User talk:Pcperfecters

Speedy deletion of 3C (technology term)
A tag has been placed on 3C (technology term), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Neologism

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ronbo76 05:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Final thought on the issue of Neologism, email is to electronic mail as 3C is to ? Pcperfecters 08:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PROD removal
Removing a PROD without significant article improvement is not a good thing (especially on the first night the article was created and tagged as such). I recommend you read the PROD wikilink to fully understand it. You have five days to improve your article before it can be deleted per that policy. I will re-establish the PROD otherwise another user could nominate your Article for Deletion. In your article's present state, it probably would not survive an AfD debate. Please improve the article with reliable citations from websites. Think of the citations as footnotes which would meet a professor's term paper requirements. Ronbo76 07:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I trust you understand - nothing personal. Wikipedia has standards which its editors try to uphold. Again, I would recommend not removing the PROD, as placed by a different user, until you are fairly sure the article reads the way you think it should. Ronbo76 07:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand (finally). This is quite a challenge for a sleepness night and I thank you for your assistance. My final challenge is providing published information because there is none. That's because a 3C listing has never been something we sell or promote to customer, but instead something we provide upon completion of discovery. As such, it does indeed exist by definition but may not be widely known for years to come. My intent was to make known that such a document actually does exist by definition just as one would want people to know what a system unit is. I've known about that since 1981, yet to this day most people still don't know. Regarding 3C in conclusion, it is conceivable that I'm putting the cart before the horse. To my way of thinking, it matters not who makes a 3C listing. What's most important is that the world knows what it is in the interest of standards. You'll forgive me please for wanting a little credit :-) I simply thought that Wikipedia was a good place to start since there's no money to be made. Thank you nonetheless. You folks are tough and I thoroughly enjoyed this without regard to final outcome. By the way, I submitted "system unit" to whatis.com many years ago and never heard back from them. It's refreshing to see that you have it in your encyclopedia. Pcperfecters 08:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Pcperfecters 08:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion
I've nominated the article 3C (technology term) for deletion. You are invited to comment at Articles for deletion/3C (technology term). Spacepotato 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)