostile as you lot are coming across right now. Thank you for reminding me why I shouldn't spend more time on trying to improve this encyclopedia, I obviously forgot and thought perhaps it had changed for the better! Good riddance! Paritalo (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)