User talk:Universityuser

Proposed deletion of Lingua ac Communitas


The article Lingua ac Communitas has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lingua ac Communitas
Hello Universityuser. Thank you for your contribution. I'm just  letting  you  know that  all  Wikipedia articles must  be referenced. Unfortunately further research appears to  demonstrate that  this article fails on  all  points of our WP:NJOURNAL requirements for  journals. That its contributors are published authors is not  a criterion as notability  is not  inherited. As you have declined the WP:PROD notice without  providing  references, I  must  put  the article to  debate by  the community. Please see the notice above. Thank you for your comprehension. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Lingua ac Communitas
Hello, Universityuser, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Articles for deletion/Lingua ac Communitas whether the article Lingua ac Communitas should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Lingua ac Communitas, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion notices
Hi, I noticed that you have placed AfD tags on several articles, but without creating the necessary AfD pages, listing them in the appropriate places, notifying article creators, etc. Please see WP:AFD for instructions on how to do this or remove the tags if it was not your intention t propose them for deletion. I strongly suggest that you also read WP:BEFORE: Linguistics (journal) clearly meets our guidelines, for example. --Crusio (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, you created an article that was subsequently proposed for deletion by Kudpung.In response, you are now putting unreferenced/notability tags on many other articles, as well as proposing several of them for deletion (as explained above, out of process, so those tags are essentially useless and will lead to nothing). Such behavior is generally considered disruptive (we call this pointy. Before putting up such tags, please consider checking whether the subject of the article actually is not notable. In at least one case (Linguistic, referred to above) you were wrong about the journal not being notable and, in addition, restored unwarranted tags after I had added content to the article showing notability and providing a reference. I strongly suggest that you direct your efforts to more constructive activities. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have not haphazardly added tags but used the same criteria that Kudpung uses. So some journals receive the tags while others are untouched. (talk), 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. You put "unreferenced" tags on journal articles that did have references and notability tags on journals that have an impact factor and therefore (because they are included in a selective major database are considered notable (see WP:NJOURNALS). I'd appreciate if you could remove the inappropriate tags yourself, as I am a bit short on time right now. Apart from the fact that this is rather childish, I strongly suggest to refrain from this kind of behavior in the future, as it is considered disruptive and may get you blocked from editing. --Crusio (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from terms as childish; you're not helping anyone with this. I am merely trying to apply the directives consistently. Presuming that Kudpung's remarks are correct, the same applies to the other journals I selected. I would be childish if I had randomly selected journals, but that's just what I have NOT done. (talk), 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not what you have done, as I explained above. You have put inappropriate tags on referenced and clearly notable articles and also put inappropriate AfD tags on articles (I have linked above the appropriate guidelines, please correct the AfD nominations or remove those tags). --Crusio (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not damagae articles by placing tags in the middle of the infobox, as you did here (and at other places as well), the tags should go on top. At a minimum, at least check what an article looks like after you have edited it. --Crusio (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When proposing an article for deletion, you should not mark your edits as "minor", because that is anything but minor... --Crusio (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please STOP your disruptive behavior. Someone just repaired another article where you had placed a tag in the middle of an infobox and I removed several "notability" tags from journals that have substantive impact factors (from one of them for the second time). Such indiscriminate tagging (especially since you started it after an article created by you was AfDed) is considered disruptive behavior. If you continue doing this, I will report you at WP:ANI and that may result in you being blocked from editing. --Crusio (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Crusio, it looks as if your comments are merely pennies dropping in a well. "Unversityuser": please stop adding tags of notability to articles that are notable. I don't know if you are drunk, bored, or both. But the tags don't belong there. The articles are notable.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Crusio, if it persists, you  won't  need to  take it  to  AN/I - that  would result  in an unnecessarily  lengthy  polemic with  policies being  re-debated for the Nth  time.  Any  admin  will be able to  assess the situation  and effect  a summary  block if it is really needed to  prevent  further disruption. I  can't, because I'm involved. Personally, I  would prefer to  see Unversityuser gaining  a better understanding  of our systems and and policies and becoming a valuable contributor. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, sorry to all for any inconvenience. I will be more selective --User:Universityuser (talk) 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Because you just did the same thing again with the journal mentioned above. Get a life.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi. Your signature is not displaying  a linked username. Please see: WP:Signatures for advice. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, Universityuser, could you please do something about your signature so that we know who is talking? Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. You tagged ELH. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger discussion for History (journal)
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;History (journal) &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  15:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)